nawab of india.docx

Topic:
IN WHAT WAYS WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH THE GOVERNING STRATEGIES OF THE NAWAB OF BENGAL, SIRAJ-UD-DAULA, FROM THOSE OF HAIDER AND TIPU SULTAN OF MYSORE?




Mrinmoy Ghosh
Roll: 88
Department of History
UGIII
Course: HIST0501, Modern India: Political, Social and Cultural History, 1700 to 1947












Introduction:
In the present paper, I seek to analyze the differences in governance policies adopted by two of the stalwart rulers of modern India, namely Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan of Mysore and Siraj ud Daula of Bengal. They are primarily depicted in nationalist historiography as the first to resist the encroaching threats of foreign imperial domination posed by the British EIC. Due to the jewel shinning in their crown, they have been subjected too much scrutiny by scholars pertaining to their social, ideological, political, governmental and several other characterizations. I have here tried to analyze both of them through a pair of critical lenses, pertaining to their above mentioned characteristics.

Analyzing the journey of both rulers from eastern and southern part of India and their confrontation with the Europeans which build up the conclusion that the Western accomplishment in India established the British dominance over the subcontinent which did not obliterate any existing social and political order in short run but did rearrange the existing political and economic structure, though, in the long run, a new political structure and a new culture were introduced on the country. Neither Siraj's of Bengal nor Tipu's Mysore could possess any well-ordered system of polity. The Nawab of Bengal was not a son of the soil he being the successor of an Afghan patrimony built on sheer military force in an alien land and among people to whose culture and language he was an absolute stranger and thus his court was potentially capricious and his integrity with his subjects tenuous at best. Though the Sultan of Mysore descended from a horrific family and inherited the responsibility of perhaps the most proficient ruler, his father Haidar Ali Khan (c. 1 722-82), he for a time, held his own and sought to reinforce his state, both administratively and diplomatically, against his hardhearted enemy, the traders of the British EIC. Then, both rulers had differing caliber of freedom of action in their respective dominion. Theoretically subject to the over lordship of the Mughal Emperor, Tipu, however, won a virtual autonomy to a degree. Siraj, was quite free to govern the suba in his own way, yet could never achieve that degree of independence as did his southern cohort a generation later. We need to distinguish between the experiences of these two Indian despots in two different contexts. Nawab Siraj ud Daula's encounter with the British EIC involved protection of the rights and profits of both adversaries. The Nawab did not struggle for independence; he fought to secure his independent subject of control. The British traders did not really have an imperial design on Bengal or India at large, they merely fought to secure their base of commercial operation and put the troublemaker of Murshidabad to his place or put him out for good. Although some Company officers did think of incorporating Indian territories into a British protectorate or a colony, such ideas were not encouraged by the British government. Tipu Sultan, on the other hand, confronted not the military force of a foreign trading company and some of its private traders keen on protecting their sources of profit legitimate as well as illegitimate-but a foreign commercial power that had already consolidated its hold on India and determined to expand its sovereignty over a larger terrain. The British EIC had received military protection from the home government in its Indian operations by an act of Parliament (Regulating Act of 1773), which provided for a Governor-General and a Council to manage Bengal. Richard Colley Wellesley, Lord Mornington, Governor-General (1798-1803), struck at Tipu's Mysore as part of his system of Subsidiary Alliance intended to bring the princely states of India under the Company's protection and subdue the Sultan's power for the safety of the English controlled Madras and Malabar (in present day northern Kerala)." Yet Tipu Sultan's resistance was really not a struggle for national freedom. In fact his grasp on the entire region of Mysore was not even legitimate, one half of it being abducted forcibly from its Hindu ruler by Tipu's formidable father Haidar Ali.
With regards to shiraj-ud-Daula and Tipu sultan we see that they are critical historical figures. As Professor Rajat kanta Ray has argued in his book "Palashir Sadayantra O Sekaler Samaj" that the main players in the conspiracy leading to the Battle of Plassey were the military grandees (mansabdars) and notables of Murshidabad and not the traders of the British EIC who were interested in enhancing their corporate as well as personal earnings rather than creating an empire in the subcontinent. On the other hand situation was different with Nawab of Mysore. In an almost similar vein two scholars lament the destruction of the kingdom of Mysore under Tipu Sultan Fath 'Ali Khan (1750-99) by the forces of the East India Company as an act of deliberate destruction of a well-ordered polity. However modern historian makes an argument about Nawab of Bengal and the sultan of Mysore.
"Was a determined effort to preserve the freedom of Indians in one part of the country as it was siraj ud Daula's feeble attempts to do the same act in another part 42 years earlier. Though poles apart from each other in point of time, geography and intensity, both Plassey and Seringapatam represented nothing but struggles for freedom for the people of India against alien subjugation. While Plassey had established British EIC as one of "country powers'' The fall of seringapatnam, made the British, power paramount.

Both were defeated by the British, in their earliest consolidating phase in India. We see similar parallels about the oriental despot being established in colonial narratives about both these rulers, to almost justify the British defeat of them and takeover of their territories. The major point of difference or analytical departure of Tipu sultan's rule from Siraj's was that Tipu sultan had a much larger vision. He was interested in an all round scheme of political development and freedom for his people, which included political freedom, social freedom, cultural freedom as well as economic freedom. In this context it needs to be understood that he was talking about freedom from a colonial and imperial scheme of governance, and to an extent a preservation of what is "Indian". While his association with the French can be questioned in the same regard, I agree it is more a question of pragmatically influenced ideas that led to this, rather than any greater scheme of subservience. He recognized that the British was the more dangerous of imperial powers in India, and realised that it was necessary for him to take the help of the French in order to challenge the supremacy of the British. In fact, to defeat him in the Third and Fourth Anglo Mysore war, the British had to take the help of a number of different Indian kingdoms. In terms of governance, we see several positive developments during Tipu sultans rule, including the building of a dam across the Cauvery River, roads, public buildings and ports. He also was able to establish a kingdom with regular international trade with many countries, including Sri Lanka. We thus see a firmly established scheme of welfare politics and public development in Tipu sultans Kingdom, which is particularly important. To understand this, we need to understand that the primary justification for the colonial takeover of Indian States was mismanagement, and lack of developmental and welfare activities. It followed, using the idea of a colonizing mission and the white man's burden, that it was the British who would rescue and civilize the orient from the rule of despots, who were not interested in anything beyond their self gratification. Consequently this idea began to gain increased legitimacy as more and more Indian States actually fell into hands of mismanagement, with feuds within dynasties and weak rulers, allowing the British to realize this imperial mission. However there is a difference in the case of Tipu sultan. Despite being limited, for the time period in context he undertook major developmental work, including welfare schemes and public development schemes. In a sense, his rule did adhere to logic of western rationality with the firm establishment of flourishing international trade. We thus see traces in Tipu Sultans Empire of some of the major elements that would come to characterize the rational, modern state. With regards to the question of social fabric, scholars argue that there existed harmonious inter community relations in his state. In fact there was not a single uprising against the ruler, during his reign , from which it can be deduced that by and large the socioeconomic conditions were prosperous. In fact Irfan Habib and Mohibbul Hassan argue that early British authors had a vested and calculated interest in representing sultan as a despot, which would facilitate an easier legitimization of their "liberation" narrative. The presentation of sultan as a religious bigot was often shaped by greater colonial interests of dislodging the ruler, and was often widely exaggerated. In fact he patronized a number of Hindu temples, and had a number of Hindu officials in his court. These can be understood to be examples of his engagement with ideas of religious pluralism. As discussed earlier he undertook several agricultural and technical reforms, in order to improve the living conditions of his subjects. These include establishing dams, roads, coinage, banking systems and so on. We can clearly see from the outline that his state had the entire necessary developmental framework for becoming a rational, modern state, even by the understandings fuelled by a western paradigm of thought. It is keeping these contents in mind that one must understand his engagements with the colonial power and its implications. We can see he was an enlightened ruler, with a well thought out framework of state policy and development vision, and this aspect of the narrative about his administration also needs to explored to challenge the do, in fact existing colonial narratives.
The question in the case of siraj ud Daula becomes different, because his conflict with the British arose out of the company primarily misusing trade privileges, and building a fortification around Calcutta without the Nawab's permission. It amounted to what would have been understood in modern times as a breach of sovereignty. While there was an existing history of animosity between the Nawabs of Bengal and the British company, matters came to a head during siraj ud Daulas reign. While there are no significant parallels between siraj and Tipu sultan in terms of developmental and welfare activities, siraj ud Daulas reign deserves more introspective engagement. His regard of the British as tenants on land where his sovereignty existed is important. This is because it is a part of the conception which still saw and sought to define the Europeans as a trading class, rather than having any political power over the land. It is with the defeat in the battle of Plassey, that the British were able to gradually transform their identity from simply being traders to that of a ruling class with dimensions of political power. It becomes particularly important because it is with the fall of Bengal that British influence began to extend and take shape across India, and hence Siraj's reign becomes important. It's also important because the treachery against him needs to be analyzed in another light. It was the first instance of the British looking for compradors in India, to turn against Indian rulers to help the British. Hence we see for the first time, the British being able to garner support of Indians, and making them rebel against their own ruler. While Siraj has been understood as a weak ruler, in contrast to Tipu sultan, there are different facets such as treachery and military superiority of the British which need to be understood.



Conclusion:
In conclusion it is necessary to understand both the rulers in terms of their temporal and political context. In the case of Tipu sultan we see much greater attempt for overall development of his subjects. It shows a road map for state activities the logic of which is not very different from the logic of development shaped by Western rationality. His attempts to create healthy social and economic conditions in his state must be appreciated. In the case of Siraj ud Daula rather than focus on development the focus is on question of maintaining sovereignty against a foreign power which can be seen as a new development in terms of the temporal context. His attempt to regulate the role of the British as traders was important and would go on to define a long history of engagement between the identity of the British and the Indians. The length of their reigns was also different. Tipu Sultan had a far longer and more consolidated reign as compared to siraj ud Daula. As a result an analysis of the administrative structure and system of governance of Tipu sultan region can be done in far greater details. Sirajs administrative was not marked by any major developmental activities and in fact in the end he fell victim as much to internal treachery as he did to colonial repression.






Bibliography
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2001). Bengal Rethinking History: Eassays in Historiography . New Delhi : Manohar publisher .
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2014). From plassey to partiton: A History of Modern India. Orient Blackswan.
Bayly, C. (1988). Indian Society and making of theBritish Empire . Cambridge: Cmbridge University Press.
Datta, k. (1971). Siraj-ud-daulah. calcutta : Orient Longman.
P.Sil, N. (2005). AN ANATOMY OF COLONIAL PENETRATION AND RESISTANCE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY: THE ODYSSEY OF SRAJ-UD-DAULA AND TIPU SULTAN . 39, 44-91.
Ray, R. (1998). ''Palashir Sadayantra O Sekaler Samaj''.
Yadav, B. (1990). Tipu Sultan:Giving ''The Devil'' His Due. 25.


1



See Fisher, ed., Politics of British Annexation, pp. 7-33
Subhan, "Tipu Sultan" in Ray, ed., Tipu Sultan, p. 41.

Ibid., p. 170. For an explanation of the Subsidiary Alliance see Hutton, "subsidiary system."
Ray, Palashir Sadayantra O Sekaler Samaj, pp. 12, 16.
See Ali, Tipu Sultan and Jeddy, Tipu Sultan. "Sultan" is not a sobriquet for Tipu, it being a part of his name. "Tipu" in Canarese means "Tiger" and "Sultan" stands for "Conqueror of Passions." This ascetic sounding name was given to him by a Muslim saint. Archer, Tippoo's Tiger,p. 4.

Subhan, "Tipu Sultan" in Ray, ed., Tipu Sultan, p. 41.