Modern India

Question- Do you agree with the view that the East India Company acquired the Indian Subcontinent because of the exigencies of trade?

Answer- A distinctive part of the Asian continent, India had a diverse history of its own crests and troughs. The notion of trade existed in India from the beginning of trading ventures carried through silk route and Indian Ocean in fifth and eight centuries. The global trading enterprise was started by Portuguese in fourteenth century with the discovery of sea routes towards 'old and new world' by personalities like Vasco de Gama, Christopher Columbus. These far reaching expeditions were initiated in order to control spice trade resulting in gradual outgrowth over Indian Ocean.

India was known for its abundant resources such as spices, cotton, silk, indigo, tea, and opium to the European traders. The scenario of India, during sixteenth century was a panel of different major Europeans ventures from the Portugal, Netherlands, and France. In the internal arena of social-economic and political sphere, by the mid fifteenth and mid-seventeenth century India was 'integrated' by two major Mughal rulers - Akbar (1542-1605) and Aurangzeb (1618-1707) respectively.

The British East India Company was formed in 1599 .In sixteenth century the merchants of London presented a proposal to Queen Elizabeth I in order to gain rights to perform free trade in far east. By December 31st the Queen granted the Royal Charter to procure trade privileges in eastern hemisphere especially in India. The Portuguese by then were eclipsed by the private enterprise, 'John Company' or the East India Company.

The imperialist historians had given a picture of Indian subcontinent as stagnant instable, despotic, decadent and chaos in economical, political and social spheres. Vincent Smith and Alexander Dow have argued India as morally weak and incapable of ruling themselves. The advent of British East India Company in India was appreciated by several imperialist historians. In 1792 Charles Grant, an evangelical penned his observations, "On the state of society among the Asiatic Subjects of Great Britain" that by accepting the helping hand of Christian missionaries, India can be stabilised morally ( ).In the same context Claudius Buchannan remarked about the 'barbaric' nature of Indians as that one cannot find moral virtues in the heart of a "hindoo" ( ).W .W .Hunter has provided volumes upon different Indian states and commented it as "flat and open" and "overcrowded"( ).His survey of every minute detail of Indian subcontinent has given us a preview of imperialist notion of chaos and instability within India where the British intervention seemed a must to civilise them.

The Critique to imperialist writing came from the nationalist historians whose writings were published in nineteenth century India. They analysed a comparison between Mughal Empire and British Empire concluding the stability was prevailed more in former then the later. The early writings of economic nationalist Dada Bhai Naoroji and R.C.Dutt postulated the theory of 'Drain Wealth'.

It is referred to the National Product of a country (here in India) which is not made available for consumption of its own people. The poverty and low wages were the outcome of ill management by British. In order to make way for Opium production the company forbade crop produce which accelerated the famine of Bengal of 1770.

The important illusion of foothold of British East India Company in India can be witnessed with the 'break-up' of Mughal Empire witnessed after the death of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb in 1707. Revisionist scholars have criticised the period of gradual Mughal declining as 'Dark age'. This so called 'dark age' saw cultural and technological crest. The external trade was declining leading to an interruption in flow of revenue.

The decline was sensed by historians Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib as ill maintenance of Mansabdari and jagirdari system which led to a percolated effect of emergence different regional political entities.

Eighteenth century was marked by the towering bloom of regional polities so called- successor states like Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, Mysore, Deccan, Afghans. Historian Muzaffar Alam commented on the nature of successor states especially Awadh and Punjab as 'stable' in economy, polity and society.

Historian Harbans Mukhia and Andre wink emphasised the 'zamindars' as sole beneficiaries of the decline of mughal empire,though later focused upon the Marathas as intermediary gentry.

These political entities became more powerful in managing their boundaries with efficient taxation and revenue collection. The internal trade was also witnessed which provided mass shelter to specialised artisan class who attracted foreign investors and entrepreneurial scopes.

Historian Parthasarthi provides a picture of early eighteenth century south Indian weavers who witnessed a period of economic prosperity. The local prosperity attracted high level of investment done by majorly indigenous cloth merchants. These weavers were given semi independence and financial security.

Although they were politically and economically independent from Mughal state but they always used Mughal titles for legitimacy and stability. Revisionist historians have analysed the scenario of eighteenth century as 'continuity and change'. They have presented enduring socio-economic structures such as financial institutions and information networks that emphasise the utility of ' Indian Agents' or 'collaborators' in facilitating early company rule what P.J.Marshall calls 'evolutionary appraoch'( ).

In 1617 Jahangir awarded trading rights to James I's Ambassador Sir Thomas Roe to Mughal Court. The naval power of the English encouraged Mughals to grant such rights as they did not have for their own. Still they were not allowed to fortify their 'manufacturing' houses. They were dependent upon the goodwill of Mughal emperor.

Most imperial historians argue that East India Company was drawn reluctantly in the political and military conflict in India, only taking an interest in territorial and revenue as last resort to protect trading activities( ).By the second half of eighteenth century the company's operations led it to make claims to governance both over sea and incipient provinces such as Madras (Present day Chennai), Bombay (Present day Mumbai),Bengal (present day West Bengal) in India from which its authority was subsequently expanded to interior India.

The flourishing of East Indian Company's trade took a flight when in place of lucrative but limited spice trade, they developed markets in Europe for