The Anarchy, The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of An Empire

            By William Dalrymple

            (It is not strictly a review – it is also a brief about the thoughts that arose after reading it)

           

While Indians have read about English rule in India in schools and colleges, mostly from Indian point of view, this is the only book I have read about the beginning of East India Company and how it came to India for trading and how it became the ruler of a subcontinent.   This is almost a biography of East India Company. The main title ‘Anarchy’ describes the conditions that existed during the period when East India Company took over the political and economic control of India.

It would be very difficult to imagine the political situation in a vast geographical area, (which we call India now) where hundreds of small principalities existed.  Scores of big states were ruled by kings and one or two very big states were controlled by Maharajas’ and it was an empire which formally controlled most of the area in the subcontinent.  Every ruler was trying to expand his area of control through hook or by crook.  The methods employed to acquire more area was only war.  Each of the states existed on the basis of its military strength and economic prosperity and the political strength they could muster from the landlords, peasants, artisans and the rest of the population.  Violence and conspiracy were the methods used to usurp power from others, to seize power from brothers and fathers.   Loyalty demanded of its subjects was to the heads of the states.  Punishment for disloyalty was death or imprisonment as per the whims of the man who wielded power.  There was no concept of Nation and there was no concept of anti-national as loyalty was to the king.  It was not on the principle of citizenship that the states were organized.  The borders were defined by the extent of direct control exercised by the rulers, primary means of which was the threat of violence.  It was a different world altogether.  We could not retrospectively apply the concepts of nation, citizenship or cultural unity or diversity.  Yes, there were political conditions existent for conceiving these modern notions.  But it was not conceived by anyone in fifteenth or sixteenth century. It must be remembered that during the first war of independence, which was not a war for independence in the modern sense, the ultimate goal was for handing over the empire back to Moghul ruler and nothing more.   Only during the course of our freedom struggle our freedom fighters conceived an alternative to the British (monarchic) rule on the basis of the then existing political institutions that existed in England, America and France etc.  This should be remembered before going into the history of the period.  In short there was no imaginary akhada bharat, either politically or culturally. 

The borders of states shifted often when one ruler defeated another and annexed whole or certain part of the subjugated state. When Auranzeb was the emperor, his Moghul state extended from Kabul to Carnatic. During other times the areas ruled by kings and emperors differed. 

East India Company was formed with a hundred shareholders and obtained permission from the Queen of England to make trade in ‘East Indies and other Islands or countries thereabouts there”.

“At that time England was a relatively impoverished, largely agricultural country, which had spent almost a century at war with itself over the most divisive subject of the time: Religion”, and ‘cut themselves off from the most powerful institution of Europe. (The author refers to the Pope and Catholic Christianity.  England had rejected the power of pope in religious and political matters).  English were in search of global markets and commercial openings. ‘This they did with piratical enthusiasm’.  They raided Spanish mule trains, attacked and looted ships. Some of these pirates were founding fathers of East India Company.

This author brings out that the Moghul empire had expanded to the maximum under Aurangzeb and in his obsession to bring southern areas of the subcontinent under his direct control, he had to spend enormous military and economic resources.  His successors were not able to maintain control in the far lying areas and slowly the regional chieftains and governors gained substantial political power, gathered military strength to behave more independently while retaining their formal loyalty to the emperor.  Thus the centralized system of the empire was collapsing, albeit very slowly. 

Nader Shah of Persia had his eyes on the Moghul riches.  He had seized power in Iran in a Military coup in 1732.  He invaded Afghanistan (under Moghuls) and captured Kabul.  Within three months he reached Karnal some 100 km from Delhi.  Knowing Nader Shah’s strength and his own weakness, the then Moghul emperor went to him for talks and was captured.  Swivel guns which Nader Shah had in sufficient quantities decided each of his engagements with Moghul and other forces who only had swords to fight.

Nader Shah’s forces committed atrocities in Delhi.  One lakh people were killed.  He took away all the wealth collected by Moghuls including the second peacock throne.  Over 700 elephants, 4000 camels, 12000 horses carrying wagons all laden with gold, silver and precious stones were part of his loot.  Almost all the wealth of Moghuls and Delhi went to Iran.  The Moghul emperor kneeled before Nader Shah to stop the atrocities on the people of Delhi. This was virtually the end of great moghul power.    They had lost for all times to come the power and prestige and credibility.

(Nader Shah was not especially cruel.  It had happened in all the wars all the times.   Chola’s war against Kalinga kingdom was not less cruel. The tamil long poem ‘ Kalingathu ParaNi’ describes the cruelties inflicted on the enemy.  Though exaggerated, it is an indicator of the cruelties and the celebrations after committing the cruelty. Ashoka’s victory over Kalinga was another example. It changed his attitude to life.  It is illustrative of the barbarity of war).

East India Company which had obtained permission from Moghul emperor for engaging in trading bided for their time.  They slowly made their moves, first in Bengal.  They systematically captured all the provinces by siding with one king or governor against the other and grew in their influence and power.  One by one they finished or subjugated the moghul governors.  Then defeated Tipu in 1799, Marattas thereafter.  They used all kinds of strategies.  Bribes, desertions, betrayals were all part of their games.  But only EIC could not be blamed for this.  Each and every king or governor had only a narrow minded instinct to seize power and retain it to himself, without bothering to help others.  Only one Maratta ruler had thought of uniting others against EIC, but other rulers had suspected  Maratta rulers intentions.  Even Marattas had their own difference.  The governor in Pune did not agree with others.  Thus one by one all the states fought EIC separately and lost control of their territories. EIC had better organization, firepower, discipline and commanded loyalty of their troops - they could pay them regularly. 

In the present political situation, it has become fashionable to talk about the atrocities committed by the Moghul Rulers as ‘Muslim atrocities’ in order to take political advantage.  We have to imagine that the Kings and rulers had wanted to rule as large area as possible and the only instrument for control was military campaigns which mean violence, not only against the kings and his soldiers but against civilians.  It involved destruction and looting of granaries, temples, houses etc.   Violence ensured power and control.  It was because they were kings and rulers that they committed atrocities and not because that they were Hindus or Muslims.

Evidence given in the book shows the level of violence unleashed on the civilian population during wars. For example, Maratta forces attacked Bengal region throughout 1740s  with horrifying violence killing as many as 400000 (4 lakh) civilians.  Bhaskar pandit, a general in the Maratta leader Bhonsle invaded Bengal with 20000 cavalries.  Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the pandit of Maharaja of Burdwan records that “Marattas are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every sinful act.  They created cataclysm and caused extirpation of the Bengal villages like an ominous comet’.

The Bengali poet Ganga Ram in his Maharashta Purana wrote that “All who lived in the village fled when they heard the name of the Bargis (Marattas).  Ladies of good family, who had never before set a foot on a road fled from the Bargis with baskets on their heads.  The land owning Rajputs who had gained their wealth with the sword, threw down their swords and fled.  Many farmers fled, their seed for the next year’s crops on the back of their bullocks and ploughs on their shoulders.  Pregnant women, all but unable to walk, began their labour on the roads and were delivered there”

When Marattas came “They snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else.  Of some people they cut off the hand, of some the nose and ears; some they killed outright.  They dragged away the most beautiful women, who tried to flee, and tied ropes to their fingers and necks.  When one had finished with a woman, another took her, while the raped women screamed for help.  The bargis after committing all foul, sinful and bestial acts, let these women go.  After looting in the fields, they entered the villages and set fire to the houses.  Bungalows, thatched cottages and temple, they burned them all, large and small.  They destroyed whole villages and roamed about on all sides plundering ..” It goes on like this.  It was ruthless violence which decided political outcomes.   Even now, though war remains the last resort, if it begins, violence, cruelty and civilian deaths in huge numbers cannot be ruled out. What happened to Saddan Hussain and Col. Gadafi is not exceptional.  It had happened all through history.  When it comes to barbarism during and after war, there is not much difference between 16^th Century and 21^st century.

Marattas were careful to avoid English or European settlements, for Europeans excel in the use of cannon and muskets”. It appears that Marattas drove Bengalis to the control of EIC.  Their control was better than Moghus.  They had provided a semblance of order.  Another man, Shushtari wrote that “whatever may be the vices, the English welcomed and rewarded talent: ‘The English have no arbitrary dismissal,’ he noted ‘and every competent person keeps his job until he writes his own request for retirement or resignation.   More remarkable still is that they take part in most of the festivals and ceremonies of Muslims and Hindus, mixing with the people. They pay great respect to accomplished scholars of whatever sect”.

As the author says ‘East India Company was a commercial corporation acting as a state’.  He also recalls what an American patriot who fought and defeated British had perceived of EIC.  ‘EIC’, he said, ‘having plundered India, was casting their eyes on Americas as a new theatre where on to exercise their talents of rapine, oppression and cruelty.  EIC wrecked the most unparalleled barbarities, extortions and monopolies in Bengal, now wished the same in America.  But thank GOD, we are not seapoys or Maratta’.

There were very powerful merchants in Bengal then.  Jagat Seth Bankers controlled and financed rulers of Bengal.  They financed and masterminded a coup in which Ali Verdi Khan came to power in 1740.

East India company, allowed its leaders to loot India and let them get away with it.  Robert Clive’s progress from a small time clerk to Member of British parliament with the riches he harvested is mentioned in the book.  EIC repatriated huge profits to England.  It used the money in buying its way in Parliament and used it to further increase its profits.   This is similar to the current situation in the world where mega corporations install and dispose the rulers at their whims. EIC was the first corporation to use commerce to control politics.  East India company’s plans in India succeeded beyond their imagination.  Just as in the past when one ruler was pitted against other and maximum gain was extracted from each, the MNCs of today with their financial might, influence the policies of governments in order to increase their revenue, power and prestige.  This books records and provides the details of the war campaigns and gives  chronology of events.  It also points out the shortsightedness of native rulers, even though many of them were very good administrators and excellent military leaders.  It is not to deny that fire power of the British Indian army decided the outcomes of military contests.  It is like one organized company against native rulers who were not able to unite to fight the foreign invaders.

My view, which was strengthened after reading this book, is that the political animal called India was a creation of those who struggled for independence.  We could argue that there was cultural unity even before that.  This is a story we want to believe.  This story was invented to inspire us into action.  If, there is continuity between say, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, this continuity did not extend beyond Maharashtra, even though there may be common cultures between Karnataka and Maharashtra.  I will try to explain this by using numbers.  Number 1 is related to 2, 2 is related to 3 and so on.  In this way 1 has some connection to 10 also.  But the connection between 1 and 10 is not as close as the one between 1 and 2.  This way the whole world is culturally united and also culturally divided. 

When I watch Iranian films, I see similarities between Iranian culture and north indian culture.  Even faces north Indian particularly Punjabi faces have resemblance to Iranian face.  This does not lead to the argument that Tamil Nadu has cultural similarities with Iran because Tamil Nadu and Punjab are part of India.  Similarly, on the eastern side, there are cultural similarities between North eastern people and Burmese people and on the southern side, there are cultural similarities between tamilnadu, kerala and Srilanka.  This cultural similarity does not lead to imagining that Burma is India or Srilanka is india.  On the contrary, when it comes to Pakistan, in spite of all the similarities between populations of India and Pakistan we are still two countries.  There is no point in saying that we were part of a nation, for we were not part of a nation but of many empires that existed before.  The concept of nation state was new to India at the time of our Independence.   Therefore, my argument is that cultural unity alone could not be the basis of nationhood. Real politics and political imagination plays a major part in conceiving nations.   This leads to the point that we were not divided by the British for their rule.  We were divided, we never had political unity except through empires.  If we imagine that India existed for thousands of years, it is not simply true.  Yes, the land existed and people existed but political unity did not exist and that is why it had to be conceived by the brilliant leaders of our freedom struggle.

        

Having been united after a long struggle we have political and other reasons to be united.  MNCs are influencing our politics in the name of globalization and free market philosophy.  The concept of nation is increasingly being challenged.  People are born in one country, get educated in in another and get employed in some other and it goes on.  The highly skilled are always welcome anywhere.  They will go to a places where their talents are respected.  To talk of nationalism and call someone pro-national and anti-national etc appears to be the relic of the past.   This only serves the purpose of rulers who are in position with the aid of aggressive state policies.  This serves the proponents of military domination, superpower status etc.  Just as humans originated in Africa and spread all over the world, human beings should be free to move around, nation or no nation.  Because we are basically one and the same people, who for administrative conveniences have been defined as nation-states.  The reason for our existence as a Nation State has to be found in our approach to citizenship, rights, and compromises we made with various groups of people in making India a political reality. This political reality should be linked to specific requirements of current and future political requirements and not linked to the imaginary past or its imaginary greatness.  It is this modern approach to nationalism that would ensure we remain united, despite our differences.

Finally, ‘Anarchy’ was not created by the rulers of the period, it was a fact of politics, of ambition of one ruler against the other, in a vast area, which became three states, in 1947.

It is a very excellent book which would correct some of our impressions about our past.  It will kindle our search for the ideal of a better nationhood.