top of page

What is entering?

6. How the disaster was gathered!


There is need to ponder upon how the various locations inside South Asia, one by one came under the English Company rule.


I quote from Malabar Manual:


From a very early period in its history the English Company had set its face against martial enterprises. END OF QUOTE.


That was the actual truth. The Company had come for trade and to do trade was its main aim. However, the Company was forced take up the administration of the semi-barbarian locations one by one.


The great factor that led to this eventuality was the presence of the French trading centres inside South Asia. I think there was an order given by the French government to all French trading centres, all around the world, to attack any and all English trading centres wherever they could find them.


In Arcot near Madras, on the south-east coast of South-Asia, it was the French that instigated the local ruler to attack the poorly defended English trade centre. Naturally the English trading centre employees were bereft of great military abilities. Yet, a very young youth by the name of Robert Clive carried the day.


It might seem that Robert Clive was endowed with some superlative human qualities. This need not be true. For almost everywhere on earth, totally and mutually disconnected English enterprises stood forth against all kinds of assaults of any kind, military, social and verbal. There might be need to understand as to why this was so.


It would be quite foolish to casually say that the English were more brave and valorous. That is not the crux of the truth.  There are other unmentioned truths also, that might need to be sought out.


In Calcutta, it was the French that again instigated the local Mogul governor, Siraj-ul-huda to attack the English fort. Again, Robert Clive arrived on the scene and the English (British) flag took back the fort and later took-over the region.


In both the above-mentioned events, the English side was numerically very weak. And in both the events, even though the fight was ostensibly between the native rulers and the English, the actual warfare was between the French and the English.


In the fight that began as a conquering attempt by Sultan Tipu upon Travancore, the events changed into a war between the English Company and the Sultan. However, the Sultan’s side was very powerfully supported by the French, with men and munitions.


The English side had only very few native-Brits with them. A good majority of their fighters were the local native recruits.


The presence of the various Continental trade centres had a very funny side to it. In the tumultuous political scenes inside and outside the various small-time kingdoms of South-Asia, a general feeling had arrived that a new set of mutually competing mercenaries had arrived from Continental Europe.


In fact, in Tellicherry area, there was indeed one local ruler who used to play the English and the French against each other with glee and to gain profit from the ensuing scenario. Tellicherry English factory was on one side of his location, and the Mahe, the French centre was on his other side. Between the two trade centres, there was only around 10km distance.


See this Quote from Malabar Manual:


QUOTE: Secondly, of the English Company’s resolution in 1723 to “subject the country to the king” and so facilitate their trade ; END OF QUOTE.


The Company was forced to strengthen the local kingdoms, so that they could do trade in a peaceful manner.


Now, let me mention a different reality.


All my above words from a political perspective actually points to a very superficial perspective of the various local situations. Even now, there is a general tendency to view the historical events connected to the English colonial rule from Mogul Empire versus the English Company, Sultan Tipu versus the English Company, Siraj-ul-huda versus the English Company, and such other typical political science perspectives.


Even the wording ‘Mogul Empire’ could be quite erroneous. The word ‘Empire’ could be absolute nonsense. Other than over-lording over a vast number of small-time practically independent kingdoms, and the ability to garner a huge number of people in times of warfare,  this ‘empire’ would have nothing more to denote it as an Empire. Off course, the ‘empire’ would have a huge army and a lot of slaves. However, how would these things create an ‘empire’?


In these kinds of history writings, there is a very significant section that generally stands ignored. And that is the immense kinds of different populations and peoples in the various regions.


Since South Asia is too big a place to discuss this section, I will focus primarily upon Malabar/s. Maybe a bit of items, I might pick up from the Madras Presidency area, and also a bit from Travancore kingdom.


Even though South Asia was a place containing various regions with totally different social groups, there was one thing common to all of them, with regard to this writing. That is, all of them were to react to the same foreign entity. That foreign entity was the English Company.


I quote from Malabar Manual about how the English Company interacted with the local historically narrow-minded social system.


QUOTE: They (the English Company) established manufactures ; they attracted spinners and weavers and wealthy men to settle in their limits ;

the settlers were liberally treated and their religious prejudices were tolerated ;

the privacy of houses were respected by all classes and creeds; settlers were allowed to burn their dead and to observe their peculiar wedding ceremonies ;

no compulsory efforts were made to spread Christianity, nor were the settlers set to uncongenial tasks ;

shipping facilities were afforded ; armed vessels protected the shipping ;

all manufactured goods were at first exempted from payment of duty ;

the Company coined their own money ;

and courts of justice were established ; security for life and property in short reigned within their limits END OF QUOTE


Maybe this was a common policy of the Company everywhere on the Subcontinent.  Yet, the English Company officials were quite naive, gullible and also foolish in so many ways. They were interacting with a social system which they could not understand at all.  Gathering disasters upon their own homeland posterity.

Previous              Next

bottom of page