1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 11

Elaborate Notes

The Second Carnatic War (1749-1754)

• Context of Intervention: The war was not a direct extension of a European conflict, unlike the first. Instead, it stemmed from the volatile political landscape of the Deccan. Following the death of Asaf Jah I, the Nizam of Hyderabad, in 1748, a power vacuum emerged. This instability, as noted by historian Percival Spear in A History of India, Volume 2, provided a fertile ground for European companies to transform their commercial ambitions into political ones. Joseph-François Dupleix, the French Governor-General, pioneered the strategy of intervening in local succession disputes to place puppet rulers on the thrones of Indian states.
• The Disputed Thrones:
  • Hyderabad: A succession dispute arose between Nasir Jung (son of Asaf Jah I) and Muzaffar Jung (grandson of Asaf Jah I).
  • Carnatic (Arcot): A parallel conflict emerged between the incumbent Nawab, Anwar-ud-din Khan (supported by the British), and a challenger, Chanda Saheb (son-in-law of a former Nawab, Dost Ali Khan).
• Phase I (1749-1751) - French Ascendancy:
  • Dupleix formed a grand alliance with Chanda Saheb and Muzaffar Jung. In the Battle of Ambur (1749), this combined force defeated and killed Anwar-ud-din Khan. His son, Muhammad Ali, fled to Trichinopoly (Tiruchirappalli) and sought British help.
  • Chanda Saheb was installed as the Nawab of Arcot. Subsequently, the French and their allies confronted and killed Nasir Jung in 1750. Muzaffar Jung was proclaimed the Nizam of Hyderabad.
  • French Gains: Muzaffar Jung rewarded the French handsomely. He granted them territory near Pondicherry and the important port of Masulipatnam. Dupleix was appointed Governor of all Mughal territories south of the river Krishna. Muzaffar Jung also gifted a substantial sum of £50,000 each to the French Company and its troops.
  • However, Muzaffar Jung was assassinated in 1751 by resentful Pathan Nawabs. The astute French commander, Marquis de Bussy-Castelnau, quickly quelled the chaos and installed Salabat Jung (another son of Asaf Jah I) as the new Nizam. In return for sustained French military protection, Salabat Jung ceded a vast and valuable territory known as the Northern Circars (comprising Mustafanagar, Ellore, Rajahmundry, and Chicacole) to the French. This marked the genesis of the subsidiary alliance system, where a European power maintained troops at the expense of an Indian ruler, effectively controlling his foreign policy.
• Phase II (1751-1754) - British Resurgence:
  • The British position appeared dire, with their candidate, Muhammad Ali, besieged at Trichinopoly. It was at this juncture that Robert Clive, then a clerk in the English East India Company (EIC), proposed a daring diversionary attack on Arcot, the capital of the Carnatic.
  • The Siege of Arcot (1751): Clive, with a small force of 210 men, successfully captured Arcot and then withstood a 53-day siege by Chanda Saheb’s forces. This act of tactical brilliance, widely praised by military historians, shattered the myth of French invincibility and boosted British morale.
  • The tide turned decisively in favour of the British. Chanda Saheb was eventually captured and executed by the forces of the Raja of Tanjore in 1752.
• Conclusion and Recall of Dupleix: The French government, alarmed by the heavy financial losses from the war and pressured by the British, decided to recall Dupleix in 1754. His successor, Charles Godeheu, negotiated the Treaty of Pondicherry (1755) with the British, which stipulated non-interference in the internal affairs of native states. The net outcome was a strategic stalemate: the French retained their influence in Hyderabad under Bussy, while the British established their protégé, Muhammad Ali, as the undisputed Nawab of the Carnatic.

The Third Carnatic War (1756-1763)

• Global Conflict - The Seven Years’ War: This war was a direct consequence of the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War in Europe in 1756. As argued by C.A. Bayly in Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (1988), the Indian theatre was intrinsically linked to the global struggle for colonial and maritime supremacy between Britain and France.
• Course of the War:
  • The French government dispatched a strong military contingent under Comte de Lally in 1758. Lally initially achieved success by capturing Fort St. David.
  • Lally’s Tactical Blunder: In a critical error of judgment, Lally recalled Bussy from Hyderabad to assist in an attack on Madras. This left the Northern Circars vulnerable. A British force from Bengal, led by Colonel Forde, seized the opportunity and captured the Northern Circars in 1758-59. This deprived the French of a crucial source of revenue and strategic depth.
  • Battle of Wandiwash (1760): This was the decisive battle of the war, fought near Vandavasi in Tamil Nadu. The British forces, under Sir Eyre Coote, inflicted a crushing defeat on the French army led by Lally and Bussy (who was taken prisoner). The superiority of the British artillery and the discipline of their troops were key factors in their victory.
  • Following this victory, the British captured Pondicherry in 1761, effectively dismantling the French power structure in India.
• Treaty and Consequences: The war concluded with the Treaty of Paris (1763).
  • The treaty restored the French factories, including Pondicherry and Chandernagore, but with a crucial caveat: they were forbidden from fortifying these settlements or maintaining troops. This reduced the French presence in India to mere trading posts.
  • As historian Sekhar Bandyopadhyay notes in From Plassey to Partition, the Third Carnatic War definitively ended the French political ambition in India and established the British as the paramount European power.
  • The war also saw the deployment of a large number of British Royal troops in India. These experienced soldiers gave the EIC a significant military advantage over Indian states, a fact demonstrated by their confidence in challenging the Nawab of Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, even while the Third Carnatic War was underway.

Long-Term Effects of the Carnatic Wars and Lead-up to Plassey

• The Rise of the EIC as a Political Power: The Carnatic Wars were the crucible in which the EIC was forged from a trading company into a territorial power. It learned the art of Indian diplomacy, warfare, and the profitable system of subsidiary alliances. Hyderabad, having ceded the Northern Circars to the French and later to the British (1766), eventually became the first state to formally sign Wellesley’s Subsidiary Alliance treaty in 1798.
• Conflict in Bengal - The Farrukhsiyar Farman (1717):
  • The seeds of conflict in Bengal were sown by a farman (royal decree) issued by the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar. This granted the EIC significant trading privileges, including the right to trade in Bengal, Gujarat, and the Deccan without paying customs duties, in exchange for a meager annual payment of Rs. 3,000.
  • Crucially, the farman also granted the Company the right to issue dastaks (trade permits) to certify that goods belonged to the Company and were thus exempt from duties.
  • Misuse of Dastaks: The primary point of contention, as highlighted by Bipan Chandra in History of Modern India, was the rampant misuse of these dastaks. Company officials used them for their private trade, thereby evading taxes that Indian merchants were forced to pay. This not only caused a huge loss of revenue to the Bengal Nawab’s treasury but also created an unfair competitive advantage for the EIC’s servants.
  • Successive Nawabs of Bengal, from Murshid Quli Khan to Alivardi Khan, had resisted the worst of the Company’s assertions, disallowing fortification of Calcutta and misuse of dastaks, but the issue remained a festering wound in the relationship between the Nawab and the EIC, setting the stage for the direct confrontation at Plassey.

Prelims Pointers

• Second Carnatic War (1749-54): Fought over succession disputes in Hyderabad and the Carnatic.
• Parties in Hyderabad: Nasir Jung (supported by British) vs. Muzaffar Jung (supported by French).
• Parties in Carnatic: Anwar-ud-din/Muhammad Ali (supported by British) vs. Chanda Saheb (supported by French).
• Key French Figures: Joseph-François Dupleix (Governor-General), Marquis de Bussy-Castelnau.
• Key British Figure: Robert Clive.
• Battle of Ambur (1749): French-led alliance defeated and killed Anwar-ud-din.
• Siege of Arcot (1751): A turning point where Robert Clive captured and defended Arcot.
• Key French Gain: The Northern Circars (ceded by Nizam Salabat Jung to the French).
• End of War: Dupleix was recalled in 1754. Resulted in French influence in Hyderabad and British influence in the Carnatic.
• Third Carnatic War (1756-63): Indian theatre of the global Seven Years’ War.
• Key French Commander: Comte de Lally.
• Key British Commander: Sir Eyre Coote.
• Decisive Battle: Battle of Wandiwash (1760), a decisive British victory.
• Concluding Treaty: Treaty of Paris (1763).
• Outcome of Treaty of Paris: French factories were restored but could not be fortified or garrisoned. French political ambitions in India were effectively ended.
• Farrukhsiyar’s Farman (1717): Granted duty-free trade rights to the EIC in Bengal for an annual payment of Rs. 3,000.
• Dastak: A trade permit issued by EIC officials to exempt goods from customs duty. Its misuse for private trade by Company servants was a major cause of conflict with the Nawabs of Bengal.
• Subsidiary Alliance (Early Form): Bussy stationing French troops in Hyderabad at the Nizam’s expense was a precursor to Wellesley’s later system.

1. Chronology of Key Events:
   1. First Carnatic War (1746-48) - Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
   2. Second Carnatic War (1749-54) - Treaty of Pondicherry.
   3. Battle of Plassey (1757).
   4. Third Carnatic War (1756-63) - Battle of Wandiwash (1760).
   5. Treaty of Paris (1763).

Mains Insights

1. Reasons for French Failure and British Success in India:

   • Company Structure: The English EIC was a private enterprise with a board of directors focused on profitability and efficiency, allowing for quick decision-making. The French Compagnie des Indes was a state-controlled body, often suffering from bureaucratic delays, state interference, and a lack of focus on purely commercial interests.
   • Naval Supremacy: The British Royal Navy was superior to the French navy. It could reliably bring in supplies and troops from Europe and, more importantly, cut off French reinforcements, as was evident during the Third Carnatic War.
   • Financial and Economic Strength: Britain was undergoing the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, giving its company superior financial resources. The British EIC’s trade volume and profits from India (especially after gaining control of Bengal) far outstripped the French. French forces under Lally were often unpaid, leading to low morale.
   • Quality of Leadership and Personnel: While Dupleix was a brilliant strategist, his successors like Lally lacked his diplomatic skill and temperament. The British, on the other hand, had a series of capable leaders like Robert Clive, Sir Eyre Coote, and Stringer Lawrence who were both skilled commanders and pragmatic administrators.
   • Role of European Politics: The French government often prioritized its continental and American interests over its Indian ambitions. Dupleix was recalled precisely because the French state wanted to de-escalate conflict with Britain to secure its American possessions.

2. The Carnatic Wars as a Turning Point in Indian History:

   • Shift from Commerce to Empire: The wars marked the definitive shift of European companies from being mere traders on the coast to becoming “kingmakers” and territorial powers in the interior.
   • Demonstration of European Military Superiority: The wars showcased the effectiveness of small, well-disciplined, and well-equipped European armies (supported by Indian sepoys trained in European methods) against much larger, but poorly organized, traditional Indian armies. This shattered the military prestige of Indian rulers.
   • Perfection of the ‘Subsidiary Alliance’ System: Dupleix and Bussy’s stationing of French troops in Hyderabad was the blueprint for the system later perfected by Lord Wellesley. This system became the primary tool for British imperial expansion, allowing them to control Indian states without the costs of direct administration.
   • Destabilization of South Indian Polity: The continuous warfare and political intrigue led to the weakening of major South Indian powers like the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawab of the Carnatic, paving the way for their eventual subjugation by the British and the rise of new powers like Mysore under Hyder Ali.

3. Historiographical Debate: Was British Conquest Accidental or Planned?

   • The “Accidental” School (e.g., John Seeley): This viewpoint argues that the British acquired their Indian empire in a “fit of absent-mindedness.” The EIC was primarily a commercial body, drawn into local politics to protect its trade interests against French competition and regional instability. Each step towards political power was a pragmatic response to immediate crises rather than part of a grand imperial design. The Carnatic Wars fit this narrative as an escalation of a commercial rivalry.
   • The “Planned” School (e.g., Nationalist Historians): This perspective suggests that the British had clear imperial ambitions from the outset. The Carnatic Wars were a deliberate strategy to eliminate their primary European rival, and the intervention in local politics was a calculated move to gain political and economic control. The immediate aftermath of Plassey (1757), where the EIC began systematically plundering Bengal’s wealth, is cited as evidence of a pre-existing plan for exploitation and rule.
   • A Synthesis View (e.g., C.A. Bayly): Modern historians often take a middle path. They argue that while there was no detailed blueprint for conquest from London, the Company officials on the ground, like Clive and Dupleix, were ambitious men who saw and seized opportunities for personal and national glory. The conquest was a complex process driven by a combination of commercial greed, political ambition, the “pull” of the crumbling Mughal system, and the “push” of the Anglo-French global rivalry.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

1. With reference to Indian history, which of the following statements is/are correct? (UPSC CSE 2021)

   1. The Nizamat of Arcot emerged out of Hyderabad State.
   2. The Mysore Kingdom emerged out of Vijayanagara Empire.
   3. Rohilkhand Kingdom was formed out of the territories occupied by Ahmad Shah Durrani.

   Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 (d) 3 only

   Answer: (a) 1 and 2 Explanation: The Nawab of Arcot (Carnatic) was initially a subordinate of the Nizam of Hyderabad but later acted with considerable independence, leading to the Carnatic Wars. The Mysore Kingdom was founded by the Wodeyars who were initially feudatories of the Vijayanagara Empire. Rohilkhand was established by Afghan adventurers like Ali Muhammad Khan in the 1720s in the decaying Mughal empire, not by Durrani.

2. Who among the following rulers of medieval Gujarat surrendered Diu to the Portuguese? (UPSC CSE 2021) (a) Ahmad Shah (b) Mahmud Begarha (c) Bahadur Shah (d) Muhammad Shah

   Answer: (c) Bahadur Shah Explanation: While not directly on the Carnatic wars, this question is representative of the theme of interaction between Indian rulers and European powers. Bahadur Shah of Gujarat, facing pressure from the Mughal Emperor Humayun, sought Portuguese help and ceded the island of Diu to them in 1535.

3. Consider the following statements: (UPSC CSE 2022)

   1. The Dutch established their factories/warehouses on the east coast on lands granted to them by Gajapati rulers.
   2. Alfonso de Albuquerque captured Goa from the Bijapur Sultanate.
   3. The English East India Company established a factory at Madras on a plot of land leased from a representative of the Vijayanagara empire.

   Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

   Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only Explanation: This question tests facts about the establishment of European powers. The Dutch established their first factory at Masulipatnam in 1605 with permission from the Sultan of Golconda, not Gajapati rulers. Alfonso de Albuquerque conquered Goa from the Sultan of Bijapur in 1510. The English EIC acquired Madras (Fort St. George) in 1639 from the local Nayak ruler, who was a subordinate of the declining Vijayanagara Empire.

4. The prime reason for the French failure against the British in the Carnatic Wars was: (a) Dupleix’s recall by the French government (b) Superiority of the British naval power (c) Incompetence of Comte de Lally (d) Strong financial backing of the English East India Company

   Answer: (b) Superiority of the British naval power Explanation: While all options were contributing factors, the most critical strategic advantage the British held was their naval supremacy. It allowed them to control the sea lanes, ensuring a steady supply of men, money, and material from Europe and Bengal, while simultaneously blockading and isolating French possessions.

5. The term ‘Dastak’, a point of contention between the Nawab of Bengal and the EIC, referred to: (a) A tax levied on internal trade (b) A permit exempting goods from transit duties (c) A subordinate trade official appointed by the Nawab (d) A fortified trading post

   Answer: (b) A permit exempting goods from transit duties Explanation: As per Farrukhsiyar’s Farman of 1717, the EIC was granted the right to issue ‘dastaks’ which certified that the goods belonged to the company and were thus exempt from customs duties. The misuse of this permit by company officials for their private trade was a major cause of conflict.

Mains

1. Clarify how mid-eighteenth century India was beset with the spectre of a fragmented polity. (UPSC CSE 2017)

   Answer: The mid-eighteenth century in India was characterized by profound political fragmentation following the terminal decline of the Mughal Empire. This created a power vacuum that European trading companies exploited.

   • Decline of Central Authority: After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughal Empire rapidly disintegrated. Later Mughals were weak and ineffective, becoming puppets in the hands of powerful nobles. The catastrophic invasions of Nader Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali exposed the hollowness of Mughal authority.
   • Rise of Successor States: Provincial governors who were once loyal to the Mughals carved out virtually independent kingdoms. These included Bengal under Murshid Quli Khan and his successors, Awadh under Saadat Khan, and Hyderabad under Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah. While they nominally acknowledged Mughal suzerainty, they acted as independent rulers.
   • Emergence of New Powers: The Marathas emerged as the most formidable power, expanding across Central India and frequently raiding territories in the north and east, further weakening Mughal control and other regional states. In the south, the kingdom of Mysore under Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan became a major military force. Other powers like the Jats, Rohillas, and Sikhs established their own spheres of influence.
   • Internal Conflicts: These successor states and new powers were constantly at war with each other over territory and resources. For instance, the Marathas were in conflict with the Nizam, Mysore, and the Rohillas. The succession disputes in Hyderabad and the Carnatic, which triggered the Second Carnatic War, were a direct symptom of this fragmented and unstable political environment. This internal disunity and incessant warfare prevented any Indian power from presenting a united front against the encroaching European companies, who masterfully used these rivalries to their advantage through a policy of ‘divide and rule’.

2. Why did the ‘Bengal Plunder’ by the East India Company begin almost immediately after the Battle of Plassey? How did it impact the Indian economy?

   Answer: The ‘Bengal Plunder’ began immediately after Plassey (1757) because the battle transformed the EIC from a trading entity into the de facto ruler of a rich province, giving it unprecedented power without accountability.

   • Reasons for the Plunder:
     1. Political Power without Responsibility: The Company controlled the new Nawab, Mir Jafar, who was a puppet. They had the power to extract wealth without any obligation for governance or the welfare of the populace.
     2. Vast Financial Rewards: The EIC and its officials were granted huge “presents” and “compensations” for their role in the conspiracy. Robert Clive himself received a massive personal fortune.
     3. Financing Company’s Trade: The surplus revenue of Bengal was used by the EIC to finance its own “investment” – purchasing Indian goods (like textiles and spices) for export to Europe. This meant the Company no longer needed to import bullion (gold and silver) from Britain to pay for Indian goods, leading to a massive drain of wealth from India.
     4. Private Greed of Officials: Company officials engaged in rampant private trade, using their political power and misusing the dastak system to monopolize internal markets, driving Indian merchants out of business and amassing personal fortunes.
   • Impact on the Indian Economy:
     1. Drain of Wealth: The one-way flow of wealth from India to Britain without any corresponding import of goods or services severely depleted Bengal’s resources.
     2. De-industrialization: The Company’s policies destroyed the flourishing textile industry of Bengal. Artisans were forced to work for low wages, and unfair competition from British goods began the long process of de-industrialization.
     3. Ruin of Peasantry: Excessive land revenue demands to maximize collections led to the impoverishment of the peasantry and contributed to the severity of the Great Bengal Famine of 1770.
     4. Disruption of Traditional Economy: The influx of Company agents and the ruin of local merchants and bankers disrupted the traditional economic and social fabric of Bengal, setting a pattern of colonial exploitation that would later be replicated across India.

3. The Anglo-French rivalry in the Carnatic was a struggle for both commercial and political supremacy. Elaborate.

   Answer: The Carnatic Wars were more than just a trade dispute; they were a multifaceted struggle where commercial interests were inextricably linked with political ambitions, reflecting the larger global rivalry between Britain and France.

   • Commercial Supremacy as the Foundation:
     1. Control over Trade Routes: Both the English EIC and the French Compagnie des Indes sought to control key ports like Madras, Pondicherry, and Masulipatnam to dominate the lucrative trade in textiles, spices, and saltpeter.
     2. Securing Exclusive Rights: Gaining political influence over local rulers was seen as a means to secure exclusive trading rights, lower taxes, and eliminate commercial rivals. A friendly Nawab could grant a monopoly on a particular commodity or force local merchants to trade only with one company.
   • Political Supremacy as the Tool and the Goal:
     1. Protecting Commercial Interests: Initially, political intervention was a tool to protect trading posts. Fortifying settlements and maintaining troops were seen as necessary to safeguard investments from the chaos of a fragmenting India.
     2. The Dupleix Model: Dupleix was the first to realize that political dominance was the ultimate guarantor of commercial success. By placing a puppet ruler on the throne (as he attempted in Hyderabad and the Carnatic), he could control the state’s entire revenue and economy for the benefit of the French company.
     3. Revenue for Investment: Control over territory, like the French acquisition of the Northern Circars, provided a direct source of revenue. This revenue could then be used to finance trade and warfare, reducing dependence on the home government.
     4. Eliminating the Rival: Ultimately, both sides understood that there was not enough room for two dominant European powers. The goal shifted from out-competing the rival in trade to completely eliminating their political and military presence, as the British successfully did after the Battle of Wandiwash. The end of the Third Carnatic War saw the French reduced to mere traders, demonstrating that political victory was the final arbiter of commercial success.

4. Examine the factors that enabled the English East India Company to establish its political dominance in India in the 18th century, with special reference to the Carnatic and Bengal.

   Answer: The English EIC’s rise to political dominance in the 18th century was a result of a combination of its own strengths and the prevailing weaknesses within the Indian political system.

   • Internal Strengths of the EIC:
     1. Superior Military and Naval Power: The EIC employed disciplined, professionally trained armies equipped with superior artillery. The British Royal Navy’s control of the sea lanes was a decisive factor, ensuring logistical support and cutting off rivals, as seen in the Third Carnatic War.
     2. Strong Financial Position: The company was a highly profitable private enterprise backed by the robust economy of a burgeoning industrial Britain. After Plassey, the wealth of Bengal further augmented its resources, allowing it to maintain a large standing army.
     3. Effective Leadership: The EIC was served by a succession of ambitious and capable leaders like Robert Clive and Eyre Coote, who demonstrated both military genius and diplomatic cunning.
     4. Stable and Supportive Home Government: The British government, while not directly controlling the company initially, provided naval support and political backing, viewing the company’s success as integral to national prestige and power.
   • Weaknesses of Indian Polities:
     1. Political Fragmentation: The decline of the Mughal Empire created a power vacuum filled by mutually antagonistic successor states. The British masterfully exploited these rivalries in the Carnatic (siding with one claimant against another) and in Bengal (conspiring with disgruntled nobles against the Nawab).
     2. Military Backwardness: Indian armies were typically large and unwieldy, lacking the discipline, coordinated command structure, and advanced artillery of the European forces.
     3. Lack of National Consciousness: The concept of a unified “Indian” identity was absent. Rulers of different states fought each other as readily as they fought foreigners, often seeking European help to settle their own scores. Mir Jafar’s betrayal at Plassey is a prime example.
     4. Economic Weakness: While provinces like Bengal were rich, Indian states lacked the institutional capacity to translate this wealth into sustained military power in the same way the EIC did. Constant warfare drained their treasuries, making them vulnerable to the financially superior British.

5. “Dupleix made a name for himself in the Carnatic, but it was Clive who won the prize.” Critically analyze this statement.

   Answer: This statement aptly summarizes the pioneering role of Joseph-François Dupleix in devising the strategy for European dominance and Robert Clive’s success in perfecting and implementing it for British benefit.

   • Dupleix: The Visionary Architect:
     1. Pioneer of Intervention: Dupleix was the first European leader to move beyond purely commercial ambitions. He developed the strategy of intervening in the succession disputes of Indian states to install puppet rulers.
     2. Creator of the Subsidiary System: His policy of stationing French troops under Bussy in Hyderabad at the Nizam’s expense was the prototype of the Subsidiary Alliance system. This provided political control and financed the French military presence through Indian revenues.
     3. Use of Sepoy Armies: He recognized the potential of training Indian soldiers (sepoys) in European military techniques, creating a cost-effective and formidable fighting force.
     4. His Failure: Despite his strategic brilliance, Dupleix failed due to a lack of consistent support from the French government, which was more concerned with its European and American theatres, and the heavy financial losses his policies incurred. His recall in 1754 marked the end of his vision for a French empire in India.
   • Clive: The Pragmatic Executor:
     1. Master of Tactics and Intrigue: Clive was not just a brilliant military commander, as demonstrated by the Siege of Arcot, but also a master of political conspiracy, as seen in the secret treaty with Mir Jafar before the Battle of Plassey.
     2. Learning from the French: Clive and the British learned from Dupleix’s methods. They adopted the strategy of backing rival claimants (Muhammad Ali in the Carnatic) and used Indian allies and sepoys effectively.
     3. Securing the Prize: Where Dupleix failed to secure a stable revenue source, Clive succeeded spectacularly. The victory at Plassey gave the British control over the immense wealth of Bengal, providing the financial foundation for their future imperial expansion. This was the “prize” that Dupleix had envisioned but never secured.
     4. Backed by a Stronger System: Clive’s success was also a product of the superior system he represented—the financially robust, commercially-driven, and politically-backed English EIC with its dominant navy.

   In conclusion, Dupleix was the innovator who wrote the playbook for European conquest in India. However, it was Clive, with his military daring, political cunning, and the backing of a more efficient and powerful organization, who successfully executed that playbook and won the ultimate prize: the foundation of the British Raj.