INTRODUCTION

The British colonial expansion in India began in the middle of the 18 th c and went on till the annexation of
Awadh in 1856. The rise of regional power was due to the decline of Mughal empire. Still, they retained
symbolic importance and new regional powers sought legitimacy from them. The regional states were broadly
classified into successor states (that arose due to assertion of independence by governors of Mughal provinces
due to decay of central authority) and rebel state (arose due to rebellion by local chieftains, zamindars and
peasants against Mughal authority). Bengal was the successor state. The foundation of an independent Bengal
was laid by Murshid Quli Khan. The period between 1757-65 was the gradual transfer of power from the
Nawabs to the British in Bengal.

Early motivations and strategies and Shifting goals and methods

The early British involvement in India, initially driven by trade, evolved into a vast territorial empire, but not
through deliberate policy from London. P.J. Marshall argues that until the passage of Pitt's India Act in 1784,
there was no consistent British plan for political conquest in India. Instead, it was the local Company officials
who took the initiative, responding to the political instability following the Mughal decline, which opened
opportunities for territorial expansion. C.A. Bayly further emphasizes that after the 1780s, the motivations for
British imperial expansion were driven less by trade and more by the fiscal and military needs of the Company.

Bengal on the Eve of British Conquest

Bengal’s Prosperity

Murshid Quli had been appointed diwan of Bengal by Aurangzeb and his position was renewed under Bahadur
Shah. In 1717, Farruksiyar appointed him the Nazim of Bengal, giving him huge power by allowing him to hole
the dual position of diwan and Nazim. In this way, the division of power which was meant to keep check and
balanced ceased to exist. Though Quli became immensely powerful, he did not outrightly defy Mughal
authority and through his system of efficient revenue collection continued to pay revenue to the center.

Factors Contributing to Bengal’s Prosperity

Bengal consistently maintained a favorable trade balance, as European companies brought in excess bullion to
purchase Bengal's goods, which was seamlessly integrated into the local cash economy and tax collection
system.

Though Quli never cut-off relations with the Mughals officially, he acted in an autonomous manner, operating a
dynastic succession in Bengal. He named his grandson Sarfaraz Khan as his successor who was later ousted by
his father, Shujauddin Muhammad Khan, who then took control of Bengal and Orissa in 1727 with Mughal
approval. In 1739–40, Sarfaraz Khan was overthrown by Alivardi Khan, aided by the Jagat Seths and powerful
zamindars, due to Sarfaraz’s inefficiency and loss of support. Alivardi Khan then took over as nazim with
imperial approval.

British East India Company in Bengal

Both land and oceanic trade routes were lucrative for Bengal, however due to the 18 th c. disturbance, sea routes
took precedence especially due to Dutch, French and English companies investing in this trade.

Calcutta was becoming increasingly important due to textile trade, and the British was easily able to beat out the
French due the huge capital they possessed. This trade enabled the British to build relationships with huge
banking houses of Bengal, including the Jagat Seths.

Friction Between Bengal and EIC

Alivardi Khan's reign marked a break from Mughal control, as Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa operated
autonomously, ending revenue payments to Delhi. Alivardi faced challenges from Maratha invasions, which
caused significant damage until he agreed to pay chauth and ceded Orissa in 1751. He also dealt with an Afghan
rebellion but successfully regained Patna. Though Bengal's trade was briefly disrupted by the Marathas, it
recovered with the rise of European trade. After Alivardi's death in 1756, his grandson Siraj-ud-daula succeeded
him, but his rule was destabilized by internal rivalries and the English East India Company's growing influence,
leading to the Plassey conspiracy in 1757.

Siraj-ud-Daulah Inherits Challenges (1756)

Siraj ud-Daula was dealing with many challenges from the very beginning of his reign. He tried to extract
resources from the rich zamindars of Bengal, fortified Calcutta fearing the French and expelled the British.
However, the interests of the rich merchants and banking houses were intertwined with the British and hence
this could not be allowed to happen. Siraj-ud-Daula's defeat marked the end of Nawabs' independence. His
reign failed due to personal flaws and imprudent decisions, alienating powerful groups, including his own
officials, zamindars, and Europeans.

The Battle of Plassey and British Expansion in Bengal

Tensions Leading to Plassey (1756)

Tensions leading to the Battle of Plassey included Siraj-ud-Daula's aggressive demands for money from the
English, who faced severe penalties when they refused. Many believed he aimed to diminish European
privileges, particularly targeting English fortifications in Calcutta. The British, unprepared for negotiation or
defense, ultimately sought to replace him with Mir Jafar, supported by local malcontents.

Clive, Conspiracy, and Conquest (1757)

After the Nawab sacked Calcutta, Clive used British military strength from Madras to restore the Company’s
privileges and leverage discontent among local elites, including the Jagat Seths who sought to use British power
for their own gains. Hence, the British through the army under Robert Clive’s command allied with the
merchants to conspire to remove Siraj ud-Daula. The battle involved artillery exchanges, and many of Siraj-ud-
Daula's troops, including Mir Jafar and Rai Durlabh, did not engage. This led to Siraj-ud-Daula's defeat and
eventual murder after the Battle of Plassey in June 1757.

Significance and Aftermath of Plassey

The coup installed Mir Jafar as the ruler and gave the British control of 4 million pounds of revenue and
presents. It was through this control that the British increased the size of their army and became a force to
reckon with in dealing with the internal politics and threats from regional powers.

Mir Jafar

Under Mir Jafar's rule, significant events unfolded following the Battle of Plassey in 1757, marking a pivotal
shift in Bengal's political landscape. Initially, Mir Jafar aimed to restore the old order of Alivardi Khan,
appointing experienced officials and ensuring the privileges of the Jagat Seths and zamindars were maintained.
However, the arrangement quickly revealed itself as an illusion, as Mir Jafar struggled to assert authority over
the Nawab's court while the British East India Company increasingly interfered in his governance.

The British, perceiving the necessity of a stable regime, intervened politically, leveraging their military power
to protect their interests. Within two years, Mir Jafar faced external threats, including invasions by Mughal
prince Shah Alam and the Marathas, which the Company addressed, further tightening their grip on Bengal. By
1765, the British had dismantled much of Mir Jafar's authority, integrating Bengal into their rule and solidifying
their financial control through extensive revenue claims and military oversight. Mir Jafar's reign, marked by
dependence on British power, concluded with his inability to manage his debts, leading to the gradual erosion of
his position and the establishment of direct British control over Bengal.

. The unique form of commercialization in Bengal, according to Bayly, was beneficial to the English. They
initially gained control over trade of important goods like salt, indigo and betel nut and eventually started
evading taxes due to their political connections. This led to confrontations with local leaders who the English
would easily defeat, the Battle of Buxar being one such example.

The Battle of Buxar and The Treaty of Allahabad

Mir Jafar was replaced by Mir Kasim, Kasim took control of Bengal and Bihar, making significant efforts to
establish an independent state in eastern India. He shifted the capital to Monghyr and centralized administration
under his authority, dismissing old office-holders and reforming the army in the European style. Kasim imposed
high revenue demands, particularly on zamindars, while pushing British influence out of regions beyond lower
Bengal. However, a conflict over British private trade escalated tensions. British forces attacked Kasim in 1763,
driving him out of Bihar.

The Battle of Buxar, fought on 23 October 1764, was a decisive victory for the British East India Company
against a combined force of Mir Kasim, the Nawab of Bengal, the Wazir of Awadh, and the Mughal Emperor
Shah Alam II. This victory marked the end of independent local rule in Bengal and Bihar. Following the battle,
Mir Jafar was reinstated as Nawab, but the British ensured that Nawabs were merely nominal rulers under their
control.

The Treaty of Allahabad, signed on August 12, 1765, marked a pivotal moment in the history of British colonial
rule in India. It formalized the East India Company's control over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa after the defeat of
Nawab Mir Kasim. The Mughal Emperor appointed the Company as the Diwan, granting it the financial
administration of these provinces in return for an annual tribute. This treaty effectively diminished the Nawabs
to mere figureheads, stripping them of military power and placing the actual governance in the hands of the
British. It signified the transition from indirect to direct British rule in Bengal. This arrangement is known in the
history as the ‘Dual’ or ‘double’ government.

Dual Government in Bengal (1765-1772)

This dual government brought by Clive functions as the Company collected revenue as Diwan, while the
Nawab handled administration but relied on the Company for funds and military support. The Company also
controlled police and judicial matters by appointing the Deputy Nawab. This system arose because the
Company wanted to profit from Bengal’s revenue without taking full administrative responsibility. The result
was a powerless Nawab and an indifferent Company, leading to administrative failure, public suffering, and
corruption, as Company servants enriched themselves while neglecting governance.

The 1765 settlement did not establish a British Bengal; it was a return to the Mughal provincial governance
structure with separate roles for the Nazim and the Diwan. By 1790, the Company took full control of the
Nizamat's functions, limiting the Nawab's role to merely a façade of authority. The Company's military strength,
composed of both European regiments and increasing numbers of sepoys, rendered the Nawab's forces virtually
obsolete. Although there were instances of insubordination among troops, the Company's hold on eastern India
remained largely unchallenged after 1765.

Conclusion
After 1765, the British East India Company retained many aspects of the Nawabs' governance, relying on Indian
intermediaries for communication and influence. Early leaders like Warren Hastings combined traditional
practices with new ideals, collaborating with local agents to manage their responsibilities. Over time, British
control strengthened, leading to a more professional administration with officials less familiar with India,
prioritizing their interests over public welfare.

Pressures from Britain and the need for reliable income forced the company to eventually limit personal trading
and tax farming. This led to the Permanent Settlement of 1793, a system to stabilize land revenue collection in
Bengal, and stopped Company officials from engaging in private trade.

The Company attempted to balance power between zamindars and ryots but ultimately struggled to foster
economic growth. The early phases of British rule were influenced by Britain's strategic and economic needs,
with military expenditure dominating government resources. The Company's focus on political safety led to
military expansion against neighboring states, continuing the Mughal tradition of revenue extraction for military
purposes. By 1828, a largely autonomous British-Indian state had emerged, loosely connected to imperial
Britain.

Reasons for British success(historians)

The success of the British in India has been the subject of extensive historiographical debate, with historians
offering various interpretations based on factors like political conditions, economic motivations, and local
collaborations.

Bayly highlights that while trade was significant, the British success stemmed from their ability to integrate
local elites—merchants, bankers like the Jagat Seths, and zamindars—into their administrative system. These
collaborations allowed the Company to consolidate power and extend its influence across Bengal and beyond.

Percival Spear, in The Oxford History of India (1958), views the British success as a result of their superior
military organization and naval power. He argues that the British naval strength, particularly after their victory
over the French in the Carnatic Wars, secured their dominance in trade and helped them outmaneuver other
European competitors like the French. The victory at the Battle of Plassey (1757), he argues, was a turning
point where the British were able to secure a foothold in Bengal by replacing Siraj-ud-Daula with the more
pliable Mir Jafar. This was achieved through careful manipulation of local rivalries and alliances, especially
with the banking elites of Bengal.

Philip Lawson, in The East India Company: A History (1993), highlights the role of the British crown in
supporting the Company's ambitions, particularly through aggressive commercial policies under Charles II and
James II. The intertwining of British trade interests with political and military expansion laid the foundation for
the eventual territorial empire.

Finally, Niall Ferguson, in Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (2003), presents a more triumphalist
view of British success, emphasizing that the British introduced modern administrative and legal systems that,
despite their exploitative aspects, laid the groundwork for India’s modernization.

Overall, the historiography on British success in India highlights the complexity of the factors involved. While
some historians, like Marshall and Bayly, emphasize local dynamics and economic motivations, others, like
Spear and Lawson, focus on military power and state support. Meanwhile, critics like Guha argue that British
success was based on exploitation and coercion, rather than any inherent superiority in governance. These
varying perspectives underscore the multifaceted nature of British imperialism in India.