Did EIC act independently in its decision to take over India even as a trading company or did the story have British influence?
- Brit had no official policy of conquest
- conquest result of sub imperialism i.e. policies, actions & personal ambitions of senior EIC officials
- in fact, on paper, Brits banned expansion in Pitts India Act 1784
- However Brits cannot escape responsibility
- Tools of conquest (right to wage war, acquire territory) were given to EIC by state via Charters issued by Crown
- state helped in development of Presidencies
- eg. Bombay was given for a rent of just 10pounds/ annum in 1668 by King Charles II
- Royal Military helped EIC in Battle of Plassey 1757 when conquest began and also in 1857 Revolt Summary when EIC rule could have ended
- Brit Monarchy, State and important figures in polity gained financially from EIC
- 150K pouds given to Crown in 17th century for the renewal of Charters
- 1698: Parl transferred monopoly to New Company as it offered 2M pounds (compared to EIC’s 700K pounds)
- 1709 EIC and New Company merged
- 1767: EIC mandated to pay 400pounds/ annum to the state
- state wanted share of EIC loot of Bengal after Treaty of Allahabad 1765
- Many parliamentarians, Queen elizabeth were shareholders of EIC who got substantial dividends
- EIC was imp tool of foreign policy for Britain
- after Regulating Act 1773 and Pitts India Act 1784, EIC political affairs were under supervision and control of British State and principal servants of EIC (i.e. Sub imperialists) were appointed only after approval of Crown and binding orders could by passed after 1784
- the british Crown had interest in EIC’s political expansion