British Expansion

Answer : The British in their way to establish their supremacy and control over India had to wage wars with many Indian powers. One of the most formidable powers they had to face in their task of conquering India was the Mysore. The British had to fight four rounds of wars with the Mysore State before it could be brought under its control. A survival episode in this context was the third Anglo-Mysore war fought between 1790 and 1792.

The British since the beginning viewed with jealousy the rising might of the Mysore under Hyder Ali. They believed him to be a dangerous foe. They perceived that in any scheme of conquest of south India, they will have to contend with the rising power of Hyder Ali. They tried therefore to crush him. In the First Mysore War in 1766 to 1769, they forged alliance with the Nizam of Hyderabad to crush Hyder Ali.

However, Hyder Ali succeeded in breaking the alliance and in defeating the British and appeared before Madras. The British had to conclude Treaty of Madras to ward off the danger from his side. After concluding peace with the Marathas at Uadgaon, the British once again between 1780 and 1784 built up presume on Mysore in what has now come to be known as the Second Anglo-Mysore War.

Hyder Ali died during course of war and was succeeded by a worthy successor in form of Tipu Sultan of Mysore, who continued the war. Ultimately both the sides had to settle for existing status quo by the Treaty of Mangalore.

However, the British after this treaty did not refrain from pursuing deliberate expansionist policy. They were on a look out for the opportunity to crush the power of Mysore once and for all. In the meanwhile, the British had brought peace with the Marathas by the Treaty of Salbai which gave them breather for twenty years from the Maratha side. Moreover, they could now use the friendship with the Marathas to pressurize Mysore into submission.

Like British, Tipu was equally aware of danger to his position posed by the imperialist British company. Hence he made all out efforts to strengthen Mysore economically and militarily. He introduced new weights and measures reformed the currency system. He also encouraged modern trade and industry and established trading relations with France, Afghanistan, Turkey and Pegu. He also curbed the lower of local intermediaries over peasants.

Militarily, he imparted military training to his soldiers on modern lines, and organized themselves on western military principles. He also equipped his army with modern weapons. Diplomatically, he cultivated friendly relations and exchanged envoys with France, Turkey, Iran and Pegu. The British in the meanwhile were busy forging alliances should they had to face the war with Mysore. They organized an anti-Mysore alliance to which were drawn the Marathas, Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar. The arrival of an imperialist Governor General Cornwallis aided the prospects of war with the Mysore State.

The immediate circumstance for the war was provided by Tipu’s attack on the Raja of Travancore. Tipu objected to the Raja of Travancore’s purchase of Jaikottai and Craganore from the Dutch.

Tipu had considered Cochin as his tributary state and these areas were parts of Cochin. To assert his sovereign right, Tipu decided to attack Travancore. On the other hand, the Raja of Travancore was the ally of the British. So, the British utilized the Tipu’s attack on Travancore as pretext to rush to the side of Travancore against Tipu and declared war against Tipu.

At the head of a large army Cornwallis himself marched through Vellore and Amber to Bangalore and approached Serirangpatnam. The English captured Coimbatore only to lose it later. Supported by the Marathas and the Nizam’s troops, the English made a second advance towards Serirangpatnam. Tipu offered tough resistance but realized the impossibility of carrying further the struggle. The Treaty of Serirangpatnam was concluded in March 1792 which resulted in the surrender of nearly half of the Mysorean territory to the victorious allies. The British acquired Bonamahal, Dindigul and Malabar. The Marathas in their shore got the territory on the Tunghbhadra side and the Nizam acquired territories from the Krishna to the Pennar. Tipu also had to pay a war indemnity of over three crores of rupees. Tipu lost heavily in this round of strength and could only save his kingdom from total extinction by preparation and planning which seemed beyond his resources. He had also to pay war indemnity and since he could pay only half the amount, two of his sons were taken captive till the indemnity was paid.

A very important aspect related to the Third Anglo Mysore War is the debate on the issue of whether Cornwallis in exercise of his sound judgment could have avoided the Third Anglo-Mysore War. There are two diametrically opposite points of view that are there on this issue. One side of the debate argues in favour of inevitability of the third Anglo Mysore war. It is contended that the British East India Company in pursuit of its imperialistic ambitions had already engaged in two rounds of struggle and given the nature of relationship between them and preparations made by both sides for the strengthening of their respective positions hardly rule out the fact that the war was inevitable.

The other side of the debate focuses on Cornwallis itching for the war and ultimately entangling the British in it. It is argued that Cornwallis had been explicitly asked to consolidate British gains in India than to go for any fresh round of belligerence.

Also, it is of Pitt’s India Act of 1784 had been that it had prohibited all aggressive wars in India. Moreover, the Pitt’s India Act of 1784 had also ruled against the conclusion of treaties of guarantee with the Indian princes like those with the nawabs of Carnatic and Oudh on the ground that to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India were measures repugnant to the British, the honour and the policy of the British nation.

However, Lord Cornwallis in stark violation of provisions of this Act of 1784 went for conclusion of mutually beneficial defensive alliance with Nizam of Hyderabad and deliberately omitted the name of Tipu Sultan from the text of the Treaty. This raised the hackles of suspicion of Tipu who started preparing Mysore for war.

Cornwallis moreover is also criticized for not having annexed Muysore after the conclusion of war when he could have easily done it as entire Mysore lay on his mercy. Lord Cornwallis action in this regard became subject of ringing controversy in Britain at that time. The main arguments given in favour of Cornwallis stand were that this would have made company’s settlement of spoils of war with its allies complicated. Moreover, there was even present danger of hostility of the rival European companies.

The Third Anglo Mysore War crippled the Mysore state of half of its territories. The final blow to the independence was struck by the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War under leadership of Lord Wellesley.

Answer : The treaty of Bassein was concluded in 1802 between the British Company and the Peshwa Baji Rao II. It was a treaty of perpetual and general alliance with the English. Upon the whole then it was conclude to be a wise, just and a polite measure.

As per the treaty, Peshwa agreed to receive from the company a regular army to be stationed in his territories. Peshwa had to surrender territories yielding 26 lakhs of rupees apart from surrendering Surat. The Peshwa had to accept the company’s arbitration in all differences between him and the other powers.

The Peshwa also agreed neither to commence nor to pursue in fortune away negotiations with any power without getting previous notice and constitution with the East India Company. The Peshwa agreed to give up all claims for chauth on the Nizam’s dominions and also agreed not to resort to arms against the Gaikwars. He also agreed to the Company’s arbitration in all differences between him and the Nizams & the Gaikwars.

The importance of the Treaty of Bassein in the building up of British supremacy in India has been variously estimated. It is contended that the Treaty of Bassein established the paramount British influence at Poona. The head of the Maratha confederacy accepted the position of dependent relationship with the company. By providing for company’s mediation in all cases of disputes between the Peshwa & the Nizam, the British achieved another objective that the state of Hyderabad definitely passed under the company’s protection. By camping the company’s subsidiary troops at Poona the Company got a very advantageous position in case of war with the Marathas or any other rivals.

Thus, the Treaty of Bassein threw a new power into the weight of its own scale. A lawful right was established to interfere in Peshwa’s authority, the intrigues of foreigners were excluded from his capital, the British military resources were considerably increased without the expense to the company and the army of the Peshwa was bound at the call of the company. In this sense, the Treaty of Bassein for the British was a wise, just & a polite measure and it gave the company by its direct & indirect operations the Empire of India.

Answer : The Treaty of Salbai was signed on May 17, 1782 by representatives of the Maratha Empire and the British East India Company after long negotiations to settle the outcome of the First Anglo-Maratha War. Under its terms, the Company retained control of Salsette and acquired guarantees that the Marathas would defeat Hyder Ali of Mysore and retake territories in the Carnatic. The Marathas also guaranteed that the French would be prohibited from establishing settlements on their territories. In return, the British agreed to pension off their protege, Raghunath Rao, and acknowledge Madhav Rao Narayan as peshwa of the Maratha Empire. The British also recognized the territorial claims of the Sindhia west of the Jumna River.

The Treaty of Salbai resulted in a period of relative peace between the Maratha Empire and the British East India Company until outbreak of the Second Anglo-Maratha War in 1802. The Bombay Government was extremely hardpressed for money in the year 1781. Several schemes for carrying on the war on a large scale had to be set aside for want of funds. During the next fair season defensive operations continued in the Konkan. But the great power of Haidar Ali made peace with the Marathas so important that, at last, on the 17th May 1782 the treaty of Salbai was concluded. One of its chief provisions was the restoration of all territory conquered from the Marathas since the treaty of Purandhar in 1775. This reduced the British possessions in the north Konkan to Bombay, Salsette, and the three small islands of Elephanta, Karanja, and Hog Island. The treaty was not finally exchanged till the 24th February 1783. Bassein had to be given up, but from Maratha delay in completing the treaty it was not actually transferred till April 1783. Under the treaty of Salbai the Marathas agreed to pay Raghunathrav an allowance. Thus English had to compromise on many fronts and their plan of expansion in India came to a halt for some time during which Maratha could consolidate themselves.

Answer : The growing commercial interest of the English East India Company and its officials brought them in direct confrontation with the Indian rulers. The weaknesses in the prevailing Indian polity helped the British to win the battle against them and alienation of different groups from the rulers made the system vulnerable to external forces.

What made the British conquer India is quite an intricate and intriguing question. They were defeated on many occasions by Haider Ali and Tipu, by the Marathas, by the Sikhs, and by the Gurkhas, but still they won an empire. No one specifie characteristic can be attributed to the British conquest of India. The difficulty in framing it in a phrase or word is because of absence of clearent motivation in the British conquest of India; otherwise, it did possess some of the normal features of a conquering nation. No definite motivation can be attributed to their conquests. It was mostly circumstances that made the British take step after step to expand their territories in India. It was opportunist conquests and consolidation.

Till the time of Wellesley, both the company and the government at home were timporous of expansionist designs. Whatever expansion that had occurred till that time was the design of the company to save its own skill since its financial condition had become precarious from time to time. Even in a Charter Act it is clearly stated that Britain had no expansionist designs.

But in the days of Wellesley, a deliberate policy of expansionism was conceived in the form of subsidiary alliance, wars, and outright annexations. The British expansion proceeded from one ambitions design to another during his tenure. We find that as early as 1784 the home government issued directive to the company relating to its political conquests. Further, the policy of the home government underwent periodic changes relating to the overseas possessions of the empire of England. Therefore, we have to accept the fact that the establishment of the British Raj in India was to some extent governed by the policies of the English government.

After the envasion of Nadir Shah, there was confusion in the political field. And as historical evidence shows, this confusion could not be exploited to one’s own ends either by the Rajputs, or the Marathas or the Nizam. In other words there was a political vacuum in India and this itself was an invitation to the British to establish their rule.

In the 17th century little thought was given to the establishment of an empire. The concentration of their energies was more on the earnings bullion because mercantilism was the governing principle of the country’s economic policy. From the mid of the 18th century the English policy of mercantilism and also its policy towards the empire underwent a metamorphic change, particularly after the loss of American coloures in 1783. Imperialism, as a policy, was advocated as late as the second half of the 19th century. Therefore, we have to admit that the changes in the political strategies of England also influenced the British conquest of India.

Keeping all these facts in mind and in particular the proverbial nature of the British nation in christening events and achievements after their occurrence we can examine the motivation behind the conquest of India.

Even after the victory of the company over the French and the acquisition of the Diwani territories, the Directors of the company and also the house of commons expressed their fears at the growing political nature from time to time. In spite of these pious professions and warnings, the British territory in India was expanded because most of the proconsuls sent to India took decisions on their own responsibility. They adopted the policy of expansion as a matter of choice.

Nevertheless, the British policy of expansionism became clear by the year 1818. Therefore, we can say that although the British policy began without any clear-cut aims it ended as paramountacy to imperialism. Which was acknowledged in the proclamation of Queen Victoria is the Empress of India in 1876.

Answer : The death of Alivardi in 1756 gave rise to dissensions among various groups within the court on the questions of succession to the throne of Bengal and the battle of Plassey showed the depth of functionalised in the Nawab’s court. The treachery of the close lieutenants of the Nawab rather than the might of the English decided the fate of the battle. The battle of Plassey was followed, in the words of the Bengali Poet Nabin Chandra Sen, by “a might of external gloom for India”. This battle was of immense historical importance. It paved the way for the British mastery of Bengal and eventually of the whole of India. It boosted British prestige and as a single stroke raised them to the status of a major contender for the Indian empire.

British commercial preparation into Bengal was not merely disrupting the cycle of economic creativity in the interior, but was clearly threatening to jeopardies the Nawab’s authority. Under the circumstances, it was not surprising that the abuse of dastak by the company servants for their private trade was the immediate cause of the war of 1764. The combined forces of Mir Kasim, Nawab of Awadh, Shah Alam and provinced nobility of Bihar and Orissa, failed to restrain the English advance and independent rule of the Nawabs in Bengal came to an end. This was one of the most decisive battles of Indian history for it demonstrated the superiority of English arms over the combined army of two of the major Indian power. It firmly established the British as masters of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and placed Awadh at their mercy.

Answer : A large portion of Maratha kingdom was a plateau, full of rocks. The rocky nature of the soil made the people struggle hard for a living and thus made them courageous and sturdy. The whole area enjoyed every kind of facility for defence including the construction of strong and almost impregnable forts at every hill top. While it gave strong defence and security to the inhabitants of the land, it made difficult for any foreigners army to get necessary supplies and to arrange for easy movements of large armies in practically unknown land. The land being a plateau also provided good facility for guerilla warfare in which the Marathas turned out to be adepts. Its location almost in the centre of India, provided for the Marathas a convenient approach to extend their power towards the south as well as towards the north. But these were not the only requirement for the building of an empire. These are defensive infrastructere. To be an offensive, one has to come out of the forts to fight on the other turfs. It had enough economic and political support to maintain a small kingdom. An empire needs a large standing army, sound administrative structure and lines of visionary rulers.

The nature of the soil was not such as to make the people economically rich. With only a handful of the rich and the generality of the people not living in affluent circumstances, there was a kindof economic equality among them. The absence of clear-cut division of society into the rich and the poor provided a kind of equality among them and infused in them a sense of self-respect and feeling of oneness. Though the hard nature of the soil prevented the society as a whole from falling preyto a life of indulgence and luxury but at the same time it also became the cause of bad economic infrastructure. The economy was in bad shape. Shivaji destroyed all vestiges of feudalism and established direct contact between the central government and the peasants in the matters of tax collection. Chauth and Sardeshmukhi were the two instruments used by Shivaji to obtain treasure from the enemy country he invaded. He demanded from the subjects of his enemies tribute roughly equivalent to one fourth of the estimated revenue of the province to save themselves from the harassment of his armies. He captured the rich people of the enemy territory and compelled them to agree to ransom. According to Jadunath Sarkar Shivaji levied this chauth as early as 1661 and 1670 A.D.. He demanded it at the point of the sword as he needed money for his wars. So the geographical limitation become one of the major hurdles in the march of Marathas to build a paramount power of India

Shivaji’s centralised administration and the ryotwari system broke down during the dark day following Shambuji’s fall. The jagir (saranjami) system was revived in its place. Rajaram assigned different parts of the Deccan to the different army leaders through formal sanads, to subjugate and to realise from them the Chauth and Sardeshmukhi, a part of which they would remit to the king, retaining the rest to defray their expenses. Since the army chiefs had to do this job on their own they exhibited signs of independent and professed only nominal allegiance to the king.

With the release of Shahu, a contest between him and Tara Bai to win over these military leaders to their side began. Balaji Vishwanath the peshwa, to make his own office hereditary encouraged the chiefs to make similar claims, so as to prevent them from opposing the Peshwa on this score. In 1719 A.D. When the Maratha claims to Chauth and sardeshmukhi in the six provinces of the Deccan and similar claims over some other territories which were outside their sway were recognised by the Mughal emperor, the different chiefs were assigned separate areas and were permitted to keep great part of their collections for their expenses. Further the Peshwa assigned the duty of meeting the expense of the different departments of the king to the different chiefs. This virtually made the king a pensioner depending for his supplies on the feudatory chiefs who naturally become more important. They now started establishing their control in the distant lands of the mughal empire and gradually settled down there as more or less independent chiefs. Of these the families of Gaekwar, Holkar, Sindhia and Bhonsle became prominent.

Baji Rao I being a strong man tried to assert himself and establish his supremacy over all the other chiefs but could not make much progress in that direction. The feudatory chiefs like Malhar Rao Holkar and Sindhia asserted their authority. They occupied Baroda and Gwalior respectively and carried the Maratha arms to Delhi and the Gangetic Doab. Raghuji Bhonsle captured Orrisa and levied chauth in Bengal and Bihar. After the death of Madhava Rao I the office of the Peshwa lost its significance giving way to the supremacy of the feudatory chiefs

Thus the growth of the confederacy eventually turned out to be detrimental to the power of the Peshwa and became a Frankenstien Monster trying to devour its creator. The whole process paved the way for the disintegration of the Maratha power.

Answer : Within a span of eight year (1848-1856) Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India, brought into harmony the work of his predecessors and consolidated the scattered territories under the company’s direct rule. In the north-west the British became the warden of the passes, in the north the boundries of the British India became contagious to Tibet and the Chinese empire, in the south-east the British controlled the entire coast line on both sides of the Bay of Bengal.

His annexations- which added between a third and a half to the territorial size of British India of 1848 were both of ‘war’ and ‘peace’. His annexations of war based on the right to conquest’ were those of Punjab, Pegu and Sikkim. The revolt of Mul Raj, the Governor of Multan, gave a reason to fulfil his imperialistic instinct. On November 16, 1948, the British armies under Lord Gough crossed the frontier. The Sikh cause collapsed in the battles at Ramnagar, Chilianwala and Gujrat. By the proclamation of 29 March 1949, the Punjab was annexed. Maharaja Dalip Singh was pensioned off and the British took over the adminstration of the Punjab.

Two British captains, shepherd and Lewis were heavily fined by the Burman Government. This provided the desired opportunity for Dalhousie. He deputed Commodore Lambert to negotiate for redressal of grievances and demand compensation. Lambert’s provocative line of action ensued war in which the Burmese were defeated. Dalhousie who had already made up his mind to annex lower Burma on account of the threatening advance of America and France in the Eastern seas, issued a proclamation on December 20, 1852, annexing Pegu.

The Raja of Sikkim was charged with the offence of maltreating and imprisonment of two english doctors. In 1950, it was annexed by Dalhousie. Dalhousie’s annexation of peace came by the application of the Doctrine of lapses and included among others Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Bhaghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Nagpur (1853) and Jhansi (1854). Nawab Wajid Ali Shah, the Nawab of Avadh had many heirs and could not therefore be covered by the Doctrine of lapse. Dalhousie accused him of misgoverning his state and of refusing to introduce reforms. His state was therefore annexed in 1856.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was in arrears with the payment of British contingent, which he was not actually obliged to maintain by the terms of his treaty with the British. Dalhousie nevertheless coerced him into making territorial cessions for the regular payment of the “Hyderabad Contingent”. By an agreement made in May 1853, the cotton producing province of Berar was given to the company in lieu of the subsidy.

Answer : The conquest of Sindh occurred as a result of the growing Anglo-Russian rivalry in Europe and Asia and the consequent British fears that Russia might attack India through Afghanistan or Persia. To counter Russia, the British Government decided to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Persia. It further felt that this policy could be successfully pursued only if Sindh wasbrought under British control. The commercial possibilities of the river Sindh were an additional attraction. The road and rivers of Sindh were opened to British trade by a treaty in 1832. The chiefs of Sindh, known as Amirs, were made to sign a subsidiarytreaty in 1839. And finally,in spite of previous assurances that its territorial integrity would be respected, Sindh was annexed in 1843 after a brief campaign by Sir Charles Napier who had earlier written in his diary : 'We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful humane piece of rascality it will be'. He received seven lakhs of rupees as prize money for accomplishing the task.

Answer : Bengal was the most fertile and richest of India's provincess. Its industries and commerce were well developed. The East India company and its servants had highly profitable trading interests in the province. The company had secured valuable privileges in 1717 under a royal farman by the Mughal Emperor, which had granted the Company the freedom to export and import their goods in Bengal without paying taxes and the right to issue passes or dastaks for the movement of such goods. The company's servants were also permitted to trade but were not covered by this farman.

They were required to pay the same taxes as Indian merchants. This farman was a perpetual source of conflict between the company and the Nawabs of Bengal. For one, it meant loss of revenue to the Bengal Government. Secondly, the power to issue dastakes for the company's goods was misused by the Company's servants to evade taxes on their private trade. All the Nawabas of Bengal, from Murshid Quali Khan to Alivardi Khan, had objected to the English interpretation of the farman of 1717. They had compelled the company to pay lump sums to their treasury, and firmly suppressed the misuse of dastakes. The company had been compelled to accept the authority of the Nawabs in the matter, but its servants had taken every opportunity to evade and defy this authority.

Matters came to a head in 1756 when the young and quicktempered Siraj-ud-Daulah succeeded his grandfather, Alivardi Khan. He demanded of the English that they should trade on the same basis as in the times of Murshid Quli Khan. The English refused to comply as they felt strong after their victory over the French in South India. Instead of agreeding to pay taxes on their goods to the Nawab, they levied heavy duties on Indian goods entering Calcutta which was under their control. All this naturally annoyed and angered the young Nawab who also suspected that the company was hostile to him and was favouring his rivals for the throne of Bengal. The breaking point came when, without taking the Nawab's permission, the Company began to fortify Calcutta in expectation of the coming struggle with the French, who were stationed at this time at Chandernagore, Siraji rightly interpreted this action as an attack upon his sovereignty. How could an independent ruler permit a private company of merchants to build forts or to carry on private wars on his land? In other words, Siraj was willing to let the Europeans remain as merchants but not as masters. He ordered both the English and the French to demolish their fortifications at Calcutta and Chandernagore and to desist from fighting each other.

While the French Company obeyed his order, the English company refused to do so, for its ambition had been whetted and its confidence enhanced by its victories in the carnatic. It was now determined to remain in Bengal even against the wishes of the Nawab and to trade there on its own terms. It had acknowledged the British Government's right to control all its activities; it had quietly accepted restrictions on its trade and power imposed in Britain by the British Government; its right to trade with the East had been extinguished by the Parliament in 1693 when its Charter was withdrawn; it had paid huge bribes to the king, the Parliament, and the Politicians of Britian (in one year alone, it had to pay £80,000 in bribes). Neverthless the English Company demanded the absolute right to trade freely in Bengal irrespective of the Bengal Nawab's orders. This amounted to a direct challenge to the Nawab's sovereignty. No ruler could possibly accept this position. Siraj-ud-Daulah had the statesmanship to see the long-term implications of the English designs. He decided to make them obey the laws of the land.

Acting with great energy but with undue haste and inadequate preparation, Siraj-ud-Daulah seized the English factory at Kasimbazar, marched on to Calcutta, and occupied the Fort William on 20 June 1756. He then retired from Calcutta to celebrate his easy victory, letting the English escape with their ships. This was a mistake for he had underestimated the strength of his enemy. The English officials took refuge at Fulta near the sea protected by their naval superiority. Here they waited for aid from Madras and, in meantime, organised a web of intrigue and treachery with the leading men of the Nawab's court. Chief among these were Mir Jafar, the Mir Bakshi, Manick Chand, the officers-in-charge of Calcutta, Amichand, a rich merchant, Jagat Seth, the biggest banker of Bengal and Khadim Khan, who commanded a large number of the Nawab's troops. From Madras came a strong naval and military force under Admiral Watson and Colonel Clive. Clive reconquered Calcutta in the beginning of 1757 and compelled the Nawab to concede all the demands of the English.

The English, hoever, were not satisfied, they were aiming high. They had decided to instal a more pliant tool in Siraj-ud-Daulah's place. Having joined a conspiracy organised by the enemies of the young Nawab to place Mir Jafar on the throne of Bengal, they presented the youthful Nawab with an impossible set of demands. Both sides realised that a war to the finish would have to be fought between them. They met for battle on the field of plassey, about 30 km from Murshidabad, on 23 June 1757. The fateful battle of Plassey was a battle only in name. In all, the English lost 29 men while the Nawab lost nealry 500. The major part of the Nawab's army, led by the traitors Mir Jafar and Rai Durlabh, took no part in the fighting. Only a small group of the Nawab's soldiers led by Mri Madan and Mohan Lal fought bravely and well. The Nawab was forced to flee and was captured and put to death by Mri Jafar's son Miran. The English proclaimed Mir Jafar the Nawab of Bengal and set out to gather the reward. The company was granted undisputed right to free trade in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It also received the zamindari of the 24 Parganas near Calcutta. Mir Jafar paid a sum of Rs. 17,700,000 as compensation for the attack on Calcutta to the company and the traders of the city. In addition, he paid large sums as 'gifts' or bribes to the high officials of the company.

Even though Mir Jafar owed his position to the company, he soon repented the bargain he had struck. His treasury was soon emptied by the demands of the company's officials for presents and bribes, the lead in the matter being given by Clive himself. Mir Jafar soon discovered that it was impossible to meet the full demands of the company and its officials who, on their part, began to criticise the Nawab for his incapacity in fulfilling their expectations. And so, in October 1760, they forced him to abdicate in favour of his son-in-law, Mir Qasim, who rewarded his benefactors by granting the company the Zamindari of the districts of Burdwan, Midrapore, and Chittagong and giving handsome presents totalling 29 lakhs of rupees to the high English officials. Mir Qasim, however, belied English hopes, and soon emerged as a threat to their position and designs in Bengal. He ws an able, efficient and strong ruler, determined to free himself from foreign control. He realised that a full treasury and an efficient army were essential to maintain his independence. He therefore, tried to prevent public disorder, to increase his income by removing corruption from revenue administration, and to raise to modern and displined army along European lines. All this was not to the liking of the English.

Mir Qasim realised that if these abuses continued he could never hope to make Bengal strong or free himself of the company's control. He, therefore, took the drastic step of abolishing all duties on internal trade, thus giving his own subjects a concession that the English had seized by force. But the alien merchants were no longer willing to tolerate equality between themselves and Indians. They demanded the reimposition of duties. On Indian traders. The battle was about to begin again. The truth of the matter was that there could not exist two masters in Bengal. While Mir Qasim believed that he was an independent ruler, the English demanded that he should act as a mere tool in their hands, for had they not put him in power?

Mir Qasim was defeated in a series of battles in 1763 and fled to Awadh where he formed an alliance with Shuja-ud-Daulah, the Nawab of Awadh, and Shah Alam II, the fugitive Mughal Emperor. The three allies clashed with the company's army at Buxar on 22 October 1764 and were thoroughly defeated. This was one of the most decisive battles of Indian history for it demonstrated the superiority of English arms over the combined army of two of themajor Indian powers. It firmly established the British as masters of Bengla, Bihar and Orissa and placed Awadh at their mercy. Clive, who had returned to Bengal in 1765 as its Governor, decided to seize the chance of power in Bengal and to gradually transfer the authority of Government from the authority of Government from the Nawab to the Company. In 1763, the British had restored Mir Jafar as Nawab and collected huge sums for the company and its high officials. On Mir Jafar's death, they placed his second son Nizam-ud-Daulah on the throne and as a reward to themselves made him sign a new treaty on 20 February 1765. By this treaty the Nawab was to disband most of his army and to administer Bengal through a Deputy Subahdar who was to be nominated by the company and who could not be dismissed without its approval. The company thus gained supreme control over the administration (or nizamat) of Bengal. The members of the Bengal council of the company once again extracted nearly 15 lakhs of rupees from the new Nawab.

From Shah Alam II, who was still the titular head of the Mughal Empire, the company secured the Diwani, or the right to collect revenu of Bihar, Bengal and Orissa. Thus, its control over Bengal was legalised and the revenues of the most propserous of Indian provinces placed at its command. In return, the company gave him a subsidy of 26 lakhs of rupees and secured for him the districts of Kora and Allahabad. The Emperor resided in the fort of Allahabad for six years as a virtual prisoners of the English. The Nawab of Awadh, Shuja-ud-Daulah, was made to pay a war indemnity of five million rupees to the company. Moreover, the two signed an alliance by which the company promised to support the Nawab against an outside attack provided he paid for the serivces of the troops sent to his aid. This alliance made the Nawab a dependent of the company.

Answer : An intense struggle for power was taking place at that time among the Marathas between the supporters of the infant Peshwa Madhav Rao II, led by Nana Phadnis, and Raghunath Rao. The British officials in Bombay decided to intervene on behalf of Raghunath Rao. They hoped thus to repeat the exploits of their countrymen in Madras and Bengal and reap the consequent monetary advantages. This involved them in a long was with the Marthas which lasted from 1775 to 1782.

This was a dark hour indeed for British power in India. All the Maratha Chiefs were united behind the Peshwa and his chief minister, Nana phadnis. The southern Indain powers had long been resenting the presence of the British among them and Haider Ali and the Nizam chose this moment to declare was against the company. Thus the British were faced with the powerful combination of the Marathas, Mysore and Hyderabad. Moreover, abroad they were waging a losing war in their colonies in America where the people had rebelled in 1776. They had also to counter the determined design of the French to exploit the difficulties of them old rival.

The British in India were, however, led at this time by the energetic and experienced Governor-General, Warren Hastings. He acted with frim resolve and determination. Neither side won victory and the war came to a standstill. Peace was concluded in 1782 by the Treaty of Salbai by which the status quo was maintained. It saved the British from the combined opposition of Indian powers. This war is known in history as the First Anglo-Maratha war.

Answer : The war between Mir Qasim and the company broke out in 1763. In the series of encounters that followed, Mir Qasim was worsted. He escaped to Oudh and organised a confederacy with Nawab of Oudh and the Emperor Shah Alam II in a final bid to oust the English from Bengal. The combined armies of the three powers numbering between 40,000 to 60,000 met an English army of 7, 072 troops commanded by Major Munro at the battle field of Buxor on 22nd October, 1764. Casualties on both sides were heavy. The English won the day, Buxar confirmed the decision of plassey. Now English power in Northern India became unchallengeable. The new Nawab of Bengal was their stooge, the Nawab of Oudh a grateful subordinate, the Emperor their pensioner. The whole territory up to Allahabad lay at their feet and road to Delhi open. Never after Buxar did the Nawabs of Bengal or Oudh ever challenge the superior position of the company; rather the years following witnessed the tightening of English grip over these regions.

If the battle of plassey had made the English a powerful factor in the politics of Bengal, the Victory of Buxar made them a great power of Northern India and contenders for the supremacy of the whole country. The English now faced theAfghans and Marathas as serious rivals in the final struggle for the Empire of Hindustan. If plassey had imposed the European yoke on Bengal the victory of Buxar riveted the shackless of badage.

As G.B. Malles on puts it, 'whether regarded as a duel beteen the foreigner and the antive, or as an event pregnant with vast permanent consequences. Buxar takes rank amongst the most decisive battles every fought. Not only did the victory of the English advanced the British frontier to Allahabad, but it bounded the rulers of Awadh to conqueror by ties of admiration, of gratitude, of absolute reliance and trust, ties which made them for the ninety-four years that followed the friends of his friend and enemies of his enemies'.

Thus the battle of Buxar proved to be a decisive struggle with farreaching political consequences in the destiny of India.

Answer : By 1818, the entire Indian subcontinent except Punjab and Sindh had been brought under British control. Part of it was ruled directly by the British and the rest by a host of Indian rulers over whom the British exercised paramount power. These states had virtually no armed forces of their own, nor did they have any independent foreign relations. They paid heavily for the British forces stationed in their territories to control them. On the other hand, the British were now free to reachout to the national frontiers of India. The British completed thetask of conquering the whole of India from 1818 to 1857. Sindh and Punjab were conquered and Awadh, the central Provinces and a large number of other petty states were annexed.

Conquest of Sindh: The conquest of Sindh occurred as a result of the growing Anglo-Russian rivalry in Europe and Asia and the consequent fears that Russia might attack India through Afghanistan on Persia. To counter Russia, the British Government decided to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Persia. It further felt that this policy could be successfully pursued only if Sindh was brought under British control. The commercial possibilities of river Sindh were an additional attraction. Sindh in the eighteenth century was ruled by the Kallora chiefs. In 1771, a Baluchi tribe of the Talpura descended from the hills and settled in the plains of Sindh. In 1783, Mir Fath Ali Khan the leader of the Talpura, established complete hold over Sindh and the Kallora prince was exiled. Mir Fath Ali Khan who claimed a vague suzerainty over Sindh was confirmed in his dominions by the Durrani monarch and forced to share the country with his brothers. When he did in 1800 those brothers popularly known as 'Char Yar' divided the Kingdom among themselves, calling themselves the Amirs or Lords of Sindh. Soon these Amirs extended their dominion on all sides annexed Amarkot from Raja of Jodhpur, Karachi from chief of Luz, Shikanpur and Bukkar from Afghans. They established their three branches with headquarters at Hyderabad, Khairpur and Mirpur. As early as in 1775, the East India Company had established a factory at Thatta and had commercial relations with Sindh, but it had to be abandoned in 1792 because of fiscal impositions and prevailing political unrest. But fear of French designs prompted them to concentrate on Sindh.

Early Relations of English & Sindh: Fear of French designs prompted Lord Minto to send British mission to Kabul, Persia, Lahore and Sindh. A treaty of 'eternal friendship' was signed with the Amirs in 1809 providing for mutual intercourse through envoys and the Amirs promised not to allow the French to Settle in Sindh. The Treaty was renewed in 1820 with additional article which excluded the Americans from Sindh. In the meantime, Punjab under Ranjit Singh had become an important political power. After strengthening his position in Punjab, Ranjit Singh had started planning to conquer Sindh,with this intention he met Lord William Bentrick in 1831 at Ropar with the proposal of jointly conquering Sindh and partitioning Sindh between them. But Bentick refused to talk on this proposal and thus tried to contain Ranjit Singh growing influence and ambitions.

By the time, the commercial and navigational value of Sindh and Indus respectively was very clear to English. It was in pursuance of commercial motives that in 1831 Sir Alexander Burnes, under orders from Lord Ellenbrough, then President of Board of Control was sent for the exploration of the Indus under pretence of carrying presents to Ranjit Singh at Lahore. The Baluchis could scent the game of the English. When Burnes first entered the Indus, a Baluchi Soldier said, 'The mischief is done, you have seen our country'. A sciad commented : 'Alas! Sindh is now gone since the English have seen the river which is the high road to this conquest.''

Treaty of 1832: In 1832 William Bentick sent colonal Pottinger to Sindh to sign a new commercial treaty with the Amirs, Simultaneously Leulinant Del Host was sent in survey the course of the lower Indus. Pottinger signed a treaty with the Amirs of Sind on the following terms :

• A free passage for English travellers and merchants through Sindh, and the use of Indus for commercial pursuits but no vessel of war was to come by the said river nor military stores to be conveyed by the above river or roads of Sindh.
• No English merchant was to settle in Sind and travellers and visitors were required to have passports.
• Tariff rates were to be announced an no military dues or toll to be demanded. The Amirs agreed to alter the tariff rates, if found too high.
• Amirs agreed to put down, in concert with the Raja of Jodhpur, the border robbers of Cutch.
• The old treaties of friendship were confirmed and the contracting parties agreed not to look with the eye of covetousness on the possession of one another.

This treaty gave English an opportunity to establish dominance over Sindh. The roads and rivers were opened to British trade. The details of tariff rates were settled by a supplementary commercial treaty of 1834. Colonel Pottinger was stationed as companies Political Agent in Sind. Soon the company put up a claim for a share in the tolls collected at the mouth of the Indus.

Lord Auckland and Sindh: Lord Auckland looked upon Sindh from the longer problem of the defence of India against Russian designs. To counter Russian plans Auckland wanted to obtain a counteracting influence over the Afghans. Therefore first English checked Ranjits Singh's design to conquer Sindh, although Ranjit Singh had taken Rojhan, a town on the Sind frontier and at one time even mediated a regular invasion of Sind. The company seized this monent to offer protection to the Amirs.

Pottinger was sent to Hyderabad to negotiate a new subsidiary treaty. Reluctantly Amirs agreed to a treaty in 1838 by which the Amirs accepted the company's mediation in their dispute with the Sikhs and secondly, accepted a British Resident at Hyderabad, who could move freely anywhere he liked escorted by British troops. Thus the Amirs virtually passed under the British protection. Lieulinant General Sir W.F.P. Napier writes, 'This treaty by which a loaded shell was placed in the palace of the Amirs to explode at pleasure for their destruction, was abstractedly an unjust oppressive action.

Auckland was not satisfied by this. He brought Ranjit Singh, Shah Shuja and Amirs to sign a Tripartile Treaty in June 1838. By this treaty Ranjit Singh accepted British mediation for his dispute with the Amirs, and Shah Shuja agreed to relinguish his sovereign rights on Sind on condition of receiving the arears of tribute. But Ackland was still not satisfied. Clonel Pottinger was sent with the draft of a treaty to the Amirs with the direction to persuade or compel the Amris to pay the money and also consent to the abrogation of that article of the treaty of 1832 which concerned the non-conveyance of military sores though the roads and rivers of Sindh. He also threatenced the Amirs with military might.

Treaty of 1839: Under the threat of superior force, the Amirs accepted a treaty in February 1839 by which a British subsidence force was to be stationed at Shikarpur and Bukkar and the Amirs of Sind were to pay Rupees three lakhs annually for the maintenance of the Companys troops. Further the Amirs were not to have any negotiations with foreign stateswithout the knowledge of the company's Government to provide store — room at Karachi for military supplies to abolish all tolls on the Indus and it furnish an auxiliary force for the Afghan war if called upon to do so.

The British Government in return pledged itself not to middle with the internal rule of the Amirs either generally or in respect of their Separate possessions aggression. Amirs under threat and pressure accepted and abided by the Treaty imposed on them. They even helped English in Afghan war (1839-42) but instead of getting reward for their fidelity were charged with hostility and disaffection against the British Government.

Lord Ellenbourough: In 1842, Lord Ellenborough succeeded Auckland as Governor-General. He laboured hard to regain the prestige of the English which had suffered during the Afghan war. Therefore, he made a plan to annex Sindh and started working in that direction.

In September, 1842 Sir Charles Napier replaced Major Outram as the company's Resident in Sindh. Napier was given full civil and military authority and placed in charge of all the troops of the Upper and Lower Sindh. He got the pretext, when Amir Rustum of Khairpur was charged with entering into secret intercourse with foreign states contrary to treaty. Other charges against him include hostile attitude towards British mal treatment of British public servants obstructing the navigation of Indus illegal imprisonment of British subjects. Against Nasir Khan of Hyderabad, the charges were — assembling of troops to attack Sher Mohammad of Mirpur on a boundary dispute under British arbitration etc. Above all, these two Amirs were charged with a secret offensive and defensive alliance against the company.

As a punishment Lord Ellenborough imposed a new treaty to the Amirs in 1843, as a Security for future, Qutram was Send to negotiate the detials of new treaty. By new treaties the Amirs were required to cede important territories (Karrachi, Thatta, Bakkar, Rohrel) in lieu of tribute, to provide fuel to the steamers of the company navigating the Indus and Surrender the right of coming money. Meantime, a succession dispute at Khairpur gave Napier the opportunity to interfere. Napier supported the claims of Ali Murad, brother of Old Mir Rustum in Preference to Mir Rustum's Son. Mir Rustum however abdicated in favour of his son and took to flight. From the flight of Mir Rustum may be dated the commencement of the Sindian War.

The War had already been started by Napier prior to Treaty of 1843. He had destroyed the fort of Imamgarh at Khairpur and Hyderabad in January 1843 and forced the Amirs to sign a treaty. Napier's act of aggression drove the Baluchis to the point of desperation. They planned to murder major outram, attacked him on 15 February, 1843 and were prepared to fight to the bitter end Napier and outram had to take refuge in ship. Now Napier used all his strength to defeat Baluchis.

In February, 1843 Napier defeated a Baluchi army at Miani and won another victory at Dabo in March, six miles from Hyderabad the following month. By April, the whole of Sindh had capitulated. The Amirs were made captive and banished from Sindh. In August 1843, Sindh was annexed to English Empire. Napier received seven lakhs of rupees as prize money for accomplishing the task, and outram offered 3,000 pound but he did not accept it.

Justification of Annexation: The annexation of Sind has met with universal condemnation both at the hands of politicians and historians. As there was no justification for the war, the Amirs had always obeyed the terms of treaty which were breached by the English themselves. It true sense, Lord Ellenborough had taken this step to regain the prestige of English which had suffered during the Afghan war.

To accomplish this act he took help of Napier's shrewdness. Even Napier himself was not convinced of the righteousness of annexation. In his diary he noted, 'We have no right to seize Sind, Yet he shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be. 'Even outram disagreed with Napiers policy and wrote to him. 'I am sick of your policy I will not say yours is best, but it is undoubtedly by the shortest — that of sword.

The Times of London described the whole business 'rotten throughout'. The Bombay Times wrote, 'Alas! that this man bears the name of English man! Alas! that he is born in the glorious age of Wellington which he disgraces'. Henry Lawrence wrote, 'I do not think that Government can do better than restore it to the Amirs'.

Robert Peel. The Prime Minister of England, described the conquest as full of precipitate and unjust proceeding which would discredit the 'name and character' of the British authorities. Though convinced of the unjustness of the annexation of Sindh, the Home authorities did not reverse the decision of Government of India.

Sequel to the Afghan War: Charles Napier believed that the Sindian war was no isolated event, but 'the tail of the AFghan storm'. The conquest of Sind followed in the wake of Afghan war was morally and politically its sequel 'writes P.E. Roberts. The unattractive and barren land of Sind assumed great importance for the company's authorities because of its strategic value in building up the defences of India against possible Russo-Persian designs on India. It became a pretext for their aggressive policies.

Perhaps it was inexpedient and unjust to invade Afghanistan, but that invasion in the eyes of Ellenborough and many Englishmen made it expedient, though unjust to coerce the Amirs of Sindh. Ranjit Singh would not give a passage through the Punjab to the company's army of invasion of Afghanistan. The weakness and richness of the Amirs of Sindh offered advantages which the uncurious Government of Auckland would not overlook. Thus, the amirs were coerced to provide finances for the Afghan Adventure and also military cantonment and other facilities in their territories for the passage of the company's troops. Treaty after treaty was forced on the Amirs to meet the changing Afghan situation.

The failure of the Afghan adventure put the Government of India under the necessity of increasing vigilance about the frontier problem. In India, there was universal despondency and such a great terror of the Afghans that it was scarcely possible to find resources for remittance to the British General in Afghanistan. There were stirrings at Gwalior and Sangor and spreading unrest in the whole of Bundelkhand. Some Madras regiments were on the verge of mutiny.

In short, the fear of England's power and belief in her invincibility had been shaken. To demonstrate England strength and to re-establish her prestige, Elleborough Sanctioned the conquest of Sindh. Elphinstone has rather bluntly put it, 'coming from Afghanistan, it put one in mind of a bully who has been knocked in the street and went home to beat his wife in revenge.

H.H. Dodwell viewed broadly, the annexation of Sind seems comparable with the assumption of the Carnatic. In both cases advantage was taken of foolish and hostile conduct to secure a considerable political advantage. Ellenborough like Wellesely was more concerned to consolidate and strengthen the position of the East India company.