Elaborate Notes
The Battle of Plassey, 1757
- Background and Long-Term Causes: The foundation for the conflict was laid by the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar’s farman (royal decree) of 1717. This decree granted the English East India Company (EIC) the right to trade duty-free in Bengal, for an annual payment. The permit for this duty-free trade was known as a dastak.
- Misuse of Dastaks and Illegal Trade:
- Private Trade: The dastak was intended solely for the Company’s official trade. However, EIC officials began using these permits for their lucrative private trade, thereby evading the Nawab’s taxes. Historian B.N. Pandey in A Book of India (1981) notes that by the 1750s, the quantum of this private trade was enormous, with officials earning fortunes far exceeding their official salaries. The summary’s figure of £100,000 in private trade, 50 times their salaries, illustrates this rampant corruption.
- Sale of Dastaks: EIC officials further abused the system by selling dastaks to non-EIC Indian and European merchants (“interlopers”), who could then also evade duties. This created a dual loss: it deprived the Nawab of Bengal of significant revenue and gave British-linked traders an unfair competitive advantage over local merchants who had to pay taxes.
- Economic Impact: This practice not only damaged the Bengal treasury but also hurt the EIC’s own profits, as the private trade of its servants often competed with the Company’s official trade. The Court of Directors in London was largely unable to control its ambitious and avaricious officials in India.
- Anglo-French Rivalry:
- The mid-18th century was a period of intense global conflict between Britain and France, which manifested in India as the Carnatic Wars (1746-1763). The EIC, fearing a French advance into Bengal from their base at Chandannagar, began fortifying Calcutta (Fort William) in 1755 without seeking permission from the reigning Nawab, Alivardi Khan.
- This act was a direct challenge to the Nawab’s sovereignty. Alivardi Khan, a shrewd diplomat, famously compared the Europeans to a beehive: “if you leave them alone, they will give you honey, but if you disturb them, they will sting you to death.” He managed to keep them in check through diplomacy, but his death in 1756 changed the political landscape.
- Role of Siraj-ud-Daulah and Immediate Causes:
- Siraj-ud-Daulah, Alivardi Khan’s grandson and successor, was young and lacked his grandfather’s experience. He perceived the British actions as a direct affront to his authority. He demanded the British halt the new fortifications and stop granting asylum to his political opponents, such as Krishna Ballabh, who had fled with state funds.
- When the EIC refused to comply, Siraj acted decisively. In June 1756, he seized the Company’s factory at Qasim Bazar and then captured Calcutta, renaming it Alinagar.
- The Black Hole Tragedy: During the capture of Calcutta, a number of British prisoners were allegedly confined in a small, suffocating dungeon, leading to many deaths. John Zephaniah Holwell, a survivor, claimed 123 out of 146 prisoners died. While this incident was used as powerful propaganda in Britain to justify retaliation, modern historians like B.L. Grover and S. Grover, in A New Look at Modern Indian History, suggest the numbers were likely exaggerated and the event may not have been a deliberate act of cruelty by Siraj.
- The Conspiracy and the Battle:
- The capture of Calcutta prompted the EIC to dispatch a force from Madras under Robert Clive and Admiral Watson. They recaptured Calcutta in early 1757 and forced Siraj to sign the Treaty of Alinagar, which restored the Company’s privileges.
- However, Clive was not content. He entered into a secret conspiracy to overthrow Siraj. The key conspirators included:
- Mir Jafar: The commander-in-chief (Mir Bakshi) of the Nawab’s army, who was promised the throne.
- Jagat Seths: The most influential bankers of Bengal, who controlled the state’s finances.
- Rai Durlabh and Aminchand: Influential commanders and merchants.
- The Battle of Plassey, fought on June 23, 1757, was, as historian K.M. Panikkar described it, “not a battle but a transaction.” A large portion of the Nawab’s army, under the command of the conspirators Mir Jafar and Rai Durlabh, stood inactive. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. Siraj fled the battlefield, was later captured, and executed.
Significance of the Battle of Plassey
- Political Supremacy: Plassey marked the beginning of the end of the “company of merchants” and the start of its transformation into a ruling power. Mir Jafar was installed as a puppet Nawab, completely dependent on the EIC for his position. It established British military dominance in India’s richest province.
- The “Plassey Plunder” (1757-1765):
- The victory was followed by an unprecedented and systematic extraction of wealth from Bengal. The EIC and its officials received vast sums as “gifts” and “compensation.”
- The Company received zamindari rights over the 24 Parganas and a huge sum of money (Rs 2.25 crore as mentioned).
- Clive himself received enormous personal wealth, including a large cash sum and a jagir (land grant) worth thousands of pounds annually. This period of plunder, as documented by scholars like R.C. Dutt in The Economic History of India (1902), initiated the “drain of wealth.”
- Change in Trade Structure and Drain of Wealth:
- Before 1757, the EIC had to import bullion (gold and silver) from Britain to pay for Indian goods like textiles and spices, as Britain had little to offer in return that Indians desired.
- After Plassey, this changed dramatically. The surplus revenues of Bengal were used by the Company to finance its “investments”—that is, to buy Indian goods for export. No more bullion was needed from Britain. Wealth, in the form of goods and direct transfers, now began to flow from India to Britain, a process Dadabhai Naoroji would later famously term the “Drain of Wealth.” This plunder directly contributed to financing Britain’s Industrial Revolution.
- Paving the Way for Buxar: When Mir Jafar could no longer satisfy the insatiable financial demands of the Company, he was deposed in 1760 and replaced by his son-in-law, Mir Qasim. This demonstrated the EIC’s absolute power to make and unmake Nawabs.
The Battle of Buxar, 1764
- Background - Mir Qasim’s Assertion of Sovereignty:
- Unlike Mir Jafar, Mir Qasim was an able and efficient administrator. He sought to restore the autonomy of the Nawab’s office.
- Administrative Reforms: To distance himself from the constant interference of the EIC in Calcutta, he shifted his capital from Murshidabad to Munger (in modern-day Bihar). He also began reorganizing his bureaucracy and modernizing his army along European lines.
- Economic Reforms: To counter the ruinous effects of the misuse of dastaks by the British, Mir Qasim took the radical step in 1763 of abolishing all internal transit duties for everyone, placing Indian merchants on an equal footing with the British. This nullified the special advantage the EIC enjoyed and was seen by them as an act of hostility.
- The Tripartite Alliance: The EIC declared war on Mir Qasim, defeating him and forcing him to flee. Mir Jafar was reinstated. Mir Qasim fled to Awadh, where he formed a grand alliance with:
- Shuja-ud-Daulah: The powerful Nawab of Awadh.
- Shah Alam II: The fugitive Mughal Emperor, who resided in Awadh as a virtual dependent of Shuja-ud-Daulah. He saw this as an opportunity to reassert Mughal authority over the rich eastern provinces.
- The Battle and Reasons for Defeat:
- The combined armies of the three allies met the EIC forces, commanded by Major Hector Munro, at Buxar on October 22, 1764.
- Unlike Plassey, Buxar was a fiercely contested military engagement. It was not won by treachery but by the superior discipline, training, and strategy of the British forces. Shuja-ud-Daulah’s tactical decision to launch an offensive, rather than a war of attrition to cut off the smaller British army’s supply lines, proved to be a fatal error.
- The Treaty of Allahabad, 1765:
- The decisive victory at Buxar left the British as the undisputed masters of North India. Robert Clive, who had returned to India, negotiated the terms of peace. Two separate treaties were signed at Allahabad.
- Treaty with Shuja-ud-Daulah: The Nawab of Awadh was forced to pay a war indemnity of 50 lakh rupees. He ceded the districts of Kora and Allahabad to the Mughal Emperor. Awadh was returned to him and became a buffer state, dependent on British military support.
- Treaty with Shah Alam II: This was the more significant treaty. In a historic act, the Mughal Emperor, the de jure sovereign of India, granted the Diwani (the right to collect revenue and administer civil justice) of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to the East India Company. In return, the Company promised him the districts of Kora and Allahabad and an annual tribute of 26 lakh rupees (which was seldom paid consistently). This grant gave the EIC legal legitimacy for its control over Bengal, transforming it from a mere trading body into a sovereign power in the eyes of Indian law.
Prelims Pointers
- Farrukhsiyar’s Farman (1717): Granted duty-free trade rights (dastaks) to the EIC in Bengal.
- Siraj-ud-Daulah: Succeeded Alivardi Khan as Nawab of Bengal in 1756.
- Black Hole Tragedy (1756): Alleged incident in Calcutta used as a pretext for British retaliation. Propagated by J.Z. Holwell.
- Battle of Plassey: Fought on June 23, 1757.
- Key Conspirators at Plassey: Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh, Jagat Seths.
- British Commander at Plassey: Robert Clive.
- Battle of Buxar: Fought on October 22, 1764.
- British Commander at Buxar: Major Hector Munro.
- Tripartite Alliance at Buxar:
- Mir Qasim (deposed Nawab of Bengal)
- Shuja-ud-Daulah (Nawab of Awadh)
- Shah Alam II (Mughal Emperor)
- Treaty of Allahabad (1765): Signed by Robert Clive with Shah Alam II and Shuja-ud-Daulah.
- Grant of Diwani: The right to collect revenue of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa was granted to the EIC by Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II.
- Capital Shift: Mir Qasim shifted his capital from Murshidabad to Munger.
- Gomutsahs: Indian agents employed by the EIC officials for their private trade.
Mains Insights
- Historiographical Debate: Battle or Betrayal?
- The Battle of Plassey is widely considered by historians like K.M. Panikkar and Sekhar Bandyopadhyay to be a “betrayal” or a “political transaction” rather than a true military contest.
- Argument: The victory was secured primarily through a conspiracy with the Nawab’s key commanders. It showcased British diplomatic cunning and political opportunism, not overwhelming military might at that stage. This contrasts sharply with Buxar, which was a genuine military victory.
- Comparative Significance: Plassey vs. Buxar
- Plassey (1757):
- Nature: Won by treachery.
- Significance: Initiated the process of British political dominance in Bengal and started the “Plassey Plunder,” which funded British expansion and industrialization. It was the foundation of the British Empire.
- Buxar (1764):
- Nature: A decisive military victory against a powerful confederacy including the Mughal Emperor.
- Significance: It was the more important battle in the long run. It confirmed and legitimized British power. The grant of Diwani through the Treaty of Allahabad (1765) gave a legal and institutional framework to British rule, transforming the EIC into the de jure ruler of Bengal. It demonstrated that British military superiority could defeat major Indian powers, not just a provincial Nawab weakened by internal dissent.
- Plassey (1757):
- Cause-Effect Chain: From Commercial Greed to Political Power
- Cause: The misuse of trade privileges (dastaks) by EIC officials for private enrichment.
- Effect: Conflict with the sovereign authority of the Nawab of Bengal, leading to Plassey.
- Cause: The insatiable greed for wealth after Plassey (the “Plassey Plunder”) and the EIC’s desire for absolute control.
- Effect: Dethroning of Nawabs (Mir Jafar), leading to resistance from an abler ruler (Mir Qasim), culminating in the Battle of Buxar.
- Cause: Decisive victory at Buxar.
- Effect: The acquisition of Diwani rights, which institutionalized British control over the revenues of India’s richest province, providing the financial springboard for the conquest of the rest of India.
- Ethical Dimensions (GS Paper IV):
- The conduct of EIC officials like Robert Clive raises profound ethical questions. The rampant corruption, bribery, abuse of power for personal gain (dastaks), and political conspiracies represent a classic case study of the moral degradation that can accompany unchecked corporate and colonial power.
- The “Plassey Plunder” and subsequent “Drain of Wealth” highlight the unethical economic exploitation of a colony for the benefit of the colonizing power.
Previous Year Questions
Prelims
-
Which one of the following is considered to be the most significant battle in the establishment of British supremacy in India? (UPSC CSE 2019 - Modified) (a) The Battle of Buxar (b) The Battle of Plassey (c) The Third Battle of Panipat (d) The Battle of Srirangapatna
Answer: (a) The Battle of Buxar. While Plassey opened the gates, Buxar was the decisive military victory that confirmed and legalized British control over Bengal through the grant of Diwani, establishing their supremacy over other major Indian powers.
-
With reference to the period of colonial rule in India, “Home Charges” formed an important part of the drain of wealth from India. Which of the following funds constituted “Home Charges”? (UPSC CSE 2011 - Relevant concept)
- Funds used to support the India Office in London.
- Funds used to pay salaries and pensions of British personnel engaged in India.
- Funds used for waging wars outside India by the British. Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3. The economic drain that began after Plassey was later institutionalized into the “Home Charges,” which included all these expenses paid from Indian revenues in Britain.
-
Who among the following was the Mughal Emperor when the East India Company was granted the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in 1765? (UPSC CSE - Various State PSCs) (a) Ahmad Shah (b) Alamgir II (c) Shah Alam II (d) Akbar II
Answer: (c) Shah Alam II. He granted the Diwani to the EIC as part of the Treaty of Allahabad after his defeat in the Battle of Buxar.
-
Consider the following statements:
- Robert Clive was the first Governor-General of Bengal.
- The Battle of Buxar was fought between the combined forces of the Nawab of Bengal, Nawab of Awadh and the Mughal Emperor on one side and the British on the other. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (UPSC CSE - Modified) (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: (b) 2 only. Robert Clive was the Governor of Fort William (Bengal), but the first Governor-General of Bengal was Warren Hastings (appointed under the Regulating Act of 1773). Statement 2 is correct about the composition of the alliance at Buxar.
-
The primary cause of the conflict between Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah and the East India Company was: (UPSC CSE - Modified) (a) The British opposed the succession of Siraj-ud-Daulah. (b) The British misused the trade privileges (dastaks) and fortified Calcutta without the Nawab’s permission. (c) The British attacked the French settlement of Chandannagar. (d) The infamous Black Hole incident.
Answer: (b) The British misused the trade privileges (dastaks) and fortified Calcutta without the Nawab’s permission. These actions directly challenged the Nawab’s sovereignty and were the primary triggers for the conflict. The attack on Chandannagar and the Black Hole incident were subsequent events.
Mains
-
“The Battle of Plassey was not a great battle but a great betrayal.” Critically analyse this statement. (2019 - Modified)
Answer: Introduction: The Battle of Plassey (1757) is a watershed moment in Indian history, marking the beginning of British political dominion. The statement that it was “not a great battle but a great betrayal” aptly captures the essence of the event, which was decided more by conspiracy and treachery than by military prowess.
Body: Arguments supporting the “Betrayal” thesis:
- Pre-Battle Conspiracy: The outcome was predetermined by a secret pact between Robert Clive and key figures in the Nawab’s court, including Mir Jafar (Commander-in-Chief), the Jagat Seths (financiers), and Rai Durlabh (commander). Mir Jafar was promised the throne in exchange for his non-participation.
- Inaction during Battle: A significant portion of the Nawab’s army, commanded by Mir Jafar and Rai Durlabh, remained spectators on the battlefield, as agreed upon in the conspiracy. The actual fighting involved only a small fraction of Siraj-ud-Daulah’s forces.
- Disparity in Casualties: The EIC suffered minimal casualties, while the Nawab’s army, though numerically superior, was routed due to the betrayal of its leadership.
- Political Transaction: As historian K.M. Panikkar noted, Plassey was more of a “transaction” where the sovereignty of Bengal was sold to the EIC by the Nawab’s own officials.
Arguments for it being a “Battle”:
- Military Engagement: Despite the conspiracy, a small but loyal contingent of the Nawab’s army under Mir Madan and Mohanlal did fight bravely.
- Strategic Importance: Irrespective of how it was won, the battle had immense strategic consequences. It gave the British control over the resources of India’s richest province.
Conclusion: While a military engagement did occur at Plassey, its scale and intensity were negligible compared to its political impact. The decisive factor was the internal treachery orchestrated by Clive. Therefore, the statement is largely accurate; Plassey was fundamentally a successful political coup executed under the guise of a battle, which laid the foundation for the British Empire in India.
-
Clarify how mid-eighteenth-century India was beset with the spectre of a fragmented polity. (UPSC CSE 2017)
Answer: Introduction: The mid-eighteenth century (c. 1740-1760s) was a period of profound political turmoil and fragmentation in India. The decline of the central Mughal authority created a power vacuum, leading to the rise of regional successor states and the entry of foreign powers like the English East India Company.
Body: Manifestations of a Fragmented Polity:
- Decline of Mughal Authority: The Mughal Emperor, such as Shah Alam II, was a sovereign in name only, a ‘king of Delhi’ with little real power. He was a fugitive prince dependent on regional powers like the Nawab of Awadh.
- Rise of Successor States: Former Mughal provinces like Bengal (under Alivardi Khan), Awadh (under Shuja-ud-Daulah), and Hyderabad (under the Nizam) became virtually independent. While they nominally acknowledged Mughal suzerainty, they acted as autonomous rulers.
- Internal Rivalries and Conspiracies: The courts of these regional states were riddled with intrigue. In Bengal, the conspiracy of Mir Jafar and the Jagat Seths against Siraj-ud-Daulah exemplifies this. Personal ambition and factionalism trumped loyalty to the state.
- Lack of Unified Resistance: The alliance at Buxar (Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daulah, Shah Alam II) was a coalition of convenience, driven by individual interests rather than a united ‘national’ cause. Shuja-ud-Daulah’s personal ambition for Bihar and its treasury highlights this fragmentation.
- Vulnerability to Foreign Intervention: This fragmented political landscape provided a fertile ground for the EIC to employ its “divide and rule” policy. They successfully exploited internal rivalries, as seen in both the Carnatic Wars and the Bengal conquest, playing one Indian power against another.
Conclusion: The mid-eighteenth-century Indian polity was a mosaic of competing regional powers and ambitious individuals. This lack of a central, unifying authority and the prevalence of internal dissent created the political vacuum that the strategically superior and politically astute British were able to exploit, leading to their eventual conquest of India.
-
Buxar, not Plassey, was the real foundation of the British Empire in India. Do you agree? Substantiate your answer. (Analytical)
Answer: Introduction: The establishment of the British Empire in India was a gradual process marked by two pivotal battles: Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764). While Plassey opened the door for British dominance, a compelling case can be made that Buxar was the true foundational event that cemented and legitimized their rule.
Body: Plassey as the Initial Breakthrough:
- Plassey gave the EIC its first major political foothold and access to the vast revenues of Bengal.
- It initiated the “Plassey Plunder,” providing the financial resources for further military expansion.
- It established the precedent of installing puppet Nawabs, demonstrating British king-making power.
Why Buxar was the Real Foundation:
- A True Military Victory: Unlike the treachery-ridden Plassey, Buxar was a decisive military victory for the EIC against a formidable alliance of three major Indian powers: the Nawab of Awadh, the deposed Nawab of Bengal, and the Mughal Emperor himself. This established the undisputed military superiority of the British.
- Legitimization of Power: The victory led to the Treaty of Allahabad (1765), through which the Mughal Emperor, the legal sovereign of India, granted the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to the EIC. This transformed the Company from a group of traders and usurpers into the legitimate, de jure administrator of the region.
- Expansion Beyond Bengal: The defeat of the Nawab of Awadh brought the British into direct contact with the frontiers of North India, making Awadh a buffer state and paving the way for future expansion.
- Institutionalization of Rule: The acquisition of Diwani led to the creation of the ‘Dual System’ of government in Bengal, a formal administrative structure (however flawed) that institutionalized British control over the region’s finances.
Conclusion: While Plassey was the critical starting point that gave the British an opportunity, Buxar was the event that confirmed their strength, legitimized their authority, and built the institutional and military foundation upon which the empire was constructed. Plassey was a conspiracy that won them a province; Buxar was a war that won them an empire in principle.
-
Discuss the economic consequences of the Battles of Plassey and Buxar on the province of Bengal. (Economic History)
Answer: Introduction: The period following the Battles of Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) was catastrophic for the economy of Bengal. The victory transformed the English East India Company from a trading entity into a ruling power, leading to systematic economic exploitation and the infamous “Plassey Plunder” that initiated the drain of wealth from India.
Body: Immediate Economic Consequences:
- The “Plassey Plunder”: The new Nawab, Mir Jafar, was forced to pay enormous sums as “gifts” and “reparations” to the EIC and its officials. This amounted to millions of pounds, draining the Bengal treasury almost overnight.
- Private Fortunes: EIC officials used their new-found power to amass vast personal fortunes through illegal private trade, extortion, and bribery, becoming the “nabobs” of English lore.
- Destruction of Traditional Trade: The rampant misuse of dastaks (tax-free permits) by Company officials and their agents gave them an unfair monopoly, driving local Indian merchants out of business.
Long-Term Structural Changes:
- The Drain of Wealth: After 1757, the EIC stopped importing bullion from Britain. Instead, it used the surplus revenues of Bengal to finance its “investments”—buying Indian goods for export. This one-way flow of wealth from India to Britain, with no corresponding return, is known as the “Drain of Wealth,” a concept later articulated by Dadabhai Naoroji.
- De-industrialization: The Company’s policies favored the import of British manufactured goods and the export of Indian raw materials. This, coupled with the ruin of local artisans who were forced to sell their products at arbitrarily low prices to the Company, led to the decline of Bengal’s famed textile industry over time.
- Ruin of Agriculture: With the grant of Diwani after Buxar, the EIC’s primary motive became revenue maximization. Excessively high and rigid land revenue demands, especially under the Dual System, devastated the peasantry and led to agrarian distress, culminating in the Great Bengal Famine of 1770.
Conclusion: The battles of Plassey and Buxar were not mere political events; they were economic turning points that subjected Bengal to unprecedented plunder. They reversed the flow of wealth, destroyed indigenous industries and trade networks, and impoverished the peasantry, transforming one of the world’s most prosperous regions into a poster child for colonial exploitation.
-
How did the political and economic interests of the English East India Company shape its conflict with the Nawabs of Bengal in the mid-18th century? (Analytical)
Answer: Introduction: The conflict between the English East India Company and the Nawabs of Bengal in the mid-18th century, culminating in the Battles of Plassey and Buxar, was driven by an irreconcilable clash between the Company’s expanding political and economic ambitions and the Nawabs’ attempts to assert their sovereign authority.
Body: EIC’s Economic Interests leading to Conflict:
- Abuse of Trade Privileges: The Company’s core economic interest was maximizing profit. This led its officials to illegally use the duty-free trade permits (dastaks) for their private trade, causing huge revenue losses to the Nawab and creating an unfair market. The Nawabs, from Murshid Quli Khan to Siraj-ud-Daulah, consistently opposed this abuse.
- Desire for Monopoly: The Company sought to eliminate competition, both from European rivals like the French and from Indian merchants. This desire for total control over Bengal’s trade inevitably brought it into conflict with the Nawab, who sought to protect his subjects’ commercial interests.
- Abolition of Internal Duties: Mir Qasim’s decision to abolish all internal duties to create a level playing field for Indian merchants directly threatened the Company’s privileged economic position, making war inevitable.
EIC’s Political Interests leading to Conflict:
- Assertion of Sovereignty: The Company was unwilling to function as a mere trading entity subject to the Nawab’s laws. Its fortification of Calcutta without permission and granting asylum to the Nawab’s fugitives were clear assertions of political autonomy that no sovereign ruler could tolerate.
- Fear of the French: The Anglo-French rivalry in the Carnatic Wars made the EIC paranoid about French influence in Bengal. This led them to seek a compliant ruler in Bengal who would support their interests against the French, motivating the conspiracy to overthrow Siraj-ud-Daulah.
- Quest for Territorial Control: Ultimately, the Company realized that secure economic interests could only be guaranteed by political and military power. The desire to control the revenue streams of Bengal directly, rather than depending on the whims of a Nawab, was the ultimate driver that led from the commercial disputes before Plassey to the direct assumption of Diwani after Buxar.
Conclusion: The EIC’s interests evolved from purely commercial to intertwined politico-economic ambitions. The pursuit of unchecked profit led to friction, and the realization that political control was the only way to secure and expand those profits transformed the Company into an aggressive political power. The conflict was thus not an accident but the logical outcome of a foreign commercial body’s ambition to impose its will on a sovereign Indian state.