PYQ Series

Answers:

Introduction:

The British Indologist V.A Smith argued that the British victory in the Battle of Buxar completed the work of Plassey. The political revolution in Bengal, the increase in economic resources of English East India Company (EIC) and reversal of Drain of wealth from England did support his argument but it also shows that the English victory at Buxar was far more important than the ‘Plassey Skirmish’ of 1757.

Body:

Give a comparative analysis of the impacts of Battle of Buxar and Battle of Plassey.

• Political Impact: The Political Revolution in Bengal which was started in 1757 after Plassey skirmish became irreversible after British victory in Buxar.

The De-facto ruler of Bengal (EIC) became the De-jure ruler of Bengal after the Battle of Buxar. The Treaty of Allahabad,1765 gave the Diwani rights of the whole Bengal Subah to the EIC and thus made them a part of the Mughal administrative system which proved a stepping stone in the Political revolution in Bengal.

• Territorial conquest: The British control over Indian territory enlarged after Buxar victory as apart from Bengal, over which a more direct control of EIC was established after Battle of Buxar,  Awadh became a subordinate ally of British and acted as a Buffer state against the Afghans and Marathas, and Mughal Emperor came to Company’s camp. Thus most of North India was under British control after 1765 which was clearly evident by 1803, when British took control over Delhi.
  
  

• Economic impact: The reversal of Drain of Wealth from England, which started in 1757 when EIC got revenue rights of three districts near Calcutta, became an established norm after 1765 when EIC got revenue rights of the whole Bengal Subah.

After 1765 no bullion was brought from England for Indian investment rather both the Indian and Chinese investments were financed from Indian revenue and the remaining surplus was transferred to England. Thus Drain of Wealth from India became an established phenomenon after the Battle of Buxar.

• The increased military strength of EIC: The number of troops stationed in Bengal after 1757 increased manifold after British victory in Buxar. The EIC Private Army soon touched the number of 40000, which eventually became the ‘sword arm of British’ in India.
  
  

• Elimination of Competition: After the Battle of Plassey British eliminated the competition from other European powers like Dutch and France. But after victory in the Battle of Buxar the EIC used the vast resources of Bengal, both financial and manpower, to eliminate the native competition from Mysore and Maratha.
  
  

• British exploitation: The System of Dual Government of Robert Clive became one of the most exploitative systems of governance seen during British Rule in India, which was clearly evident in the Bengal Famine of 1770. Thus the British exploitation which started after 1757 increased both in degree and order after 1765.

Critical View:

The British victory at Buxar was far more important and decisive than their victory at Plassey as argued by Sir James Stephen, He argued that  “the Battle of Buxar deserves far more credit than the battle of Plassey as the origin of the British power in India.” 

After 1765, the British became the De-jure ruler of Bengal, the territorial control of British increased to most of the north India, the Drain of Wealth from Indian became an established phenomenon, the strength of the Company's private army increased manifold  so was the exploitation of British Company.

Conclusion:

Based on the comparison of the political, economic, military and other impacts of both the battles we can say that the Battle of Buxar not only confirmed the decisions of Plassey but made the Political Revolution in Bengal an irreversible process which culminated in 1772 when the English Company created a separate political order of their own.

Answers:

Introduction:

The Mysore state under Haider Ali and later Tipu Sultan was rising as a militarised and mercantilist state with similar economic and political ambitions as that of English East India Company (EIC), in the background of growing Mysore-French alliance. This made Mysore a potent threat to yet vulnerable Company State in South India as demonstrated by Burton Stein, an American historian.

This resulted into 4 Anglo-Mysore wars in which EIC finally won in 1799 due to various factors like political rivalries among native powers, resource disparity and Tipu’s stern policies as highlighted by historians William Darlymple and C.A.Bayly.

Body:

Causes for Mysore emerging as a threat to the British:

1. Similar commercial interests: The aims of controlling malabar trade.
   
   

• The commercial contacts with France and Constantinople along with the domestic policy of commercial agriculture and establishment of state trading corporation shows the mercantilist character of Mysore and thus proved that it emerged as a competitor to the English trade in south India.
  Thus Thomas Munro and Alexander Reed called Mysore a ‘mercantilist state’ which needs to be eliminated to safeguard British interest in South India.
  
  

• The Mysore’s control on the spice trade (cardamom and pepper) of Malabar was a threat of British commercial interest.
  
  

• This threat became more prominent when in 1785 Tipu Sultan declared an embargo on export of Pepper, cardamom and sandalwood through the ports within his kingdom and in 1788 he explicitly forbade dealings with English traders which harmed the British interest and thus resulted in British policy of direct political intervention to safeguard their commercial interest.
  
  

2. Rise of Mysore was a threat to ‘company state’:

The Company State which was trying to secure their commercial interest was also having the territorial ambitions for earning revenue rights. Thus a strong militarised state of Mysore was a threat to their ambitions.

• The rise of a strong Mysore state, with a large standing army, modernized on European lines, a naval ambition, the administrative and revenue reforms along with stress on trade and diplomatic relations made Mysore a real contender of power in South India.
  
  

• British had already got a glimpse of the strong military power of Mysore in First Anglo-Mysore war and later in the ‘Battle of Pollilur’,1780, which according to Thomas Munro was ‘the severest blow that the English ever suffered in India’.
  
  

• This rising Mysore state was a threat to British territories in Madras and Carnatic and thus needed to be eliminated.
  
  

3. Mysore-French Alliance:
   
   

• The alliance was visible in modernization of Mysore army under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan. The diplomatic and trade relations between Mysore and Paris during Tipu’s reign further strengthened the British apprehensions.
  
  

• This alliance is also visible in Haider's attempt to form an international alliance with the rulers of France, Afghanistan and Iran against British forces, as highlighted in ‘Haidernama’.
  
  

• The Company state in south India saw the growing Mysore-French alliance as a threat to the British dominance in the region and Lord Wellesley used this Mysore-French alliance and threat of Napoleonic wars on India to promote his aggressive expansionist policy through Subsidiary alliance.

Due to the above factors the war between Mysore and British became inevitable and took place in a series of four wars between 1767-1799. Tipu Sultan was finally defeated in the Battle of Seringapatam in 1799. Historians have emphasized various causes of Mysore’s defeat including the policies of Tipu sultan.

Causes of Mysore’s defeat against EIC:

Tipu Sultan’s Policies:  Many historians have argued that Tipu Sultan  in an attempt to strengthen his regime imported a strong Islamic content as an ideological support, issuing coins in the name of Islamic heroes and holy men. Tipu started using the title ‘Padshah’ from early 1786 and treated himself as an independent sovereign. 

All this proved disastrous for Mysore as it alienated a large section of Mysore’s population and nobles who could have been his partners against British.

William Dalrymple in his book ‘The Anarchy’ has questioned the theory of religious prejudice behind this Tipu Sultan’s policies but has argued that the stern and brutal acts against rebels created a group of enemies against him which weakened his position against British forces.

But apart from Tipu’s policies historians like C.A.Bayly and others have highlighted the following causes for Mysore’s failure.

1. Rivalry between country powers: 

• Frequent warfare and growing rivalry between country powers weakened the internal stability of these powers. This rivalry provided the opportunity for the company state to intervene effectively in the internal politics of the native powers and use one against the other like they used the Maratha and Nizam of Hyderabad against Mysore.
  
  

• Even the ‘confederacy of native powers’ against the ‘company state’ was bound to fail because of the intrinsic rivalry among the native states.

2. Problem of resources: 

C. A. Bayly has argued that it was the disparity of resources between the two sides which led to failure of Tipu against the company state, the control over resource rich Bengal and support from metro pole,  gave the Company an upper hand against Mysore.

Conclusion:

Thus we can conclude by highlighting Burton Stein’s  argument that attitude of company officials like Thomas Munro and Alexander Read towards the ‘mercantilist state’ of Mysore was that of competitor with same hegemonic ambition as those of company state and thus they argued it cannot be relied upon in any arrangement of indirect rule based on principle of balance of power among the Indian state and thus need to be eliminated.

This resulted in Anglo-Mysore war in which Tipu Sultan died fighting in 1799 and thus brought Mysore under the infamous Subsidiary alliance system of Lord Wellesely and ended the independence of Mysore.

Answers:

Introduction:

Maratha Polity which is characterized by Confederation of powers under the leadership of Peshwa at Poona started losing its power and prestige by the last quarter of 18th century due to internal factionalism, as argued by C.A.Bayly and Jadunath Sarkar. 

But the external factors like problem of resources and resultant war economy, rivalry between country powers, and role of British officials also holds a place among the causes of disintegration of Maratha polity.

Body:

Internal factionalism as a factor of disintegration of Maratha power.

The internal factionalism which was caused due to structural weakness of the Maratha polity where the autonomous confederates always had centrifugal tendencies, as argued by Jadunath Sarkar, or due to its expansion beyond the natural frontier, definitely weakened the Peshwa’s control over the confederates and by the time the Anglo-Maratha war started the centre of Maratha polity had shifted from Poona to the periphery. 

This internal factionalism on one hand gave the opportunity to the English East India Company (EIC) to intervene in internal politics of Maratha and thus carve their own place and on the other eliminated the possibility of combined forces of Maratha Sardars against the British in Anglo-Maratha war and thus finally led to complete annihilation of Maratha polity in 1818 by abolition of Peshwaship.

Critics:

Although the internal factor played an important role in disintegration of Maratha polity but the following external factors also hold importance:

1. Problem of resources: 

As argued by Cambridge historian C.A. Bayly the problem of resources forced Maratha in constant warfare with the neighbouring native powers like Mysore and Hyderabad and thus on one hand weakened the internal stability and on the other made them dependent on external support of British which ultimately became the major cause of their undoing.

2. Rivalry between ‘country powers’:

The constant warfare among the country powers of peninsular India weakened the internal stability of these powers and also eliminated the chances of successful confederacy of native powers against ‘company state’.

3. Role of British policies and officials:

The superior diplomatic skills of governor generals like Warren Hastings and later Lord Cornwallis helped them in breaking the ‘confederacy of native powers’ and use one native power against the other. 

Also as Edward Ingram has suggested Lord Welleselly was not acting to the situation but was creating the situation of conquest, say the expansitions policy through subsidiary alliance with Maratha through Treaty of Bassein on the pretext of Napoleonic wars.

Also the policy of paramountcy of Lord Hastings further strengthened the British position vis-a-vis native Maratha power.

4. Social structure: 

Historian Jadunath Sarkar argued that the growth of orthodoxy and Brahmin- Maratha divide sapped the vitality of the state and became a major factor of their disintegration.

Conclusion:

Thus internal factionalism, which was the chief characteristics of 18th century Indian politics did weaken the Peshwa’s control over the rising regional satraps but the process of disintegration was fuelled by external factors like problem of resources, external wars and British policies.