I. INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY
Upon looking at the history of the British East India Company in India, there can be little doubt that much of Britain’s superior ability to colonize areas of Africa, Asia, and the Americas was due in large part to the success and power of the British East India Company. In its heyday, the British East India Company commanded immense amounts of political and economic power in England, Britain, and abroad; however, its initial beginnings were much more humble. Initially, the East India Company was founded by London merchants in the late 1590s after the defeat of the Spanish Armada-- these merchants sought permission and funding from Queen Elizabeth I to sail abroad to the Indian Ocean, where they would collect tradeable goods and return to England to trade and sell them (Keay 1991). Queen Elizabeth I granted the petition, and sent forth a small number of ships, whose purpose it was to seek out the Indian Peninsula and return with the bounty that could be sold in British, French, and other European markets (Keay 1991). These voyages, while profitable, were dangerous; the merchants interested in doing regular business with India raised some capital, however, and presented the Queen with a petition to form a corporation (Keay 1991). After some time, the Queen agreed, and the East India Company was born (Keay 1991).
The maiden voyage of the East India Company came in 1601, and the East India Company began to organize voyages to India. The British East India Company was, at this time, in direct competition with the well-established Dutch East India Company, and had to contend with the competitive nature of the market (Keay 1991). To compete with the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company formed a number of small factories in India townships, which they convinced the King and Queen to support financially and politically (Keay 1991). King James and Queen Elizabeth supported these factories, many of which were located on the Bay of Bengal (Anthony 1969).
Perhaps the most important political and financial incident with the British East India Company came early in its infancy: although King James initially granted other companies the right and ability to trade in India, in 1609 he renewed the exclusive charter that was given to the British East India Company, essentially solidifying the British East India Company’s place in British society as the country’s primary link to the incredibly prosperous and resource-rich subcontinent of India (Anthony 1969).
As time went on, the British East India Company began to clash with its Dutch counterparts, particularly over Indonesia (Anthony 1969). Rather than continue to fight what would clearly become a long, painful struggle, the British East India Company looked to the subcontinent of India instead, quickly gaining a foothold in the economy and society there (Keay 1991). Given this basic history of the British East India Company, this discussion will center around the question of why the British East India Company was so successful at colonizing the Indian subcontinent in the 18th century, despite the distance from Britain and the potential problems with other companies and colonial powers.
II. DISUNITY AND WAR IN INDIA
During the 16th and 17th centuries, India was less of a singular nation as it is today, and more of a conglomeration of warring states (Keay 1991). This is not, of course, particularly unusual or uncharacteristic of the region during this time period; indeed, much of Asia was made up of warring states at the time (Keay 1991). However, the fact that many of the states of India were warring against each other could be easily utilized by the British East India Company to ensure that whatever the company wanted or needed from the local Indian government, it could receive (Andrews 1984). The disunity that existed among the princely states of India meant that the Company was able to play states against each other, especially since the states were already willing to go to war (Andrews 1984). Guha (1997) writes, “The British successfully play off one state against another. Add to it there was no dearth of people willing to betray the kingdom for a few pieces of silver. For example, Mir Jaffar was willing to betray his master Siraj-Ud-Daulah Mir Jaffar himself was betrayed by Mir Qasim later on, and Tipu Sultan-- one of the most redoubtable fighters against the British rule-- was finally defeated all joined hands with the British” (Guha 1997). The leaders of the warring states of India were unable to see the British interference in their political situations for what it was-- colonialism-- because each state was only interested in the success and overall superiority of that particular state or leader (Guha 1997).
In addition, there was a significant lack of national unity in India during this time. As previously discussed, the warring nation-states had a very significant impact on the ability of the British East India Company to gain a foothold in the country (Guha 1997). However, interestingly, the lack of universal nationalism also played a significant role for the Company as it tried to colonize the country. India, during this time, had no sense of nationalism; every ruler was willing to betray all other rulers, depending on what was offered by the East India Company for their betrayal (Guha 1997). This disloyalty bred distrust and further animosity between the faction leaders in India. As the faction leaders continued to fight amongst themselves, each backed in part by the East India Company, the Company itself began to build a solid foothold in the region as the infighting continued between the various political factions in India. The foothold of colonization was, indeed, extremely small-- all it took for colonization in India to occur was one Indian prince accepting the British East India Company’s request and allowing the company to build a factory along the Bay of Bengal (Guha 1997).
III. BRITAIN’S COLONIAL SUPERIORITY
The British East India Company, from its inception, was an extremely strong company, willing to go head-to-head with some of the most powerful companies in the world, like the Dutch East India Company. Landow (2013) writes, “One of the benefits the Company derived from its relations with the state was limited liability. Before the rise of state-backed companies, businesses had imposed unlimited liability on their investors. If things went wrong, creditors could come after them for everything they possessed, down to their cufflinks, and have them imprisoned if they failed to pay. Some firms had already been granted limited liability, and the Company's officers persuaded Queen Elizabeth that it should be given this handy status too” (Landow 2013). The important thing to take away from the close connection between the British East India Company and the English government is the fact that Britain’s overall success as a nation was very closely linked with the success of the British East India Company; because of this close link, the Company’s success was ensured by the British monarchy (Landow 2013). This means that the full might of the substantial British military was given to the British East India Company; indeed, during the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain had one of the most powerful navies in the world (Keay 1991). The full power and might of this extremely powerful British navy was employed to ensure that the power of the British East India Company and the profits that it gained for the British Crown did not wane. This effectively protected the British East India Company from military entanglements with other colonial powers, although it did not protect the company completely (Cohn 1996). Britain’s army and navy were incredibly strong, especially compared to other colonial powers like France and Portugal, whose military powers were rife with corruption and lacked the integrated organization that was the hallmark of British military (Cohn 1996). Although the British East India Company did have competitors in India, the main competitors were France, Portugal, and Denmark, which did not have the military might to overtake the full weight of the British military (Cohn 1996).
IV. THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY
The Doctrine of Lapse was the final puzzle piece that came into the solidification of the British rule over India. The Doctrine of Lapse was a doctrine that the British signed in conjunction with Indian princes and other rulers that stated if the ruler died without an heir, the province or state would be signed over and annexed to the British East India Company (Cohn 1996). Because the British East India Company had been so successful when it came to playing different Indian states off of each other, their success in prompting these states to sign the Doctrine of Lapse was also highly successful. However, unlike commonly assumed, the Doctrine of Lapse did not only apply to provinces that had a dead prince or ruler; the British East India Company could also-- and often did-- annex provinces or states when they deemed the ruler to be incompetent. As a result of this policy, the British East India Company was able to annex into British control a large number of different Indian states (Cohn 1996). By implementing this policy, the British were also able to secure their lead over the other colonial powers insofar as control of the Indian subcontinent was concerned; the British could easily annex a number of different provinces or states very quickly with minimal combat from other colonial powers or from the people of India themselves. The Doctrine of Lapse did sow some seeds of discontent among the locals, but it also allowed the British to take over and control large parts of the Indian subcontinent (Cohn 1996). It would take many years before the Indian people would rise up against British rule-- a rule that began, essentially, with the Doctrine of Lapse and the cooperation of the princely states with the British East India Company.
V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S METHODS FOR RETAINING CONTROL OF THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT
The British, once they obtained governmental control of the Indian subcontinent, knew that they could not wait and rest upon this control. The Indian people had to be conditioned to accept colonization, and there were a number of ways that the British encouraged the Indian people to accept and even enjoy British colonization. The first step that the British East India Company took insofar as culture and society were concerned was to leave laws and customs of the regions that they controlled relatively untouched (Guha 1997). This allowed the Indian people to feel more at ease with British rule, as British rule was less of a large change from their everyday lives. Had the British East India Company come into the country and completely changed the everyday rhythm of life for all Indians, the East India Company may have found more resistance in the population; however, rather than meeting with and fighting this resistance, the East India Company sought the path of least resistance and made no attempt to change everyday life (Guha 1997). Instead, the company took over the government of each state and allowed the masses to live much in the same way they had before. In addition, the East India Company often kept the king or ruler of the province or state as the figurehead of the government, doing most of the decision-making but allowing the ruler of the people to determine the best way to deal with the masses (Guha 1997). Finally, the East India Company encouraged young Indian ment to attend English-style and English-speaking schools, effectively building a class of gentry in the Indian subcontinent and prompting class friction between those who spoke English and worked with the British and those who did not or would not (Guha 1997).
VI. CONCLUSION
The British East India Company eased its way into ruling the Indian subcontinent through a variety of different methods. By keeping the everyday culture of the Indian subcontinent relatively unchanged and making only governmental changes, the East India Company was able to control the masses. However, the Company also used the Doctrine of Lapse to control and annex the various Indian governments, and the full weight of the British military kept other colonial powers at bay.
Works cited
Andrews, Kenneth R. Trade, plunder, and settlement. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Anthony, Frank. Britain's betrayal in India. Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1969.
Arnold, David. "White colonization and labour in Nineteenth-century India." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 11, no. 2 (1983): 133--158.
Cohn, Bernard S. Colonialism and its forms of knowledge. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Guha, Ranajit. Dominance without hegemony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Harrington, Jack. Sir John Malcolm and the creation of British India. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Keay, John. "The honourable company: a history of the English East India Company." HarperCollins(1991).
Landow, G.P. "The British East India Company — the Company that Owned a Nation (or Two)." 2013. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html (accessed 11 Mar 2014).
Lawson, Philip. East India Company , The. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014.
Marshall, Peter J. "British Society in India under the East India Company." Modern Asian Studies 31, (1997): 89--108.
Mukherjee, Ramkrishna. "The Rise and Fall of the East India Company: A Sociological Appraisal."Popular Prakashan (1973).
Philips, C. H. The East India Company, 1784-1834. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1961.
Sutherland Lucy Stuart. "The East India Company in eighteenth-century politics." Clarendon Press Oxford (1952).
