After reading Parson’s chapter, Company India, I noticed that one of the factors of the East India Company’s Empire was extremely similar to the other empires we have studied. According to page 173, “the Company’s directors…never planned to acquire an empire…”
This has been true of the Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empire, and others. In India’s case, they did not need a military advantage (a characteristic much unlike the other empires we have studied) because they won using foreign troops and they maintained the original economic and political structures because of their efficiency. Specifically, in the case of Robert Clive, there was no “inclination, authority, or resources to annex the province. Instead, he lobbied his superiors for permission to supplant the nawabs as the primary revenue collectors in Bengal.”
However, it seems confusing as to how a “Company” could control and govern an entire empire. Much unlike the other empires we have studied, Parsons does not seem to have a strong case about the viciousness of the British East India Company’s “Private Empire Building.” Although he describes the foreigners as “barbarous but seemingly innocent,” much of the history of the companies seem diplomatic, not militaristic. Certainly, the annexation of Indian states, and the treaties between Indian rulers and the Company are evidence of expansion, but without the militarism and rough economy, can Company India be considered an empire?
If find the most difficult concepts as regards to whether or not India should be concidered part of an "East India Company Empire" is the notion that it was never really annexed by Britain. It was largely controlled by a private company as you stated that then payed money to Britain to work in the territory. If it wasnt really under direct control of a "metropolis" then can it truly be concidered part of the "periphery" if its ruler is in fact a private company that has been given a contract by the "metropolis"? You stated that "much of the history of the companies seems diplomatic, not militaristic", while indeed the company did use much diplomacy in obtaining and controlling India, there were actual military conflicts between Robert Clive and the Moguls who controlled India. Even the diplomacy usually resulted in the East India Company getting Indians to fight other Indians. There was clearly militaristic expansive qualities of Empire building, though the use of companies instead of the British government itself is what appears to be the most concerning as regards to Empire
ReplyDeleteIf one defines an empire as a vicious group with military power, diplomatic powers, and a impact on economy,the East India Trade Company fits. Their "metropolis would have been in England where their headquarters were, and the land they controlled, the "periphery". They had a ruling system and contracts that kept people accountable, they had military presence in the fact that they hired body guards and protecting bodies to safeguard their investments. As a financially stable unit who controlled much of new world expansion, they had diplomatic and economic power and were able to significantly influence their time. Maybe the definition of empire should be adapte to accept not only countries, but consequential ruling bodies as well. Maybe the EIC could be an empire. Maybe it was a great one because it was powerful, but managed to go relatively unnoticed as such.
ReplyDelete