1757: Continuation or Rupture?

Effects of the Re-assessment of 18 th Century Debate If, as the research of Richards and Frank Perlin suggested, 18 th c. South Asia continued to be economically robust through the early 18 th c. when does the economy begin to weaken? Why does it do so? –Attempts to question the idea of the “Plassey Revolution” as point of modernity –This approach sees 1757 as a watershed

Old view of Battle of Plassey Young Nawab of Bengal attacks EIC factory in Calcutta as it attempts to fortify in fear of French attacks Calcutta is captured and prisoners put in “Black Hole” Major Robert Clive sent to Calcutta from Madras to negotiate with Nawab Siraj-ud-daulah Negotiations fail and the EIC under Clive heroically wins against a much larger Bengali force

Lord Robert Clive

Old View—after Plassey Bengal passes into British rule as a bankrupt state—but who is responsible for this? –Some problems with corruption acknowledged –Death of 1/3 of population blamed on weather EIC attempt to rehabilitate and modernize Bengal –Permanent Settlement of 1793 gives zamindars and local elite ownership of land –Interaction with “western” concepts of rational thought leads to “Bengal Renasissance” in 1830

Trends in Bengal after 1757 Increased dispossession of peasants, since their rights to the land no longer exist Increased revenue farming, economic strains on new EIC gov. due to military costs of further expansion 1/3 of population dies during late 1770s-early 1780s Trade suffers, competitors of EIC displace, era of monopoly trade (opium, salt) begins

Problems with the Old view of 1757 Always had problems since the allegations of Clive’s acceptance of bribes had been well known in his own time Contemporary records indicate an economic collapse after Plassey rather than before— seems to be more widespread than the direct cause of droughts of 1783 Researchers interested in understanding why Bengal, one of the richest provinces prior to 1757, was so vulnerable to British takeover

Cartoon of Lord Fox’s India Bill Plays with ideas of “Oriental Despotism” Raises concerns about The influence of new money From India and of “nabobs” like Clive

New Research—the origins of new communities and spheres of influence Focuses on the relations between EIC and other trading companies and their Indian agents, financiers, advisors prior to 1757 Pays more attention to the relationship between these merchant groups (S. Asian/other) and the new states. But is also very controversial—why?

Interaction with Old Histories Orientalist/Imperial —questions their motives, raises issues of racial bias, and the “silencing” of the agency of S. Asian people Nationalist—new approach does not fit into an easy paradigm of colonial oppression/indigenous resistance. Shows interaction, even collaboration between European and S. Asian merchant groups Marxist —similar reasons as #2—but also because it complicates an oversimplified notion of class-oppression and is looking at the interaction of groups—those with power/without power across numerous levels of activity

What to watch for in next readings Note what kinds of sources author is using Do Chaudhuri/Spear have any noticeable biases? Does their biases influence their reasoning—to what extent? Does the argument hold together or not? Is one argument more convincing than the other?