In their opinion,
none of the rulers’, were capable of
acting as an organized army, for example per Sir Lepel
Griffin: "`They are for the most part, an undrilled, wretchedly armed
rabble, and two or three of our regiments, with a battery of horse artillery,
would disperse 50,000 of them.' With the exceptions that I have named [armies
of Gwalior (Maratha), the Nizam of Hyderabad, and the Sikhs], they cannot cause
us anxiety. They are not armies in the ordinary sense of the term" (J.
Strachey, India, 1888, p. 327).
Initially like it did in the case of Europe, gunpowder came to India from China
although particularly the Mongols, appear to have introduced it in northwestern
India during the second half of the thirteenth century. (Igtidar
Khan, Gunpowder and Firearms Warfare in Medieval India, Oxford University
Press, 2004, p. 82.)
By the late fifteenth
century however, gunpowder artillery had became
a strong factor behind centralization of the state systems created in Asia,
from the Mediterranean to the Bay of Bengal, the designation of `gunpowder
empires'. (Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, Vol. III, pp. 17-18,
26.)
Guns produced in
China as well as elsewhere in Asia before 1500 lacked the effectiveness and
efficiency of the European weapons of that time. This should partly explain the
absence of any large import of Chinese cannons into neighbouring
Central Asia, in contrast to equipment manned by Europeans plus also Ottoman
Turks. For example Martin de Rada observed in South
China in the Sixteenth Century, 1575 (tr. and ed. C.R. Boxer, London, 1953, p.
273) “Their artillery, at least that which we saw is most inferior.” Ottoman
artillerists themselves influenced by Europeans in the service of the Indian
rulers in fact appear to have contributed significantly to carrying the skill
of forging wrought-iron cannons to the interior of India.
The impact of
European gunnery on the nature of the firearms of different types in the Indian
states during the sixteenth century turned out to be of far-reaching
significance. It came in a variety of ways, partly with the Portuguese (1498)
directly from Europe, and partly across West Asia to the northwestern parts of
the subcontinent.
The technique of
forging barrels, imported through the Portuguese, was initially used in the
Deccan and South India for light pieces of artillery. (K.A. Nilkantha
Sastri and N. Venkataramanyya (eds), Further Sources
of Vjayanagara History, Vol. III, pp. 224-5.)
After the improvement
of cavalry, the use of firearms is said to be the most important factor behind
the success of the Vijaynagara Empire not only
against the Bahmanis, but also `against the enemies
within', such as the powerful chiefs of the Tamil region. (Burton Stein, The
Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. I, p. 119.)
Also the Bahmanis acquired a
large stock of artillery (top-khana-i buzurg) manned by Europeans, Firingis. (Muhammad Qasim Firishta,
Tarikh-i Firishta, Vol. I,
pp. 73, 290-1.)
But there was more,
just like the so called ‘first’ World War (WWI) in Europe was in fact a
‘colonial war’ (because of the need for access to raw materials).So in turn, shortly after they set foot in India the
British became embroiled in conflicts with the other European powers in India -
the Dutch, the French, and the Portuguese. Furthermore, they also fought local
powers like the Marathas. Matters came to a head in 1744 with the declaration
of war in Europe between England and France. The French, led by the energetic
Joseph-François Dupleix, governor-general of all French possessions in India,
seized Madras from the British in October 1746, only to return it in 1748 under
the terms of the Aix-la-Chapelle treaty. One of the English defenders of Madras
who became a prisoner of the French was Robert Clive, a young copywriter in
the service of the company
When Nizam-ul-Mulk,
former Mughal viceroy of the Deccan and later an independent ruler, died in
1748, the French supported Muzaffar Jang, one of the claimants to the throne,
and waged a successful campaign against the challenger, Anwar-udDin, the ruler of Karnatik. The
French then turned their attention to the second challenger, Nazir Jang, the de
facto ruler of the Deccan who had British support, led by Maj. Stringer
Lawrence. Muzaffar Jang defeated and killed Nazir Jang, and the French then
installed Muzaffar as the ruler of the Deccan in their stronghold of
Pondicherry. A grateful Muzaffar Jang bestowed upon the French considerable
territories in southern India.. In 1751 the British,
by then under the leadership of Robert Clive, struck back by installing their
own puppet, Muhammad Ali, as the nawab of Karnatik.
(G. B. Lord Clive Malleson, The Decisive Battles of
India., London., 1882, .39-42.)
Although the French eventually managed to establish a firm presence in the
court of Hyderabad, they found themselves on the defensive; Dupleix himself was
recalled to France in 1754. (Rose
Vincent, "Dupleix: une ambitieuse
politique." In Rose Vincent, ed., Pondicherry, 1624-1761:
L'échec d'un rêve d'empire. Paris:
Les Editions Auttrement, 1993121-44.)
But in 1756 the Seven
Years' War broke out in Europe, and the French renewed their efforts against
the British in India under Thomas-Arthur de Lally, who had been sent to India
in 1758. Unfortunately for the French, Lally's campaigns were a series of disasters
and blunders. His first mistake was to recall Gen. Charles de Bussy from Hyderabad just when the general had all but
taken over this powerful kingdom. On the battlefield Lally suffered constant
defeat at British hands, culminating in the disaster at Wandiwash
in January 1760. The French navy too made little headway against a smaller
British fleet and ultimately let the British capture Pondicherry in January
1761. With the fall of Pondicherry all French hopes for an Indian empire were
dashed. The British were now the lone European power in the subcontinent. (Pierre-Antoine. Perrod, "La findu rêve
d'empire." In Rose Vincent, ed., Pondicherry,1624-1761:
L'échec d'un rêve d'empire. Paris:
Les Editions Auttrement, 1993,221-33.)
While the British
fought the French in southern India, they also carried out a protracted
campaign in Bengal to expand their territories and influence. Bengal was a
province of the Mughal Empire, and an appointed military governor, or faujdar,
oversaw its administration. After the fall of the Mughal Empire the governor of
Bengal, Ali Vardi Khan, broke away from Delhi's weak control in 1742. He ruled
until his death in 1756, after which his son Siraj-ud-Daulah
succeeded him. Both father and son maintained extremely rigid control of the
Europeans at the trading posts in Bengal. The British, who had the largest
presence in the region, resented this control. In 1752 Robert Orme, in a letter
to Clive, noted that the company would have to remove Ali Vardi Khan in order to prosper. (S. C. Hill, The Indian Record Series,
Bengal in 1756-7. 3 vols. London, 1895-1905, 2:307.)
Under Siraj-ud-Daulah relations were even worse, and finally the nawab
decided to expel the British from his domain. After a brief siege the British
garrison in Calcutta fell on June 1756. Subsequently, British prisoners died
while being held in the fort.
Clive moved out of
Madras in October 1756 and by January 1757 captured Calcutta. A treaty with
Siraj-ud-Daulah followed in February in which he
restored the British presence in Bengal. All this time Siraj-ud-Daulah had hesitated. But in January Ahmad Shah Durrani
had sacked Delhi, and the nawab, fearing his Afghan brethren more than the
British, sought peace with the British. But since by now the British had
disposed of the French in Bengal, they were in no mood to compromise.
Particularly when a member of the nawab's family requested British aid to
overthrow Siraj-ud-Daulah and claim the throne for
himself. Clive immediately agreed, noting that the "universally hated
[nawab] would be overthrown whether we gave our consent or not. (PercivalGriffith, The British Impact on India, 1965, 72.)
Charging the nawab
with violation of the February 1757 treaty, Clive moved out of Chandranagar with approximately 3,000 troops and
established himself at Plassey (Palashi in Urdu), 23 miles south of
Murshidabad, where the nawab was already stationed with 50,000 men. (Lord Clive
Malleson, The Decisive Battles of India. Reprint, New
Delhi, 1969, 76.)
Despite the
overwhelming odds Clive decided to attack because he knew beforehand that Mir
Jafar, one of the nawab's commanders, would not fight.
In fact, only one of the commanders, Mir Muin-ud-Din,
remained loyal to the nawab. Siraj-ud-Daulah
himself had only a small contingent of 2,000 soldiers. At the start of the
battle, when the British attacked, only Muin-ud-Din's
unit moved to challenge them. Although damp gunpowder and devastating British
fire hampered his efforts, Muin continued the advance until he was killed.
Nevertheless, he managed to force the British to retreat to the mango groves
from where they had started their advance. If the nawab's entire army had
advanced at the same time, the British might have been crushed, but two other
commanders, Yar Lutf Khan and Rai Durlab, along with
Mir Jafar, kept their forces out of the fray. At this point the nawab fled the
field, and the conspirators later murdered him as he
fled Bengal. According tosome, the total British
casualties numbered seventy-two dead and wounded, including seven Europeans
killed and thirteen wounded and sixteen sepoys killed and thirty-six wounded.
(Arthur Broome, History of the Bengal Army, London, 1850, Vol.I,48-49.) Others
l gives a slightly different distribution of the casualties: four Europeans
killed and fifteen wounded and fifteen sepoys killed and thirty-eight wounded.
(Hil, The Indian Record Series, i:ccii.)
In due time, Mir
Jafar was established as nawab and a British puppet. With total control of
Bengal, the British had the foothold they needed to consolidate and expand
their gains in India. Sir Thomas Roe's successful visit to Emperor Jahangir in
Agra resulting in permission for British merchants to bear arms. (R.Carnac, The Presidential Armies
of India. London, 1890, 27.)
Gradually, the
British employed large numbers of local peons, or guards, to protect their
factories. (Imperial Gazetteer of India. 25 vols. Oxford, 1907, 4:326 ) As British posts spread to the south and the east,
large forts, including Fort William in Calcutta and Fort Saint George in
Madras, came into being, and, as a consequence, royal charters granted in 1661
and 1669 allowed the company to enlist soldiers locally. (Malcolm Seton, The
India Office, London, 1926. 187.)
Bengal was the first
Presidency to establish its own native forces. Between 1668 and 1683 it created
two companies of native soldiers with twenty-one cannons. (Carnac, The
Presidential Armies, 52. 19) Bombay followed suit with two Rajput companies. In
1661400 royal troops were sent to the city for its protection, and Bombay
formed the first European regiment in India, the Bombay Fusiliers, in 1668.
(Seton, The India Office, 187.)
Madras experienced a
similar evolution at a later date. Madras began
setting up large military forces only in the eighteenth century during the
Anglo-French wars. In 1748 Major Lawrence received command of all of the East India Company's forces in India. He
established a Madras European regiment and recruited 2,000 Indian sepoys, which
he used only for guard duties. (Robert Orme, A History of the Military
Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan. 3
vols. Madras: Atheaneum Press, 1861, 1:104)
Bombay too began to
raise large local forces, recruiting, up to 2,000 men in Surat, mainly Arabs
and Turks. (P.Cadell,
History of the Bombay Army, London., 1938, 49. 22)
Bengal followed suit
with a force of between five and seven companies. The British also created an
artillery company to support each of the Presidency (Bengal, Bombay, and
Madras) armies, with Bengal getting the first in 1749. (Richard Walter, India
and Her Colonial Forces, London, 1850, 83.)
However, from 1757 to
1767, under Clive's leadership, the company's military organization, beginning
with that of the Bengal Presidency, underwent a dramatic
expansion and modernization. After the battle of Plassey Clive realized that
the local infantry, commanded by Indian officers, was an ill-trained and
undisciplined force.
For updates click homepage here