Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The East India Company (EIC), initially a mercantile enterprise, gradually transformed into a significant political force in India. A pivotal moment in this transformation was the acquisition of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in 1765, following the Battle of Buxar. The Diwani, meaning the right to collect revenue, granted the EIC unprecedented control over the economic and administrative affairs of these provinces. This acquisition wasn’t merely a financial gain; it compelled the Company to assume responsibilities traditionally held by Indian rulers, effectively functioning as a sovereign power, albeit with unique characteristics and ultimately exploitative intentions. This essay will explore how the EIC, after acquiring Diwani, began to govern like an Indian ruler, examining the similarities in administrative functions and the underlying differences.
The Context: Acquisition of Diwani and Initial Challenges
The Battle of Buxar (1764) decisively established British supremacy in Bengal. The Treaty of Allahabad (1765) granted the EIC the Diwani rights, while the Nizamat (judicial and police powers) remained with the Nawab, who was a puppet in British hands. Initially, the Company leased out revenue collection to Indian zamindars and relied on Indian officials for administration. However, rampant corruption and inefficiency led the Company to gradually assume direct control.
Administrative Functions mirroring Indian Rulers
Revenue Administration
Like Indian rulers, the EIC’s primary concern was revenue collection. They initially continued the existing Mughal revenue system, but gradually introduced changes. The Permanent Settlement of 1793, implemented by Lord Cornwallis, created a new landholding system resembling the traditional Zamindari system, but with fixed revenue demands. This aimed to create a stable revenue stream for the Company, similar to how Indian rulers relied on land revenue. Revenue was collected through a hierarchy of officials – Collectors, Daroghas, and Amin – mirroring the Mughal Qazis, Foujdars, and Karoris.
Justice and Law & Order
The EIC established courts – the District Diwani Adalat (civil) and the District Faujdari Adalat (criminal) – to administer justice. Initially, these courts were staffed by Indian Qazis and Muftis, applying Islamic law (Sharia) and local customs. However, with the gradual introduction of British legal principles, a dual system of law emerged. The Company also maintained a police force, initially relying on local Thanedars, but later establishing a more organized police system, similar to the Kotwals and Chaudharis of Indian kingdoms. The Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat were established as appellate courts, functioning like the imperial courts of Indian rulers.
Military Organization and Warfare
The EIC maintained a large army, initially composed of Indian sepoys led by British officers. They engaged in warfare with neighboring Indian states, expanding their territory and influence, much like the expansionist policies of Indian empires like the Marathas and Mughals. Forts were built and garrisoned, and treaties were signed with Indian rulers, mirroring the diplomatic and military practices of Indian states. The Company’s military campaigns, such as the Anglo-Mysore Wars and the Anglo-Maratha Wars, were conducted with similar strategies and tactics employed by Indian armies.
Patronage and Symbolic Authority
The EIC, like Indian rulers, engaged in patronage of religious institutions and offered grants to religious leaders to maintain social order and legitimacy. They also adopted certain symbols of authority, such as maintaining a court, issuing farman (royal decrees), and holding darbars (royal courts). The Company’s officials often adopted the titles and customs of Indian rulers to project an image of power and authority. For example, Warren Hastings attempted to portray himself as a benevolent ruler, similar to Mughal emperors.
Differences and Consequences
Despite the similarities, the EIC’s governance differed significantly from that of Indian rulers. The primary difference lay in the Company’s ultimate objective: maximizing profits for its shareholders. Indian rulers, while often concerned with revenue, also had responsibilities towards their subjects, such as providing welfare and maintaining social harmony. The EIC’s policies, such as the high revenue demands and the suppression of local industries, often led to economic hardship and social unrest. Furthermore, the EIC’s legal system was increasingly biased in favor of British interests, and its administration was often characterized by corruption and inefficiency. The Company’s rule also led to the decline of Indian handicrafts and the rise of British economic dominance.
| Feature | Indian Rulers | East India Company |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Objective | Welfare of subjects, territorial expansion, prestige | Maximizing profits for shareholders |
| Revenue System | Flexible, based on local conditions | Initially flexible, later rigid (Permanent Settlement) |
| Justice System | Based on religious laws and customs | Dual system – Islamic law initially, then British laws |
| Legitimacy | Derived from tradition, divine right, and military power | Derived from military power and treaties |
Conclusion
The East India Company, after acquiring Diwani, undeniably adopted many administrative practices of Indian rulers – revenue collection, justice administration, military organization, and even symbolic displays of authority. However, this imitation was superficial. The Company’s governance was fundamentally driven by commercial interests, leading to exploitative policies and ultimately undermining the economic and social fabric of India. The transition marked a significant shift from a system of governance rooted in local traditions and obligations to one focused on maximizing profits for a distant shareholder base, laying the foundation for colonial rule and its lasting consequences.
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.