As we have all read in school and seen in films and theatres -- Battle of Plassey or Polashir Juddho marked the end of independence in Bengal, resulted in the death of the courageous young Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula, and the ascension to the Bengal throne of puppet Nawab Mir Zafar, who had betrayed Siraj in the Battle of Plassey by refusing to fight the East India Company.
In our common narratives, the line dividing the virtuous and the villains of Plassey are pronounced -- Mir Zafar and his lot are the scums whereas the ones siding with Siraj fought for the right cause.
Actually, in trying to discuss Plassey, one needs to first identify the ‘right’ cause.
Was it the effort to save Bengal from the rising influence of the East India Company (EIC)? Actually, if Siraj had won the battle, then this article would possibly be written in French.
As a student of history and a journalist, I look at the Battle of Plassey as not just one isolated event that forced Bengal into the hands of the EIC.
There are too many complex dimensions to Plassey and the usual black and white analysis of it sideline the fickle geo-political imponderables of the 18th century.
Recently, at a round table discussion on Plassey, historians and academics have rightly said that Plassey needs to be thoroughly assessed because the narratives we have been fed are often reductive.
This writer feels that to get an idea of the murky political scene in mid 18th century Bengal, one first needs to go back to 1687 and Child’s War.
Child’s War -- a warning sign that was ignored
In all the discussions about the rise of the influence of overseas commercial companies in the sub-continent, Child’s War is hardly mentioned, whereas this event should have been used as a strategic warning for all future dealings with foreign trading companies.
Just to jog your memory, between 1687-1690, the EIC under the governorship of Josiah Child, driven by greater ambition to assert their commercial plus military presence in India, decided to blockade Mughal ports.
In addition, pilgrims on their way to perform Hajj were also detained by EIC ships.
Blockade counter blockade continued with occasional skirmishes.
In the end, the Mughal navy blockaded the EIC port in Bombay.
After a year, faced with famine, the EIC accepted the terms, apologized to Aurangzeb who later reinstated their trading privileges.
The point is, long before Plassey, it was quite evident that given the opportunity, the EIC, or any other company for that matter, would actively pursue political ambitions in the sub-continent.
Any debate about the morality of such action is futile because expansion of empire was the norm back then.
By the time Siraj came to power, all overseas East Indian trading companies had large armies, well defined structures, and operations which worked like clockwork.
In fact, at the height of its power, the EIC had 260,000 soldiers as opposed to 130,000 by the standard British Army.
Aurangzeb was called the last great Mughal because under him, the empire still operated as a whole while the foreign trading bodies were compelled to work within set guidelines.
With the gradual decay and the rot of the empire began the inexorable rise of companies.
The Battle of Plassey happened when the world was rocked by a far greater conflict -- the Seven Years War, or, what many historians now call the first global conflict.
Caught between the English and the French
Nawab Siraj ud Daula was actually caught between the greater conflict between the English and the French.
Both the nations and their respective trading companies were making aggressive efforts to secure their trading and military footprint globally, leading to the Seven Years’ War.
In India too, the companies of both sides went at each other with daggers drawn.
Unfortunately, local rulers had no choice but to side with a company because regular wars in Europe had worked as a catalyst for foreign weapon manufacturers to constantly upgrade their products, which were in high demand in the sub-continent.
This is exactly why even in the 16th century, Emperor Akbar employed engineers, gunners, and mercenaries from Portugal and Italy.
To become the dominant force in the Indian sub-continent, both the British and the French began engaging in conflict in India, with Nawab Siraj employing French soldiers at Plassey.
However, given the geo-political intricacies of the period, even if Siraj had won at Plassey, it would have been impossible for him to maintain supremacy because the Mughal empire, under Alamgir II, was already on the verge of collapse.
The whole sub-continent was plagued by wars, shifting alliances, and treachery.
In addition, by the mid 18th century, European weapons, especially cannons, muskets, and pistols were more advanced, giving the traders a decisive edge.
To digress a little, the Tiger of Mysore, Tipu Sultan, managed to keep the British at bay for so long because his military engineers had developed the first battle rockets, known in history as Mysore Rockets.
Arguably, by the mid 18th century, local rulers had become so dependent on military support from the trading companies that almost every king wanted someone on their side.
In simple terms, inviting an outsider to resolve one’s own disagreements. The catastrophic result of such an action is widely known.
Glaring ‘shame’ of Plassey and Battle of Chinsurah
The shame of Plassey is not the defeat of Siraj but the shockingly small number of EIC troops who managed to secure victory in the face of staggering odds.
At the battle, the Nawab, as per historical records, had around 50,000 men opposed to a meagre 3100 by the EIC, of which 2100 were local sepoys.
Siraj had 50 field artillery pieces while the EIC had 8 cannons.
The disparity is evident.
We do know that Mir Zafar did not command the army to fight and the gunpowder for the field pieces got wet in the rain, but what of the 2100 Indian sepoys who fought for the EIC and against the Nawab?
These were locals who took up arms, possibly knowing the far-reaching implications of the battle if the EIC emerged victorious.
Mir Zafar is condemned as the sole architect of the Plassey ignominy but there are several layers beneath the conspiracy.
The Jagath Seths, largest bankers of the time, wanted Siraj removed and financed Clive’s plot.
While Mir Zafar is the byword for treachery, there’s one fact that most people are not aware of.
Disillusioned with the EIC’s crippling taxation and his role as a pawn in their hands, Mir Zafar sent a call of help to the Dutch in 1759.
The ensuing naval battle in Chinsurah between the Dutch and the English resulted in a decisive victory for the latter.
Do note, once again, the request for help was to another European power of the time and not to a local ruler.
Local greed and avarice exploited by others
Plassey is the tale of how homegrown palace intrigue, greed for power, and rapacity for wealth invited foreign elements to establish their dominance.
As Siraj was on the throne, Bengal and all of the sub-continent was in a volatile state -- the Mughal grip was lost, a feeble Mughal emperor Alamgir II requested Marquis de Bussy de Castelnau (later governor or Pondicherry) for French support of 1,000 men to defend Delhi against the Marathas.
If Mir Zafar had not betrayed Siraj at Plassey, then someone else would have joined hands with the EIC because Bengal was already a hotbed of chicanery and conspiracy.
Of course, the role of the EIC in exploiting local dissension cannot be condoned but the mid 18th century was a period where all actions were driven and dictated by self-interest.
In popular culture, Siraj ud Daula is often portrayed as a noble, kind-hearted, benevolent person, although there needs to be an in-depth historical assessment of his true character.
As a 23-year-old, one cannot expect a person to show the virtues of sagacity and perspicacity. Some of his actions seem rash and impetuous but can one really blame him?
To give a personal opinion, Siraj should have stayed on the battlefield and fought till the end, just like Tipu Sultan.
When it was clear that so many people were conspiring against him, staying on to fight till the end would have been the most valiant course of action instead of being stabbed at the back after being caught while leaving on a boat.
One feels that in deconstructing Plassey and many other battles between local rulers and foreign companies, one key question remains untouched: Why did so many local soldiers/mercenaries fight for foreign trading companies against those wanting to safeguard the independence of the sub-continent?
Towheed Feroze is a former journalist.