Rise of British Power in Bengal | ICSE Class 8 History & Civics Notes

This note covers the East India Company’s arrival, its trade in Bengal, disputes with the nawabs (regional rulers), the battles of Plassey and Buxar, the grant of Diwani (revenue authority), dual government (divided revenue and administrative functions), and the political and economic consequences of British power in Bengal.

What was the background to the Company’s rise in Bengal?

From commercial privilege to armed competition

The East India Company was an English trading company. In 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted it a charter, a formal grant of rights, giving it the exclusive English right to trade with the East. Other English trading groups could not compete with it under this grant.

This did not exclude other European traders. Portuguese, Dutch and French traders also sought profitable trade in Asian markets. A privilege issued by England’s ruler could restrict English competition, but could not prevent other European powers from entering the same markets.

The Company followed a mercantile approach: it made profit primarily through trade, buying cheaply and selling at higher prices. Indian cotton and silk found buyers in Europe. Pepper, cloves, cardamom and cinnamon were also in demand.

Competition raised purchase prices and reduced the profits available to the trading companies. They fought over markets, attacked ships and blocked trading routes. Fortification, the building of defensive works around settlements, brought armed strength into what had begun as commercial activity.

A changing political setting

After the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb died in 1707, many provincial governors and large landholders asserted their authority. Regional kingdoms emerged, and Delhi could no longer act as an effective political centre. Bengal’s rulers defended their own authority within this changing setting.

A nawab was a regional ruler, such as the ruler of Bengal. The Company’s wish to enlarge settlements and protect trade brought it into conflict with the nawabs. Trade, military force and political influence became closely connected.

The Company was initially reluctant to acquire territory. Its commercial interests help explain its later actions: control over rulers, trading privileges and revenue (government income) offered ways to expand business. Its eventual political power developed through conflicts and decisions, rather than arriving fully formed with the charter of 1600.

How did the Company establish its trading base in Bengal?

Factories, settlements and local rights

In 1651, the Company established its first English factory in Bengal beside the river Hugli. A factory here meant a trading establishment with a warehouse and offices. It was the base of the Company’s traders, who were called factors.

Goods intended for export were stored in the warehouse, while officials worked in the offices. As business expanded, the Company encouraged merchants and traders to settle nearby. The trading base therefore grew into a settlement connected with the Company’s commercial activities.

By 1696, the Company began building a fort around the settlement. Two years later, in 1698, it bribed Mughal officials to obtain zamindari rights, rights associated with holding land and collecting revenue, over three villages. One was Kalikata, which later developed into Calcutta, now Kolkata.

The movement from a warehouse to a fortified settlement mattered politically. The Company was acquiring interests in land as well as buying goods. Its local position increasingly involved matters over which Indian rulers claimed authority.

What did duty-free trade mean?

A farman was a royal order. Aurangzeb issued a farman allowing the Company to trade without paying duty. A duty is a tax on trade or goods; duty-free trade meant exemption from that payment.

The privilege applied to the Company’s trade. Its officials also carried on private trade, business for their own benefit. They were expected to pay duty on that trade, but refused. This deprived Bengal’s government of revenue, meaning the income collected to meet government expenses.

Note: A trading factory was a warehouse and office establishment. Also distinguish the Company’s duty-free privilege from its officials’ private trade: the latter was expected to pay duty.

The dispute was therefore about the use of an existing privilege, not simply about whether English merchants could trade. Extending a Company exemption to personal business directly affected the nawab’s income and authority.

Why did trade disputes lead to conflict with Bengal’s nawabs?

The nawabs’ objections

During the early eighteenth century, conflict between the Company and Bengal’s rulers intensified. Murshid Quli Khan, Alivardi Khan and Sirajuddaulah were strong nawabs who resisted the Company’s demands. They asserted autonomy, the ability to exercise their own authority.

The nawabs refused additional concessions, demanded large payments for the right to trade, denied the Company permission to mint coins, and stopped extensions to its forts. Minting coins means producing money; control over this activity was another matter of political authority.

They accused the Company of avoiding taxes, reducing government income and disrespecting the ruler and his officials. Fortifications and demands for special privileges were consequently more than business arrangements. They challenged the nawab’s control over activities within Bengal.

The Company’s position

The Company claimed that local officials made unjust demands that damaged its trade. It argued that trade could flourish only if duties were removed. It also believed that expanding settlements, acquiring villages and rebuilding forts were necessary for business growth.

These were the Company’s arguments, rather than neutral descriptions of the dispute. The same demand could appear to Company officials as protection for trade and to the nawab as interference with his government.

When Alivardi Khan died in 1756, Sirajuddaulah became nawab. The Company tried unsuccessfully to help one of his rivals take his place. It preferred a puppet ruler, a ruler controlled by someone else, who would readily grant privileges.

Sirajuddaulah demanded an end to political interference and fortification, as well as payment of revenues. Negotiations failed. The accumulated disputes over money, defences and political authority now moved towards armed confrontation.

How did the Battle of Plassey change Bengal’s politics?

From the factory at Kassimbazar to battle

After negotiations failed in 1756, Sirajuddaulah marched with 30,000 soldiers to the English factory at Kassimbazar. He captured Company officials, closed the warehouse, disarmed the Englishmen and blocked English ships. He then moved to Calcutta to control the Company’s fort.

Company officials in Madras responded to the fall of Calcutta by sending forces under Robert Clive, supported by naval fleets. Prolonged negotiations followed. In 1757, Clive led the Company’s army against Sirajuddaulah at the Battle of Plassey.

Military action was linked to a political arrangement. Clive secured the support of Mir Jafar, one of Sirajuddaulah’s commanders, by promising to make him nawab after Sirajuddaulah’s defeat. Mir Jafar’s forces did not fight in the battle.

This failure to fight was one of the main reasons for the nawab’s defeat. It should not be turned into a claim that it was the single cause. The connection between Clive’s promise and Mir Jafar’s conduct explains the importance of conspiracy within the conflict.

Immediate result and significance

After the defeat, Sirajuddaulah was assassinated and Mir Jafar became nawab. Plassey was the Company’s first major military victory in India. It gave the Company influence over the choice of Bengal’s ruler and opened access to privileges, land and money.

1. The Company sought a ruler willing to grant commercial privileges.
2. Clive promised the nawabship to Mir Jafar in return for support.
3. Mir Jafar’s troops did not fight against the Company at Plassey.
4. Sirajuddaulah was defeated, and Mir Jafar was installed as nawab.

The victory did not mean that the Company immediately took full responsibility for administering Bengal. Its main aim remained trade. In 1757, it hoped that a dependent ruler would provide the advantages it wanted without requiring direct administration.

Plassey therefore marks a major change in political influence. The later acquisition of revenue authority was a further step, rather than another name for the same event.

How did disputes with puppet nawabs lead to Buxar?

Why did indirect control prove difficult?

After Plassey in 1757, the Company expected a dependent nawab to grant privileges and provide money. However, even puppet nawabs were not always as helpful as the Company wanted. They needed to preserve some dignity and sovereignty, meaning governing authority, to retain their subjects’ respect.

When Mir Jafar protested, the Company removed him and installed Mir Qasim. This replacement showed how Company influence could affect succession, the process of taking over a ruler’s position. It also showed that installing a new nawab did not remove the underlying conflict.

The Company wanted more money to pay for war, trade and other expenses. The nawab’s responsibilities and the Company’s demands could pull in different directions. A ruler dependent on Company support could still resist demands that weakened his own position.

The Battle of Buxar and its aftermath

Mir Qasim also came into conflict with the Company. He joined Shujauddaulah, the Nawab of Awadh, and Shah Alam II, the Mughal emperor, against it. The Company defeated their combined forces at the Battle of Buxar in 1764.

Mir Qasim was driven out of Bengal, and Mir Jafar was restored as nawab. The restored nawab had to pay the Company Rs. 500,000 every month. Here Rs. means rupees. Even this payment did not satisfy the Company’s demands for money and territory.

When Mir Jafar died in 1765, the Company had become dissatisfied with governing through dependent nawabs. Its position moved towards taking revenue authority itself. Buxar strengthened the Company’s military position before the grant of Diwani in 1765.

Keep the stages distinct: Mir Jafar’s installation followed Plassey; Mir Qasim’s defeat is associated with Buxar; and the grant of Diwani followed in the next year. These were connected developments, but involved different rulers, conflicts and forms of power.

Buxar also widened the conflict beyond a dispute with one Bengal ruler. The participation of Awadh’s nawab and the Mughal emperor helps explain its wider political significance.

What was Diwani, and why was its grant important?

Control over revenue

On 12 August 1765, the Mughal emperor appointed the Company as Diwan of Bengal. A Diwan was the chief financial administrator. Diwani meant the authority to administer and collect revenue. The grant covered Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

This gave the Company access to Bengal’s large revenue resources. After the victory at Buxar in 1764, the Company’s growing power was therefore reinforced by a formal grant of financial authority. A trading company now had income collected from the territory under its control.

Previously, the Company had bought most Indian goods with gold and silver brought from Britain. Its trade had expanded, but Britain had no goods to sell in India at that time. The need to send precious metals had been a major commercial problem.

The outflow of gold from Britain slowed after Plassey in 1757 and stopped after the Company assumed Diwani. Revenue collected in India could now pay for the Company’s purchases and expenses. The source of finance had changed.

How was the revenue used?

Diwani connected commerce with political power in a new way. Income from Bengal supported both the purchase of goods and the forces protecting Company interests. The Company no longer depended on the same pattern of importing treasure to finance its Indian purchases.

Definition: Diwani was revenue authority. Its grant in 1765 must be distinguished from the military victories of Plassey in 1757 and Buxar in 1764.

The grant also brought administrative responsibilities. The Company had to organise the territory’s financial resources while seeking enough income for its growing expenses. Its continuing identity as a trader influenced how it approached these responsibilities.

How did dual government work, and what were its drawbacks?

Divided functions and unequal power

Dual government was the arrangement introduced by Robert Clive in Bengal in 1765. The Company held Diwani, while the nawab formally retained Nizamat, responsibility for police, criminal justice and general administration. The division of functions did not mean an equal division of effective power.

The Company controlled revenue and possessed military strength. The nawab had administrative responsibilities but depended on resources controlled by the Company. Indian officials continued to carry out work within this arrangement, allowing the Company to exercise power without taking over all everyday administration itself.

The expression power without responsibility summarises the Company’s advantage. The related expression responsibility without power summarises the nawab’s difficulty. These descriptions concern the imbalance between resources and duties, rather than claiming that no official performed administrative work.

Why was the arrangement harmful?

Dividing authority weakened accountability, meaning the obligation to answer for how power is used. Those controlling income could avoid taking full responsibility for the condition of the people, while those formally responsible for administration lacked adequate independent control over resources.

Revenue collection and Company commercial interests received priority. The interests of cultivators and producers were poorly protected. The arrangement made it harder to connect governing duties with the money and authority needed to perform them effectively.

Warren Hastings ended dual government in 1772, bringing revenue administration under more direct Company management. Distinguish this administrative change from the earlier grant of Diwani: the Company’s revenue authority began in 1765, while the dual arrangement continued until 1772.

Dual government helps explain the difference between possessing power and accepting responsibility. The Company could benefit from Bengal’s revenues while the nawab remained the formal face of important governing functions.

How did Company administration develop under Hastings?

Warren Hastings served as Governor-General from 1773 to 1785. He introduced reforms in the administration of justice. From 1772, each district was to have a civil court and a criminal court, with European district collectors presiding over the civil courts.

Under the Regulating Act of 1773, a Supreme Court was established, while the Sadar Nizamat Adalat, a court of appeal, was also set up at Calcutta.

To make interpretations of Hindu law more uniform, eleven pandits were asked to compile a digest in 1775. N.B. Halhed translated it into English. By 1778, a code of Muslim laws had also been compiled for European judges.

How did different groups experience the growth of Company power?

Bengal’s nawabs

The nawabs sought to defend their income, dignity and governing authority. Their objections to the Company included tax avoidance and the expansion of fortifications. After Plassey in 1757, the Company’s ability to install and remove nawabs made that independence increasingly difficult to preserve.

Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim illustrate why a dependent ruler could still protest. Company support did not remove the ruler’s need for resources or respect. Their disputes with the Company arose within an unequal relationship, rather than showing that the nawabs controlled Company policy.

Company officials

After Plassey, Bengal’s nawabs were forced to give land and large personal gifts to Company officials. Some officials returned to Britain with fortunes and displayed their wealth. Such wealthy returnees were called nabobs, an English version of the word nawab.

Robert Clive arrived in Madras from England in 1743, aged eighteen. When he left India in 1767, his Indian fortune was worth £401,102. His career illustrates the scale of wealth that some Company officials accumulated.

Clive was appointed Governor of Bengal in 1764 and asked to remove corruption from Company administration. Parliament questioned him about his wealth in 1772. He was acquitted, but died by suicide in 1774.

Wealthy returnees known as nabobs were often viewed in British society as social climbers and ridiculed. However, not all Company officials became rich, and it would be wrong to describe all as corrupt and dishonest. Many died in India from disease or war.

Many officials came from humble backgrounds and hoped to earn enough to return to a comfortable life. This qualification matters: the opportunities for personal enrichment were real, but the experiences of Company employees were not identical.

Artisans and peasants

Artisans are skilled producers of goods, while peasants are agricultural cultivators. After Diwani in 1765, Company demands affected both groups. Artisans faced pressure to sell goods cheaply, while peasants faced revenue demands they could not pay.

Artisans deserted villages, craft production declined, and cultivation showed signs of collapse. These experiences connect the story of battles and revenue authority to ordinary livelihoods. A political gain for the Company could place severe pressure on the people producing goods and cultivating land.

The groups should therefore be considered separately. Nawabs faced loss of authority; some officials gained wealth; and producers faced demands on their work and income. A single statement that everyone benefited or suffered in the same way would obscure these differences.

How did Plassey, Buxar and Diwani differ?

Compare the kind of change

Plassey, Buxar and Diwani belong to one connected process, but they should not be used interchangeably. Two were battles; the third was a grant of financial authority. Each strengthened the Company in a different way.

The change after Plassey centred on victory and influence over Bengal’s nawab. The Company still preferred commercial privileges without the full burden of administration. Buxar followed the failure of relations with another nawab and strengthened the Company’s position against a wider alliance.

Diwani then changed the Company’s financial relationship with Bengal. Instead of relying on imported gold and silver for its purchases, it could use Indian revenue. This was a continuing income source, distinct from a gift made to an official or a single military victory.

Follow the connection without merging the events

A clear explanation links military success, political influence and revenue authority. These categories help distinguish how the Company’s position changed. They also explain why winning Plassey did not itself amount to receiving Diwani.

The later dual government arrangement concerned how authority was exercised after the revenue grant. It was an administrative system, rather than a fourth battle. Keeping these different kinds of development separate makes the sequence easier to explain accurately.

What were the economic consequences of the Company’s rise?

A trader with financial authority

After becoming Diwan in 1765, the Company still regarded itself primarily as a trader. It wanted large revenue receipts and cheap purchases of cotton and silk. It was unwilling to establish a regular system for assessing and collecting revenue.

Assessment means determining how much revenue should be paid. The Company’s wish to maximise receipts without a regular assessment and collection system placed commercial demands at the centre of its approach to Bengal’s economy.

Within five years, the value of goods purchased by the Company in Bengal doubled. This refers to their value, not a stated doubling of the physical quantity of every product. Purchases for export could now be financed from revenue collected within Bengal.

Pressure on production and livelihoods

The economy entered a deep crisis. Artisans left villages because they were forced to supply goods at low prices. Peasants could not meet the dues demanded from them. Craft production declined, while agricultural cultivation showed signs of collapse.

In 1770, a terrible famine, an extreme shortage of food, killed ten million people in Bengal. About one-third of the population was wiped out. Preserve the word about: the share is an approximation, not an exact fraction to be recalculated.

The crisis shows why increased Company purchases cannot be treated as proof of general prosperity. A company could obtain more goods for trade while producers struggled with low prices and cultivators with heavy demands.

Likewise, the fact that Bengal’s revenue could support Company troops and offices does not show that the money was being used chiefly to improve local welfare. The financial benefits to the Company and the condition of Bengal’s people were different matters.

The sequence from revenue demands to economic distress and then famine should be described carefully. It connects Company priorities with the crisis without reducing a widespread famine to a single unsupported explanation.

What timeline traces the rise of British power in Bengal?

This timeline arranges the main developments in time order. It begins with the Company’s trading privileges, follows its Bengal settlements and conflicts, and ends with the crisis and administrative change after Diwani.

The dates show that Company rule developed over time. A charter in England did not itself give the Company control over Bengal. Trading settlements, military victories and revenue authority were separate stages with different consequences.

When explaining the sequence, attach an action to each date. Remembering 1757, 1764 and 1765 is more useful when each year is connected to Plassey, Buxar and Diwani respectively. This prevents political influence from being confused with financial authority.

What do historical sources reveal about Company power?

Complaints and expectations

Historical sources are records or objects used as evidence about the past. Accounts by rulers and Company officials reveal their concerns, but also their interests. A complaint, a private letter and a commissioned painting serve different purposes.

In a complaint dated 1733, Bengal’s nawab described English traders turning permission for a factory into a fortified position. He objected to their guns, attraction of merchants and revenue collection. The complaint shows how Company growth appeared threatening to the ruler.

On 7 January 1759, Clive wrote from Calcutta to William Pitt, a senior official serving the English monarch. He discussed the wealth and political possibilities of taking possession of rich territories, while recognising doubts about the scale of such power for a trading company.

Compare the perspectives: the nawab objected to Company encroachment, while Clive considered the opportunities offered by territory and income. Their differing purposes help explain why their accounts emphasised different aspects of the same expanding power.

A painting of the Diwani grant

Caption: Robert Clive accepting the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from the Mughal ruler in 1765. The Mughal ruler sits beneath a canopy in an elaborate setting. Groups stand around him, including a European figure in red to the left and armed figures to the right. This is a painting, not a photograph.

Reference: NCERT Class 8 Figure 1, Ruling the Countryside

The painting presents the 1765 grant as a grand ceremony. Clive commissioned the painter to record memorable events in his life. The actual event most probably took place in Clive’s tent with a few English and Indian witnesses.

The contrast matters because a painting can celebrate an event as well as represent it. The splendid setting should not be treated as proof of the ceremony’s actual surroundings. The phrase “most probably” must remain attached to the reconstruction of the tent setting.

Using these sources together helps distinguish reported events, claims made by participants and images created to commemorate power. The source’s date, creator and purpose all help in interpreting its evidence.

Glossary

• Charter — A formal grant of rights, such as the Company’s exclusive English right to trade with the East.
• Mercantile — Describing a business that makes profit primarily through trade, buying cheaply and selling at higher prices.
• Factory — A Company trading establishment containing a warehouse for goods and offices for its officials.
• Factors — Company traders who operated from the trading establishment known as a factory.
• Farman — A royal order, such as the order granting the Company duty-free trading privileges.
• Duty — A tax on trade or goods, from which the Company’s own trade received exemption.
• Private trade — Business conducted by Company officials for their own benefit rather than for the Company.
• Fortification — The construction of defensive works to protect a settlement or trading establishment.
• Revenue — Income collected by a government or financial authority to meet its expenses.
• Nawab — A regional ruler, such as the ruler who governed Bengal before Company domination.
• Puppet ruler — A ruler controlled by another power and expected to serve that power’s interests.
• Diwani — Authority over revenue administration and collection, granted to the Company in 1765.
• Nizamat — Responsibility for police, criminal justice and general administration, formally retained by Bengal’s nawab under dual government.
• Dual government — Bengal’s arrangement dividing revenue authority and formal administrative duties between the Company and the nawab.
• Nabobs — Wealthy Company returnees to Britain whose nickname was an English version of nawab.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: The Company’s charter excluded every European rival. Correct: It excluded other English trading groups; Portuguese, Dutch and French traders still competed in Eastern markets.
• Misconception: A Company factory was necessarily a manufacturing plant. Correct: In this setting, it was a trading establishment containing a warehouse and officials’ offices.
• Misconception: The duty-free farman covered Company officials’ private business. Correct: The privilege applied to Company trade; officials were expected to pay duty on private trade.
• Misconception: Plassey was fought against Mir Qasim. Correct: Clive fought Sirajuddaulah at Plassey in 1757. Mir Qasim’s defeat is associated with Buxar in 1764.
• Misconception: Plassey itself granted the Company Diwani. Correct: Plassey was a military victory in 1757; Diwani was granted by the Mughal emperor in 1765.
• Misconception: Dual government gave the Company and nawab equal effective power. Correct: The Company controlled revenue, while the nawab’s formal responsibilities lacked matching independent financial power.
• Misconception: Every Company official became wealthy and was corrupt. Correct: Not all officials amassed fortunes. Many died from disease or war; it is wrong to describe all as corrupt and dishonest.
• Misconception: The Diwani painting proves that the event occurred in a grand ceremonial setting. Correct: It was a commissioned painting; the actual event most probably took place in Clive’s tent.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. A Company factory contained a warehouse for export goods and offices where officials worked. Using these details, identify its two functions. [2 marks]

1. The warehouse stored goods intended for export, so the factory served as a trading storage centre.
2. The offices provided a workplace for Company officials, so the factory also served an organisational function.

Q2. The farman exempted Company trade from duty. Officials were expected to pay duty on private trade but refused, causing a large loss of Bengal’s revenue. Explain three aspects of the resulting dispute. [3 marks]

1. The farman granted a privilege to the Company’s trade, so the exemption had a defined scope rather than covering every English trader’s business.
2. Officials’ private trade remained liable to duty, making their refusal to pay a misuse of the Company’s privileged position.
3. The refusal reduced Bengal’s revenue, giving its government a financial reason to challenge the officials’ conduct.

Q3. In 1757, Clive fought Sirajuddaulah at Plassey. Clive promised the nawabship to Mir Jafar, whose forces did not fight; this was one of the main reasons for the defeat. Sirajuddaulah was assassinated afterwards and Mir Jafar installed. Explain four links between the political arrangement and the outcome. [4 marks]

1. Clive’s promise offered Mir Jafar the position of nawab, giving the Company a way to secure support within Sirajuddaulah’s command.
2. Mir Jafar’s forces did not fight, so their expected participation against Clive’s army did not occur.
3. This non-participation was one of the main reasons for Sirajuddaulah’s defeat, rather than a stated single explanation.
4. Sirajuddaulah’s later assassination and Mir Jafar’s installation changed the ruler in accordance with Clive’s promised political arrangement.

Q4. Consider these developments: Plassey in 1757 brought the Company its first major Indian military victory and Mir Jafar’s installation; Buxar in 1764 brought the defeat of Mir Qasim, a former Bengal nawab; Diwani in 1765 gave the Company revenue authority. The Company initially preferred privileges without direct administration. Explain the transition in five points. [5 marks]

1. Plassey in 1757 established an important military success, marking the Company’s first major victory in India in this sequence.
2. Mir Jafar’s installation after that victory showed Company influence over Bengal’s ruler, adding a political consequence to military success.
3. The Company’s initial preference for privileges without direct administration shows that victory did not immediately mean accepting full governing responsibilities.
4. Buxar in 1764 brought Mir Qasim’s defeat, strengthening the Company’s position through another military success against a Bengal ruler.
5. The grant of Diwani in 1765 added revenue authority, completing a further step from trading privileges towards financial power.

Q5. Before Diwani, the Company bought most Indian goods with gold and silver imported from Britain. After receiving revenue authority in 1765, it could use Indian revenue to buy cotton and silk, maintain troops, and build its fort and offices at Calcutta. Explain five financial consequences using this information. [5 marks]

1. The outflow of gold from Britain stopped after the Company assumed Diwani, because Indian revenue could now finance its purchases and expenses.
2. Revenue authority in 1765 gave the Company an Indian source of funds, changing the financial basis of its purchases and expenses.
3. Collected revenue could pay for cotton and silk, connecting control over territorial income with the Company’s continuing commercial activities.
4. The same revenue could maintain troops, making Bengal’s income useful for supporting the Company’s military establishment as well as trade.
5. Revenue could also finance the fort and offices at Calcutta, helping meet the costs of the Company’s local establishments.

Q6. Under dual government, the Company controlled revenue, while the nawab formally handled police, criminal justice and administration but lacked independent financial control. Explain this unequal arrangement and its administrative drawback in four points. [4 marks]

1. The Company held the financial advantage because its control of revenue gave it authority over the resources available to government.
2. The nawab retained formal responsibilities for police, criminal justice and administration, so important governing duties remained attached to his position.
3. The nawab’s lack of independent financial control meant that responsibility was not matched by the power to command resources.
4. This separation weakened accountability because control of income and responsibility for administration rested with different authorities.

Q7. After 1765, the Company sought high revenue and cheap cloth; the value of its Bengal purchases doubled within five years. Artisans deserted villages because of forced low prices, peasants could not pay their dues, craft production declined, and cultivation showed signs of collapse. In 1770, famine killed ten million people, about one-third of Bengal’s population. Explain six features of this crisis without overstating the evidence. [6 marks]

1. The Company’s priorities combined high revenue demands with cheap cloth purchases, placing pressure on income from the land and on producers.
2. The doubling concerned the value of purchases within five years; it does not establish that the quantity of every product doubled.
3. Artisans deserted villages because forced low selling prices harmed their position, showing distress among the people who made goods.
4. Peasants could not meet their dues, showing that revenue demands exceeded what these cultivators were able to pay.
5. Craft production declined and cultivation showed signs of collapse; the agricultural wording should not be strengthened into a claim of complete collapse.
6. The famine of 1770 killed ten million people, about one-third of Bengal’s population; the population share remains approximate.

Q8. Clive commissioned a painting that shows the Diwani grant of 1765 in a grand setting. The event most probably occurred in his tent with a few English and Indian witnesses. Give three reasons for interpreting the painting cautiously. [3 marks]

1. The painting was commissioned by Clive, so its presentation must be considered in relation to the interests of the person commissioning it.
2. Its grand setting differs from the tent setting in the probable account, so it cannot independently prove the actual surroundings.
3. The phrase “most probably” signals uncertainty about the reconstruction; an answer should preserve that qualification instead of presenting certainty.

Key takeaways

• The Company began as a trading organisation, but competition, fortification and demands for privileges drew it into political conflict.
• Bengal’s nawabs resisted Company tax avoidance and fortified expansion because these threatened their revenue and governing authority.
• At Plassey in 1757, Mir Jafar’s forces did not fight, which was one of the main reasons for Sirajuddaulah’s defeat.
• Buxar in 1764 strengthened Company power; Diwani in 1765 then gave it authority over revenue.
• Diwani allowed revenue collected in India to finance Company textile purchases, troops, forts and offices.
• Dual government separated financial power from formal administrative duties, leaving the nawab responsible without matching independent resources.
• Company commercial gains existed alongside distress among Bengal’s artisans and peasants, followed by the terrible famine of 1770.
• Complaints, letters and commissioned paintings reveal different interests; their purpose matters when interpreting evidence of Company power.

Test yourself

What restriction did the charter of 1600 place on English trade?

It gave the East India Company the exclusive English right to trade with the East, preventing other English trading groups from competing with it.

Where and when was the first English factory in Bengal established?

It was established beside the river Hugli in 1651 and served as the base for the Company’s traders.

Why did officials’ private trade cause a revenue dispute?

Officials were expected to pay duty on their private trade but refused, depriving Bengal’s government of revenue.

What did Clive promise Mir Jafar before Plassey?

Clive promised to make Mir Jafar nawab after Sirajuddaulah’s defeat, securing his support for the Company.

Who joined Mir Qasim against the Company at Buxar?

Shujauddaulah, the Nawab of Awadh, and Shah Alam II, the Mughal emperor, joined Mir Qasim against the Company.

What financial change followed Diwani?

The Company could use Indian revenue to buy goods and meet expenses, including the maintenance of troops and its Calcutta establishments.

What was the central imbalance in dual government?

The Company controlled revenue, while the nawab retained formal administrative responsibilities without matching independent financial power.

What qualification is necessary when describing where the Diwani grant occurred?

The event most probably occurred in Clive’s tent. The words “most probably” preserve the uncertainty of this reconstruction.