The Battle of Palashi, fought over a relatively short period of time, on June 23, 1757, signaled a seismic shift in the fortunes of the Indian sub-continent.
With the unceremonious defeat of a 50,000 strong army of the last independent ruler of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Siraj-ud-Daulah at the hands of a paltry 3,000 (largely comprised of Indian sepoys) East India Company army under the ruthless, unprincipled yet capable clerk turned Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Clive, the stepping stone for British colonial hegemony was firmly established in South Asia.
While the British celebrate “Plassey” as a testament to a rare feat of military marvel and Byzantine statesmanship, the denizens of the sub-continent have long regarded it as the ultimate example of disaster and servitude brought about by disunity, perfidy, treason, and avarice.
Consequently, while the stock of the lead protagonists in that fateful battle -- Clive and Siraj -- have ebbed and flowed in historical narratives and the annals of nationalistic myth making, the leading collaborators of the British, the Nawab's principal general Mir Jafar, Mahtab Chand, head of the colossal Jagat Seth Bengal banking family, Umichand, the influential merchant and British intermediary, Rai Durlabh, former governor of Orissa, Yar Lutuf Khan,veteran military commander, Krishnachandra, the zamindar of Nadia are roundly and rightfully reviled as treasonous conspirators and quislings.
What seems to be missing in the nationalism versus colonialism debate centering round Palashi is the myriad complex factors, both internal as well as external, that had shaped the momentous outcome of the battle, even before a single shot had been fired.
Furthermore, a sober objective assessment of the background and the causes of the debacle in the battle would yield valuable lessons for many countries that find themselves hopelessly caught in the maelstrom of “The New Great Game” between China and the US.
The history of the sub-continent, especially Bengal, offers a fairly reliable portent of things to come in a future, mired in uncertainty and replete with perils. There are lessons to be learned.
A turbulent time of transition
Mid-18th century India was somewhat similar to the current global geo-political dynamics -- the decline of an unipolar world order, the rise of new trade rivalries, emergence of regional powers, and a spate of bloody conflicts.
The sub-continent spanning Mughal Empire had atrophied and splintered, hastened by internecine civil wars and factional feuding amongst the leading grandees of the state, relegating the once mighty badshah to a figurehead.
The predatory Maratha war bands wreaked havoc and destruction with impunity; the Iranian adventurer, Nader Shah sacked and plundered Delhi after mauling the Mughals in Karnal and adding insult to injury, carried off the fabled Peacock throne, the invaluable Koh-i-Noor and Darya-i-Noor diamonds, and a vast treasure trove and large numbers of slaves to Persia; the Afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Abdali repeatedly raided India from the 1750s and made and unmade Mughal emperors; the militant Sikhs asserted themselves in the Punjab whereas the numerous Jats rose in the Gangetic Doab; the regional governors in Hyderabad, Oudh and Bengal became effectively independent and the trade and military rivalry between the British and French East India companies started in earnest.
With the collapse of a stable overarching imperial framework, the rulers of many small kingdoms and the fabulously rich Gujarati and Jain merchants (who had businesses across various states) suffered from a heightened state of existential anxiety.
When the canny British East India Company operatives stepped into the breach, offering security guarantees via unequal treaties, a cavalcade of rulers, merchants and the bureaucrats clamoured to be engulfed by the seductive appeals of Pax Britannia.
Red herrings
Nations often expend considerable resources and manpower trying to contain or deter traditional security threats or perceived ones, while being upended by unexpected new challenges. Alivardi Khan, the formidable Nawab of Bengal and the grandfather of Siraj, spent the better part of his sixteen year reign fending off attacks from the Maratha marauders.
From 1741 to 1751, there were six major Maratha invasions, causing widespread economic devastation and the loss of over four hundred thousand lives. Such was the ferocity of their attacks, that the term Bargi has entered the Bengali lexicon as silent testimony to Maratha savagery.
Despite heroic resistance, eventually a war-weary Alivardi decided to sue for peace, ceding control of Orissa and agreed to pay one fourth of the state revenue of Bengal and Bihar as tribute to the rapacious Maratha confederacy.
The tribute payment only stopped with the British occupation of the land. The kingdom of Bengal had literally been bled white even before the fateful clash with the British corporate mercenaries.
Siraj, though freed of the spectre of Maratha invasions, could never banish the sense of insecurity amongst his long suffering subjects.
Ahmad Shah Abdali's invasion of India in 1757 only made matters worse. Siraj could not effectively deploy the might of his army to bear on the British, as he had to deploy a significant portion on the border, to deter possible Afghan misadventure.
The fear of visible external threats, blinded Siraj to the nascent internal threat posed by the British.
The New Great Game
The global economy and trade has been dealt a body blow by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
European rivalry and conflict has historically cast a long shadow around the world in terms of its reach and consequences. Non-European nations have seen rising food and fuel prices, ballooning trade and current deficits, free fall in their currencies and debt defaults.
Alongside this malaise, there is the additional pressure of clearly choosing camps in the ongoing New Great Game between the US and China.
The War of the Austrian Succession during 1740-1748 initiated the British and French squabble for trading hegemony and political intervention in India, by propping up the different local combatants during the Carnatic War, down South.
The British had strong military detachments to guard their trading stations in Fort St George in Madras, Fort William in Calcutta and Bombay Castle in present day Maharashtra.
Not to be outdone, the French had formidable trading bases in Chandernagar in Bengal and Pondicherry in South India.
The onset of the Seven Year War (1756-1763) in Europe saw both the British and the French in India busy shoring up their military fortifications.
A worried Siraj, trying to tamp down on potential conflict within his kingdom, forbade both parties from engaging in warlike preparations.
The British, with a history of run-ins with the young, untested Nawab, refused, thereby setting in motion the eventual showdown in Palashi. It should be mentioned that the French sent officers on loan to command the Nawab's artillery during the battle.
Bengal partially lost its independence, once it chose to get entangled in the local iteration of an essentially European rivalry, with disastrous consequences.
Trade and the lure of riches
In a post-globalization world, many countries find themselves unwitting victims of novel iterations of trade wars such as Belt and Road Initiative vs Free Open Indo Pacific Economic Framework or Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership vs Trans Pacific Partnership.
It may involve a bidding war to access vital rare earth metal and hydrocarbon deposits or deliberating on whether to buy raw materials and fuel from a West-sanctioned Russia or weighing the pros and cons of being part of a Sino-centric or Western global supply chain.
It also involves consideration of the economic powers to access emerging markets teeming with consumers with bulging wallets or securing significant influence in countries with prime geo-strategic real estate value.
Often, if the economic interests of larger nations or their various corporate entities are threatened, they do not hesitate to covertly or overtly undermine or overthrow the ruling regime of the host country.
Bengal in the mid-18th century was the richest province in the Indian sub-continent. In fact, it was the crown jewel of Mughal possessions, and constituted a significant proportion of the annual revenue collected by the mighty Timurid rulers of Delhi.
Far-reaching reforms in agriculture, revenue collection methods and land measurement, public infrastructure works initiated by Mughal administrators and continued diligently by subsequent Nawabs, unlocked a wave of unprecedented prosperity in the region.
Proto-industrialization started in Bengal, with the export of the legendary cotton muslin, silk, grains, liquor, metalwork, gunpowder, and saltpetre around the known world.
Improvements in agricultural productivity helped keep the price of basic food down.
Dhaka was the largest commercial city in Bengal, Murshidabad was the grandest; Chittagong was the largest maritime seaport in the region and a shipbuilding hub.
Apart from the British and French, the Dutch and Danes set up trading factories. Arab, Persian, Armenian, Jain, Kashmiri, and Jewish traders were all drawn into Bengal's commercial orbit.
In fact, some experts contend that Bengal's plunder helped finance the transformative Industrial Revolution in Britain.
It is not surprising that Bengal with all its riches was too tempting a prize for the British to pass up on.
A reckoning was only a matter of time when Siraj started to scale back the unfair trade concessions enjoyed by the London merchants.
Treachery begets treachery
Nations without smooth, transparent, credible and inclusive power transfer mechanism, often become a cauldron of simmering discontent and unrest, inciting local opposition and inviting foreign interference.
Much has been made about the perfidy of the leading courtiers and magnates at Siraj's court. However, the grandees were only taking a leaf out of the playbook of Alivardi himself, who was a usurper and regicide.
Alivardi, had become the Nawab of Bengal after revolting against his legitimate king, Nawab Sarfaraz Khan, the grandson and anointed heir of the formidable Murshid Quli Khan.
Unlike Siraj, Sarfaraz Khan died bravely fighting against his rebel subject in the Battle of Giria in 1740.
Alivardi, acquired the throne through conspiracy and treason and he was aided in his grab for power by the same people who would betray his favourite grandson some 15 years later.
The conspirators had acquired immense power, wealth and connections under Alivardi and felt threatened when Siraj tried to rein them in.
It is a different matter that Alivardi was infinitely more capable and kept his erstwhile collaborators on a tight leash. He also kept the various foreign merchants in check.
Siraj himself had rebelled against his grandfather unsuccessfully in 1751 and was eventually forgiven by a doting Alivardi.
It was unfortunate both for Siraj and Bengal that he lacked the political nous and statesmanship of his grandfather and alienated a vast majority of the elites of the Murshidabad court.
The overmighty nobles who had aided and abetted in Alivardi's rise to power now eagerly plotted to bring about the downfall of Siraj.
In their myopic hatred of Siraj, not only did the nobles engineer regime change, but doomed Bengal to two centuries of British colonial servitude.
The only consolation from this sorry episode was that most of the lead collaborators either died in relative obscurity after losing their wealth and power or met violent ends.
A house divided
Dissension within the ruling clique during times of succession often serves as a harbinger of doom for the country.
The exceptionally talented polymath, Ibn Khaldun in his seminal work Muqaddimah posited that ruling dynasties lose power when their asabiyyah or tribal cohesiveness or solidarity dissipates.
The Afsharid dynasty of Alivardi Khan is a textbook example of loss of social cohesion and unity of purpose amongst the members of the ruling family.
The first to raise the standard of revolt was Siraj's cousin, Shaukat Jang, who through bribery managed to get himself recognized as the legal Nawab from the Mughal court.
Mir Jafar, who incidentally was Siraj's great uncle (he married Alivardi's half-sister) and Ghaseti Begum, eldest daughter of Alivardi and Siraj's aunt, covertly supported this rebellion.
Siraj's trusted general Raja Mohanlal defeated and killed Shaukat Jung in battle in 1756.
But this did not stop Mir Jafar and Ghaseti Begum from forming a cabal with Umichand and the Jagat Seth family and bringing about an end to Siraj's rule.
Lesson for today
Despite an interval of nearly three centuries, the factors that contributed to the tragic denouement at Palashi offer salutary warning to modern states.
A resource rich or strategically important country which suffers from dissension and disunity at home and acts rashly on the foreign policy front courts disaster.
It is a lesson that we can only ignore at our own peril.
Parvez Karim Abbasi is Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics of East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He has an avid interest in history and geo-politics. He can be reached at parvez_abbasi@yahoo.com