Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Battle of Buxar in 1764 marked a turning point in the British East India Company’s control over India. Following this victory, the Company implemented the ‘Dual System of Government’ in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. This system, characterized by the Company’s control over *Diwani* (revenue administration) and the Nawab’s retention of *Nizamati* (police and judicial functions), was intended to facilitate revenue collection and maintain administrative stability. However, it quickly devolved into a system rife with corruption and exploitation, leading to widespread suffering. This answer will examine the assertion that the Dual System was a complete failure from its inception, focusing on the rampant abuse of private trade and the resulting oppression of the peasantry.
Understanding the Dual System of Government
The Dual System, established by Robert Clive in 1765, was a unique administrative arrangement. The Company obtained the *Diwani* rights from the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, granting them the right to collect revenue. However, the Nawab retained the *Nizamati* functions, including maintaining law and order. This division of power created a situation where the Company controlled the finances while the Nawab was responsible for administration, but lacked the financial resources to effectively govern. This inherent imbalance formed the basis for the system’s eventual failure.
Abuse of Private Trade
One of the most significant failures of the Dual System was the unchecked abuse of private trade by Company officials. Prior to 1765, the Company’s servants were restricted from engaging in private trade. However, with the acquisition of the *Diwani*, they exploited their position to amass personal fortunes. This took several forms:
- Illicit Trade: Company officials engaged in large-scale illegal trade, importing and exporting goods without paying taxes, thereby depriving the government of revenue.
- Dastak System: The Company issued *dastaks* (passes) to Indian merchants, allowing them to trade freely without paying internal duties. This severely impacted local traders and revenue collection.
- Monopoly Trade: Company servants established monopolies over essential commodities like salt, opium, and silk, forcing local producers to sell their goods at artificially low prices.
- Exploitation of Revenue Farmers: The Company leased out revenue collection rights to individuals (revenue farmers) who, in turn, exploited the peasantry to maximize their profits. The Company turned a blind eye to these practices as long as they received their share of the revenue.
The scale of this private trade was immense. Estimates suggest that between 1765 and 1772, the value of goods traded by Company servants exceeded the official Company trade. This drain of wealth severely hampered the economic development of Bengal.
Oppression of the Peasantry
The demands of the Company for increased revenue, coupled with the exploitative practices of the revenue farmers, led to gross oppression of the peasantry. Several factors contributed to this:
- Increased Revenue Demands: The Company, driven by the need to finance its wars and pay dividends to its shareholders, drastically increased land revenue demands. This was often done without considering the capacity of the land to yield revenue or the economic condition of the peasants.
- Harsh Revenue Collection Methods: Revenue farmers employed brutal methods to extract revenue, including torture, imprisonment, and seizure of property.
- Decline of Agriculture: The excessive revenue demands and exploitative practices led to a decline in agricultural production. Peasants were forced to abandon their land, leading to widespread famine and depopulation.
- Lack of Judicial Recourse: The Nawab’s *Nizamati* administration was weak and unable to provide effective judicial redress to the peasantry against the abuses of the revenue farmers.
The Great Bengal Famine of 1770, which resulted in the death of approximately 10 million people (roughly one-third of the population of Bengal), was a direct consequence of the oppressive revenue policies and the neglect of the Company. Warren Hastings, later Governor-General, acknowledged the severity of the situation but did little to alleviate the suffering.
Attempts at Reform and their Limitations
Recognizing the detrimental effects of the Dual System, Warren Hastings initiated some reforms in 1772, abolishing the *dastak* system and attempting to regulate the activities of the revenue farmers. However, these reforms were largely ineffective due to the Company’s continued focus on maximizing revenue and the resistance from Company officials who benefited from the existing system. The Regulating Act of 1773 further aimed to bring some control over the Company’s affairs, but it did not fundamentally address the underlying problems of the Dual System.
| Feature | Dual System (1765-1772) | Post-1772 Reforms (Hastings) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Control | Company (Diwani) | Company (Direct Control) |
| Administration & Law Order | Nawab (Nizamati) | Company (Gradual Assumption) |
| Private Trade | Rampant & Unregulated | Attempted Regulation (Limited Success) |
| Peasantry Condition | Severe Oppression & Famine | Marginal Improvement, Continued Exploitation |
Conclusion
The Dual System of Government was undeniably a failure from its inception. The unchecked abuse of private trade by Company officials and the resulting oppression of the peasantry led to widespread economic devastation and human suffering. While attempts were made to reform the system, they were insufficient to address the fundamental flaws inherent in its design. The system ultimately paved the way for the Company’s complete assumption of power in Bengal and laid the foundation for its subsequent expansion across India, but at a tremendous cost to the Indian population. The famine of 1770 stands as a stark reminder of the disastrous consequences of prioritizing profit over the welfare of the governed.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.