THE BATTLE OF BUXAR – 1764

Buxar completed what Plassey had begun… Discuss

Outcome of Battle of Buxar

Importance of the Battle of Buxar

The war between Mir Kasim and the Company broke out in 1763. In the series of encounters that followed, Mir Kasim was worsted. He escaped to Oudh and organized a confederacy with the Nawab of Oudh and the Emperor 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 7072 troops commanded by Major Munro at the battlefield of Buxar on 22 October 1764. Casualties on both sides were heavy. The English won the day.

The Battle of Buxar was a closely contested battle in which the losses of the English numbered 847 killed and wounded while on the side of the Indian powers more than 2000 officers and soldiers were killed. If the victory of Plassey was the result of British conspiracy and diplomacy, the same can hardly be said of Buxar. Mir Kasim had made adequate preparations for the conflict and the Nawab of Oudh had mustered his best soldiers in the field. Evidently it was a victory of superior military power.

Buxar confirmed the decisions of Plassey. Now English powers in North India became unchallengable. The new Nawab of Bengal was their stooge, the Nawab of Oudh a grateful subordinate ally, the Emperor their pensioner. The whole territory upto Allahabad lay at their feet and the 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 victor of Buxar made them a great power of norther India and contenders for the supremacy of the whole country. The English now faced the Afghans and the Marathas as serious rivals int eh final struggle for the Empire of Hindustan. If Plassey had imposed the European yoke on Bengal, the victory of Buxar riveted the shackles of bondage.

The Battle of Buxar proved to be a decisive struggle with far reaching political consequences in the destiny of India.

Opinions:

G. B. Malleson – Whether regarded as a duel between the foreigners and the native, or as an event pregnant with vast permanent consequences, Buxar takes rank amongst the most decisive battels ever fought. Not only did the victory of the English save Bengal, not only did it advance the British frontier to Allahabad, but it bound the rulers of Awadh to the conqueror by ties of admiration, of gratitude, of absolute reliance and trust.

Alfred Lyall – The eventual and secondary consequences of the Battle of Buxar were very important. The success of the English brought the Emperor into their camp, intimidated the Vizier, carried the armed forces of the Company across the Ganges to Benares and Allahabad, and acquired for them a new, advanced and commanding position in relation to the principalities north west of Bengal, with whom they now found themselves for the first time in contact. By this war the English were drawn into connection with upper India, and were brought out upon a scene of fresh operations that grew rapidly wider.

DALHOUSIE AND THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE | REVOLT OF 1857

Was Dalhousie responsible for the outbreak of the first war of independence/ Revolt of 1857?

Dalhousie’s responsibility for the Revolt of 1857:

A storm had been gathering in India for a number of years. It burst out in 1857, a year after Lord Dalhousie left India. Dalhousie’s policy, however justified and legitimate it might have been, had caused great disquietude among Indian princes. The ruling princes, in the words of V. A. Smith, ‘knew nothing about subtle distinctions of ‘dependent’ and ‘subordinate’ states… They simply saw that principality after principality were escheated and annexed for one reason or another, so that no ruler of a native state felt safe… the pace was too fast and the cumulative effect of the transactions was profoundly unsettling’. The Doctrine of Lapse disregarded the customs and prejudices of the Indian people. It broke away from precedents and gave new interpretations to outdated and outmoded doctrines.

V. A. Smith blames Lord Dalhousie for lack of foresight. Smith writes ‘The outgoing governor general certainly had not the slightest prevision of the storm that was to break the next year in May and had not made any arrangements to meet it…he must share with his predecessors the censure due for permitting the continuance of a most dangerous military situation in India. He had not taken any precautions to protect the enormous store of munitions at Delhi, which was left in the hands of the native army, or to secure the essential strategical position of Allahabad. Whatever thought was devoted to military preparation in India was directed to the Punjab. Everywhere else the old haphazard distribution of the troops continued and nobody in authority, military or civil, seems to have realized the obvious perils incurred.’

T. R. Holmes absolves Dalhousie of responsibility for the weak military condition of the East India Company and blames the commander in chief for his failure to remedy the indiscipline in the army and for his neglect to safeguard Delhi and Allahabad. T. R. Holmes on the other hand, believes that the rebellion that broke out in Oudh was ‘due not to annexation, but to the harshness with which the Talukdars were treated’; the excesses committed in Jhansi are attributed ‘to the failure of Havelock’s earlier attempts to relieve the Residency’. Holmes credits Dalhousie for his wise policy and constructive administrative work and says: ‘By the construction of road and telegraphs, and by the administration which he bestowed upon the Punjab, he contributed much to the power by which the mutiny was quelled’.

It must, however, be stated that Dalhousie’s annexations and escheats worsened the situation. He went too far too fast. His ruthless and injudicious policy provided leaders like the Rani of Jhansi, Nana Saheb, Tantia Tope, etc., who channelized the prevalent discontent and proved the brain behind the movement once the soldiers had mutinied. Responsibility for the rebellion of 1857-58 partly rests on the shoulders of Lord Dalhousie.

 

 

 

 

SIGNIFICANCE OF POLICY OF ‘RING FENCE’

The Policy of Ring Fence or Buffer State 1765-1813

Warren Hastings’ wars against Mysore and the Marathas were fought with the object of establishing an equality of status with the Indian rulers. This period also saw the emergence of the policy of creating buffer states around the company’s territories. The idea was purely that of defense of the frontiers of the of the Company. Broadly speaking, it was the policy of defense of their neighbors’ frontiers for safeguarding their own territories. The chief danger to the Company’s territories was from the Afghan invaders and the Marathas. To safeguard against these dangers, the Company undertook to organize the defense of the frontiers of Oudh on the condition that the Nawab would defray the expenses of the defending army. The defense of Oudh constituted the defense of Bengal at that time.

With the arrival of Wellesley, the Company’s relations with the Indian states underwent a change. Wellesley sought to reduce the Indian states to a position of dependence on the company. He aimed at bringing the Indian states within the ambit of British political power and military protection. On 12^th July 1803, George Barlow wrote ‘No native state should be left to exist in India which is not upheld by the British power or the political conduct of which is not under its absolute control’. This policy may be described as the extension of the policy of ‘ring fence’. Wellesley described his policy as purely defensive and pacific, for he felt compelled to extend the British dominions to counteract the designs of France. The rulers of Hyderabad, Mysore, Oudh and other lesser states accepted the Subsidiary Alliance System. The defeat of the Marathas in 1803 and Holkar in 1805, virtually established the supremacy of British power. The Subsidiary Alliance System was the Trojan horse tactic in empire building.

CORNWALLIS CODE

Cornwallis carried out judicial reforms known as the Cornwallis Code. Many types of ‘judges’ were appointed, and the judiciary was separated from the executive even at certain lower levels. The revenue courts in each district as also the judicial powers of the Board of Revenue were abolished and ‘judges’ tried all Civil cases. Criminal courts were set up, also presided over by regular judges.

The principles of the Code were:

The English system of separation of the executive from the judiciary was introduced at certain lower levels also.

The district Collector was divested of judicial and magisterial functions, so that he could concentrate on executive duties like revenue collection.

An elaborate system of appeals was introduced in civil and criminal suits; hence the courts were clearly graded from the lowest to the highest.

The Cornwallis Code, with all its defects, was the first step in a series of reforms which would make Indians gradually become accustomed to Britain’s legal system.

THE ENGLISH AND THE NAWABS OF BENGAL

 Historical Facts

Job Charnock laid the foundation of Calcutta.

Siraj ud Daulah ordered the English to demolish their fortifications at Chandarnagore.

After Siraj ud Daulah’s attack on Fort St. William, the English escaped and took refuge in Fulta.

Calcutta was renamed Alinagar after its capture by Siraj ud Daulah in 1756.

Mir Jafar was the Mir Bakshi in Siraj ud Daulah’s court.

Khadim Khan commanded the largest number of Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah’s troops.

Manik Chand was the officer in charge of Calcutta during Nawab Siraj ud Daulah’s regime in Bengal.

Jagath Seth was the biggest banker of Bengal during Nawab Siraj ud Daulah’s time.

Black hole tragedy – Siraj ud Daulah on his attack on Fort St. William captured 146 Britishers and put them in a small chamber leading to the death of 123 Britishers.

By the Treaty of Alinagar 1757, Siraj ud Daulah granted the British to mint coins, to fortify Calcutta and recognize their previliges.

Treaty of Alinagar was signed between Siraj ud Daulah and Robert Clive.

Battle of Plassey was fought on the banks of River Bhagirathi.

Robert Clive led the British forces in the Battle of Plassey 1757.

Mir Jafar was commander in chief of Siraj ud Daula’s troops.

On Mir Jafar’s mal-intentious advice, Siraj ud Daulah suspended the fight in the Battle of Plassey.

Casualties in the Battle of Plassey 1757 – about 65 on the English side and around 500 on the Nawab’s side.

Miran was the son of Mir Jafar.

Zamindari of 24 parganas were granted to the British by Mir Jafar.

Bengal, Bihar and Orrisa were areas where the British were granted undisputed right to trade by Mir Jafar.

Shah Alam II gave Mir Jafar the title of ‘Omrah’.

Mir Jafar gave the monopoly of salt and pepper trade in Bengal to the British.

By Treaty of Allahabad 1765, the British got the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orrisa from Shah Alam II.

Mir Jafar was called as Col. Clive’s Jackal.

Alivardi Khan was the Nawab of Bengal who gave permission to the English East India Company to fortify their settlements in Bengal.

The Dutch army helped Mir Jafar against the British in 1759.

Burdwan, Midnapur and Chittagong – the districts ceded to the East India Company by Mir Qasim.

Mir Qasim (Nawab of Bengal) transferred the capital from Murshidabad to Monghyr.

Mir Qasim gave permission to the English East India Company to mint coins in Bengal.

Mir Qasim protested the misuse of Dastaks by the English servants.

Mir Qasim suspended Ram Narayan, the Deputy Governor of Bengal and put him to death.

Mir Qasim admitted the English traders a share in the internal trade provided the English pay 9% duty on the cost of goods.

Mir Qasim restarted collecting Khajirijama which had earlier been stopped.

Mir Qasim abolished duties in Bengal for all traders in protest against the misuse of dastaks by the English servants.

Internal duties were levied in Bengal at the rate of 2.5%.

Drain of wealth from India to Britain started in the reign of Mir Jafar

Read more about the Drain of Wealth by clicking the link:Drain Theory

Mir Qasim formed a confederation to oust the English from Bengal with Shuja ud Daula, the Nawab of Oudh and Shah Alam II, the then Mughal Emperor.

Major Hector Munro commanded the English forces int eh Battle of Buxar of 1764.

Allahabad and Kara were areas which Shuja ud Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal had to cede to the British by the Treaty of Allahabad 1765.

Rupees 26 lakhs per annum was the annual payment made by the Company to the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II in lieu of the Diwani Right of Bengal secured by the Company.

Warren Hastings stopped the annual payment of Rupees 26 lakhs to Shah Alam II in lieu of the Diwani Right of Bengal.

Mir Jafar became Nawab of Bengal for the second time.

After Mir Jafar’s death, the English appointed Najim ud Daulah as the Nawab of Bengal.

For the exercise of Diwani, the English appointed two deputy Diwans – Mohammed Reza Khan in Bengal and Raja Shitab Roy in Bihar.

Robert Clive held the title of ‘Salbat Jung’.

The government of Bengal between 1765-72 was called as dual government because the Nizam performed the Nizamat functions and the English Company enjoyed Diwani rights.

Warren Hastings abolished dual government in Bengal since the Court of Directors desired so.

Robert Clive became Governor of Bengal twice. The tenures of his governorship were 1757-60 and 1765-67.

1765-72 was the period of dual governorship in Bengal.

Verelvt was the Governor of Bengal from 1767-69.

Cartier was the Governor of Bengal from 1769-72.

Warren Hastings became the Governor of Bengal in 1772.

Robert Clive divided his army and stationed them at three different places – Bankipur, Allahabad and Monghyr.

Dual system of Government was abolished by Regulating Act of 1772.

Governor of Bengla who committed suicide after returning back to England was Robert Clive. He committed suicide because he was declared guilty by the House of Commons.

Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General of India.

British secured the rights of duty free trade after Bengal in Awadh.

Warren Hastings transferred the state treasury from Murshidabad to Calcutta. 

THE FORWARD POLICY | SUBSIDIARY ALLIANCE

Explain the Forward Policy. How was it successful?

Lord Wellesley succeeded Sir John Shore in 1798 when Napoleon was threatening India after having conquered Egypt. By the time Wellesley was at the Cape of Good Hope on the way to India, he had formed his plans of following a ‘Forward Policy’. In this he was supported by the British Government.

Wellesley and the Subsidiary Alliance System – Wellesley wanted to make the British the dominant power in India. For this he decided to make use of the Subsidiary Alliance System.

Main features of the Subsidiary Alliance System:

The Indian ruler would have to surrender his foreign policy in the hands of the company. He was not to declare war, make peace or sign any treaty with any other ruler except through the Company. His relations with other rulers would be handled by the Company.

The Indian ruler would also have to surrender defense in the hands of the company. The Company would maintain an army in the territories of the Indian ruler to maintain order. Such an army would consist of Indian ‘sepoys’ but would be officered by Englishmen.

The ruler would have to pay for the maintenance of the regiments that the Company stationed in his territories. To prevent lapses in payment, the ruler would have to cede some districts to the Company and the revenue of these districts would be taken over by the Company. In addition, cash payments could also be demanded by the Company.

The Indian ruler would have to accept a British resident at his court. The resident would be the representative of the Company. He would stay at the Residency and would in practice have vast powers.

The native ruler was not to engage any Europeans other than those place at his service by the Company. This measure was particularly directed against the French.

The native ruler would administer his own state and the Company would not interfere in his internal administration.

It would be the company’s responsibility to protect the native state against every foreign enemy, European or Indian.

 

Advantages of the Subsidiary Alliance System to the Company:

The system disarmed the Indian ruler and placed him under the ‘protection’ of the Company. But ‘protection’ implied ‘control’. Thus, in the territory of the Indian state there were contingents of the Company’s army. The Indian ruler could not form any alliance against the company.

The system enabled the company to maintain a contingent at the expense of the native ruler. Since many rulers entered into Subsidiary Alliances, the Company had numerous contingents for which the rulers had to pay. Thus, large parts of the Company’s armed forces were supported by the native rulers.

The Company was able to control strategic military positions without having to conquer them. The company controlled large areas militarily without the necessity for administering them. Thus, the company’s military frontiers were far in advance of the Company’s political frontiers. In case of war, much of the fighting was done in the territories of the native states and the territories of the Company were often spared the ravages of war.

The Subsidiary Alliance System enabled the Company to prevent French intrigues in the Subsidiary states.

Whenever there was a dispute between two subsidiary states or even between two states of which one was a subsidiary state, then the Company would handle the dispute. So, the Company’s power and prestige rose immensely.

The company maintained a number of military officers in the Subsidiary state at the expense of the native rulers and a number of political officers at the Residency at its own expense. This increased the number of well-paid posts in the hands of the directors. A post int eh Company’s service was greatly coveted by Englishmen because though the salary was comparatively small, there were plenty of opportunities to get rich quickly. Thus, the patronage in the hands of the Company’s Directors increased tremendously.

Since most of the Subsidiary states were required to cede districts to maintain the Company’s armed contingent, the total area of such districts was considerable. Thus, the Company acquired direct control over numerous additional districts.

Since the Subsidiary state was virtually under the Company’s control, the Company could exploit the States economically, practically to the same extent as the company exploited the territories under its direct control.

 

Disadvantages of the Subsidiary System to the Subsidiary states:

On signing a Subsidiary alliance treaty, the Indian state was known as a Subsidiary state. It accepted a subordinate position. The Subsidiary state fell into the clutches of British power and lost its independence. Once a ruler entered into subsidiary alliance, he could not opt out of it.

The resident could if he wished would interfere even in the internal affairs of the subsidiary state. Foreign affairs and defense were in his hands completely. The resident would compel the native ruler to sign a treaty with another ruler; here the resident was within his rights, but this treaty might involve the native states in vast expenditure, if the native ruler was not in a position to raise the money. Thus, to fulfil treaty obligations, it would be necessary to raise additional money on defense, it would perhaps be necessary to cut down expenditure on the internal administration. Hence, the resident could always use various pretexts to interfere in the internal administration and in most cases his interference would be int eh interests of the British power rather than of the native state.

The subsidiary state was generally in financial difficulties. Besides the districts ceded to pay for its defense, the state had to pay heavy subsidies under the terms of the subsidiary alliance treaty. The ruler’s civil servants and the company’s officials indulged in waste and corruption. Hence, the state was usually in default. So, the people were taxed more heavily. This added to the misery of the people. Excessive taxation reduces incentive to work and so the production of the state, mainly agricultural production, would fall. Fall in production would result in decrease in revenues even though the rates were raised.

Now the fall in the revenue would necessitate a further raising of the rates; this would mean a further fall; and so the vicious circle would continue. The only course left open to the ruler would be to cede more districts to the company. When the company would agree to commute a subsidy for territory, it would deliberately undervalue the revenues of the territory in order to secure more territory. Thus, the subsidiary alliance system kept the subsidiary state on the verge of bankruptcy and the people under ever increasing misery and oppression.

The worst evil of the subsidiary alliance system was that it safeguarded the ruler at the expense of the people of the subsidiary state. Normally an autocrat is compelled to be benevolent at times. If there is a palace conspiracy against the ruler, he relies on the people; if there is a foreign aggression, he relies on the people and above all if he continues in his tyrannical ways, the people will revolt. Thus, fear of a palace conspiracy, a people’s revolt or foreign aggression compels a ruler to tone down his oppression and tyranny. But in the case of a subsidiary ruler, he had the full protection of the British power, he was safe. Thus, the British power made use of the feudal princes to crush and exploit the people of the subsidiary states.