Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Nov 3 (IANS) From the distant chambers of the British House of Commons in 1809, a series of debates unfolded, superficially concerned with the dry technicalities of the East India Company’s private trade. To a casual observer, they were about freight charges, shipping tonnage, and petitions for financial aid. However, seen through an Indian lens, these discussions – recorded as debates – were much more than business squabbles.
They were a clear reflection of the interconnected nature of colonial exploitation, where commercial disputes were inseparable from political subjugation, military aggression, and the systemic extraction of the subcontinent’s wealth. For India, this was not a debate about partners, but about the competitive appetites of its masters.
Feud between the Masters: Private Trader vs. Company
The main conflict in these debates was a fierce competition between private British traders and the directors of the East India Company. Private traders, feeling harshly treated, demanded fair access to the huge Indian market, accusing the company of using its monopoly to crush competition.
However, from the Indian perspective, this was not a struggle for freedom of trade, but a dispute over the division of plunder. Both groups were foreign entities competing for a larger share of the profits derived from Indian labor and resources.
Complaints from private traders, as expressed by Mr Prendergast, Member of Parliament, exposed the company’s exploitative control practices:
Exorbitant freight charges: Merchants who depended on the company’s shipping charged rates as high as £44 per ton, which was much more than they expected.
This arbitrary inflation of costs was described not only as “injustice and oppression”, but also as outright “fraud”, as the directors used their absolute power to violate their own published agreements. For Indian producers and artisans, these increased costs meant lower returns for their goods, as foreign traders passed the expense down the chain.
Predominance of “political purposes”: A recurring complaint was that ships promised to private traders were often diverted by the Company for “political purposes”.
These changes left merchants “in complete limbo”, their goods stranded and their capital trapped. From the Indian perspective, these “political objectives” were wars of conquest and territorial expansion, such as the one waged by the Marquis Wellesley, which were eroding native sovereignty.
This incident exposed the basic truth of British rule: imperial ambition and military strategy always took priority over the supposedly stable and predictable rules of commerce.
Flying of foreign flags: was a predictable, yet obvious, consequence of the Company’s repressive policies. As Mr. Howarth said, the conduct of the directors had led to British capital being secretly traded under foreign flags. This meant that while the Company strangled the trade of its own countrymen, American, Portuguese and other neutral ships were coming to Indian ports, carrying on a lively commerce which Britain wanted to monopolize.
For India, the end effect was the same: its wealth continued to flow outward, enriching foreigners, the only difference being the flag on the ship’s mast.
Excuses and procrastination: defending the company
In response to these allegations, the company directors and their associates offered justifications that, from the Indian perspective, appeared to be little more than self-serving evasion. They argued that they were obliged to provide only a limited amount of shipping – 3,000 tons – and that the disruption was the result of the war, a factor beyond their control.
This defense was transparently flawed. The wars that caused disruption were the company’s own creation. The debates directly linked the company’s financial ruin to the aggressive policies of figures such as the Marquis Wellesley, whose conduct was condemned by the directors themselves for violating their laws.
The renewal of a select committee to investigate the affairs of the Company was prompted by a plea for public assistance, a direct result of the “huge expenditure” and “fraud and speculation” that defined this era of the Conquest.
This financial desperation, which led to the exploitation of private traders, was rooted in the military subjugation of Indian states. In short, the company defended its business abuses by citing the consequences of its political crimes.
Glimpse of Indian Reality: Discontent and Rebellion
While the debates focused on British interests, they offered sobering glimpses of the real-world consequences of these policies within India. The discussions were not merely abstract. Mr. Howarth, an MP, laid out the harsh reality of the situation in Parliament, talking about the widespread discontent among Company officials and the growing discontent of the native soldiers.
This was a direct result of the arrogant and culturally ignorant policies that were imposed.
He particularly cited “the system of appointing the King’s officers to the native corps”, who were people who were “not acquainted with their language, and ignorant of their customs”. This practice, detailed in other sources, caused deep resentment within the military structure that maintained British rule.
Furthermore, the context of the rebellion in Vellore serves as a powerful and “terrible” lesson. The fact that hundreds of British soldiers, and almost a thousand in total, lost their lives due to the enforcement of “turban and moustache” regulations shows the deep absurdity and danger of imposing British norms on Indian forces.
It was a clear sign that the foundations of British power were more fragile than many in London realized, resting on a bed of simmering cultural and religious resentment.
Conclusion: An Integrated System of Control
Ultimately, from the Indian perspective, these parliamentary debates on private trade show that various aspects of British engagement – commercial, political and military – were not separate, but part of a single, integrated system of imperial control.
Pressure for greater access by private traders, the Company’s defense of its monopoly, allegations of “fraud and speculation”, and massive “lavish expenditure” were all part of an internal struggle among the British over how to best exploit their Indian wealth.
The Company’s financial crisis, which required a parliamentary committee and a petition for public debt, was a direct result of the wars of “progress” and “capture of the States”.
The commercial grievances of private traders arose from their interests being sidelined in favor of these military ambitions. And the discontent growing within the native army was a reaction to the cultural insensitivity that accompanied this claim to absolute power.
While members of Parliament debated, from the Indian perspective, the verdict was already clear: whether under the Company’s monopoly or a more “open” system, the ultimate purpose of the British presence was the extraction of wealth and consolidation of power, the heavy costs of which were borne by India itself.
(The author is an expert researcher on Indian history and contemporary geopolitical affairs)
–IANS
Santosh/PGH