By the beginning of the 17th century, all convenient routes to India and trade with the colonies that lay along this route were under the jurisdiction of the Iberian (Spanish-Portuguese) Union. And Britain, naturally, was not happy with this. Of course, it was possible to start another war the old fashioned way, but the British acted more cunningly.

Trade campaign instead of war

Both the Portuguese and the Spanish exploited the natives under the same system: trade was carried out exclusively by the government, so cargo could only be transported on government ships, for which large fees were charged. At the same time, there were few ships, and in the metropolis itself, goods could only be stored in expensive government warehouses. As a result, Europe's needs were not met, and prices for colonial goods were greatly inflated.

The new naval powers of Holland, France and England wanted to change the established order, but getting involved in a war was not part of their plans. Monarchies preferred to place matters in the hands of their subjects, endowing them with broad powers for the time being and supporting them with military forces. So the East India Company arose first in England (1600), then in Holland (1602) and in France (1664). Of course, there were significantly more people willing to take a bite of the Indian pie, but it was these three powers that waged the main struggle.

The French left India already in 1769 after a clash with the British East India Company. The Dutch company managed to become the richest in 1669 and oust the Portuguese and English from Indonesia, but about a hundred years later lost the war to the British Empire and eventually declared bankruptcy in 1798.

The English (and later British) East India Company, established by Elizabeth I with the right of monopoly trade in the entire eastern space (from the Cape of Good Hope to the Strait of Magellan), existed for almost 300 years (until 1874), until it came under the full control of the British crowns As a result, all Anglo-Saxon crimes in the colonies are now associated not with the British Empire, but with the East India Company. A very advantageous position.

Crime one: robbery

The British East India Company became a safe means expansion. The expansion of the zone of influence was carried out in different formats: Indian princes could conduct their activities only with the knowledge of the company, and the Indians supported the British army, for which the East India Company kindly defended indigenous people. The princes were allowed not to pay subsidies only if the British were given the authority to collect taxes from the princely lands. However, here the British government was cunning and took away lands for “mismanagement” or non-payment of taxes. For refusing to fulfill the subsidiary agreement, the Indian prince was threatened with war.

In general, after conquering most of India, in just 15 years the British exported wealth worth about a billion pounds sterling. The money received by the East India Company went towards loans for British parliamentarians, hence the loyalty on the part of Parliament.

Now we know at whose expense and with what money the industrial revolution was carried out in England.

Crime two: genocide

The leadership of the East India Company was very well versed in India's internal conflicts and understood that they were weakening the unity of the country. The British also knew about high level development of crafts and trade, primarily in Bengal. Therefore, it is not surprising that in order to expand the scale of production, the company’s army under the leadership of Robert Clive attacked Bengali territory.

Having won the victory, the East India Company immediately appropriated all the money and jewelry from the treasury of the conquered country. This once again increased her capital and allowed her to engage in even larger trading operations.

In Bengal, the company, pursuing the same goals of increasing profits, distributed local artisans among all the possessions of the British and forced them to sell their products at reduced prices, which, by the way, did not relieve the population from paying increased taxes.

The terrible result of such a destructive policy was the death of millions of Bengalis. In 1769-1770 Between 7 and 10 million people died from malnutrition, and ten years later, when the situation worsened again, famine claimed the lives of several million more.

The activities of the British East India Company only contributed to the degradation of the Indians: they were ruined, their traditional crafts faded away, agriculture fell into decline. In total, 40 million local residents died during the company's dominance in India.

Crime Three: Opium Wars

However, the British East India Company destroyed not only India and its indigenous population.

In 1711, the company established its trade office in Guangzhou, China to purchase tea. However, it soon became unprofitable to buy anything with silver from competitors in Asia. And then the East India Company founded the “Chinese Inland Mission,” which pursued the not at all noble mission of addicting Chinese peasants to opium, the plantations of which were cultivated in Bengal, which was captured by the company.

As a result of the propaganda of opium smoking in China, a huge sales market appeared, which was filled by the British East India Company. In 1799, the Chinese government banned the import of opium, but the company continued to smuggle it in at a rate of 900 tons per year. When, by the end of the 1830s, the imperial court was frightened by the fact that even law enforcement officers were already using the drug, and the supply of opium amounted to 1,400 tons per year, the death penalty was introduced for smuggling.

After destroying a shipment of 1,188 tons of opium (1839), the Chinese governor offered the British a deal: tea in exchange for voluntarily surrendering the drug. Many agreed, and each signed a statement that he would no longer trade opium in China.

The drug trafficking scheme began to collapse, which affected the interests of not only individuals, but also the entire British Empire. The decrease in English purses was the reason for the outbreak of the First Opium War, as a result of which the import of the drug was legalized, and the degradation and large-scale extinction of the Chinese population continued.

East India Company. The story of the great oligarch

The English East India Company (1600 – 1858) is the same age as English capitalism and the English state as a nation-state. Historically, it is not much younger than the Mughal Empire. In and through this company, the histories of England and India are connected, as well as much within these stories themselves: in English history, the Company seems to connect the reigns of two great queens - Elizabeth and Victoria, and in Indian history - two great empires: the Mughal and the British. The company was “born” three years before the death of Elizabeth I and during the lifetime of Shakespeare, and “died” under Victoria and Dickens, having survived three and a half dynasties (Tudors, Stuarts, Hanoverians and Cromwell’s protectorate).

Two and a half centuries is the lifespan of a dynasty or even a state. Actually, long time The East India Company was a state within a state, even in two - Great Britain and Mughal India.

The East India Company is a unique organization in human history. This conclusion seems to be an exaggeration only at first glance. History knows many different trade and political forms. This is both a “merchant state” (Venice) and “military trade associations” (as M. N. Pokrovsky called the principalities Kievan Rus), and the union of trading cities (Hansa). History knows many powerful states and companies (for example, current transnational corporations). But in history there is only one case of the existence of a trading company, which at the same time is a political organism, a state-company within a state, as if embodying the motto of Captain Nemo's Nautilus - mobile in mobile.

Of course, companies of this type existed not only in England, but also, for example, in Holland (1602 - 1798), France (with reorganizations and interruptions, it existed from 1664 to 1794). However, their history cannot be compared with the English one. The Dutch East India Company - its heyday was in the mid-17th century - never had the strength and power that its English “full namesake” possessed, never controlled such vast territories, just as Holland never occupied such a place in the world economy like England. As for the French East India Company, firstly, it lasted half as long, and secondly, and this is most important, it was under strict state control (which was reflected in its constant reorganizations and changes of names) and essentially was not an independent agent of the socio-economic process. None of the East India companies occupied such a place in their colonial empires as the English one, and did not play such a role as the latter in penetrating the East, and then in the exploitation of the colonies. Apparently, the uniqueness of the English East India Company corresponds to the uniqueness of both English history and the phenomenon that specialists in economic history called “Anglo-Saxon capitalism” (J. Gray).

First 150 years

So, on December 31, 1600, a group of London merchants who received a charter from Queen Elizabeth I for a monopoly trade with the East for a period of 15 years founded the East India Company. For the first two decades, the Company traded with island Southeast Asia, but then it was ousted by a stronger competitor at that time, the Dutch East India Company, and the British moved their activities to India.

The company consisted of two bodies: a meeting of shareholders and a board of directors headed by a manager. The first voyages were financed by subscription: there was no permanent capital. In 1609, James I granted the Company a new charter, which declared the Company's monopoly trade to be unlimited.

Having ousted the weakening Portuguese from India, the British gradually expanded their trade in Asia. The company bought Malay pepper and Indian cotton fabrics for silver and sold them in Europe (primarily continental), receiving more silver for them (which flowed into Europe from Spanish Mexico).

The relationship between the Company and the English monarchy was mutually beneficial. The company needed royal charters and diplomatic support in the East, and in return it provided large "loans" to the crown.

In 1657 a very important change occurred in the history of the Company. Cromwell gave the Company a charter, making it a permanent capital organization. The change of power did not bring anything bad to the Company. On the contrary, after the restoration she received the island of St. from the crown. Helena and Bombay. In 1683, the state granted the Company the right of admiralty jurisdiction, and three years later allowed the minting of coins in India. The Company's success could not but arouse envy and hostility on the part of its rivals in England - the merchants who exported English textiles. The latter raised in parliament the issue of abolishing the Company's monopoly and regulating its activities by the state. Having achieved nothing in 1698, they formed an alternative East India Company, but due to the weakness of the new company and the French threat in the East, the Companies merged in 1702 - 1708.

TO mid-18th century century, after Britain's victory over France in the Seven Years' War, the United Company became a powerful military-political force in India, or, as one English researcher called it, a "company-state" by analogy with the "nation-state" (nation-state). In 1765, the Company took over the right to collect taxes in Bengal. Thus, the trading company essentially turned into a political state. Taxes drove out commercial profits, and management drove out trade.

Perhaps this was the apotheosis of the Company, crowning the first century and a half of its history, during which support from the English state was increasing. However, by the mid-1760s, the relationship between the Company and the state, or rather the state and the Company, changed: the Company became too tasty a morsel, besides, “good old England” was changing, and the state needed money. Although the Seven Years' War ended in victory for the British, it greatly depleted the treasury. The search for funds forced the crown to pay attention to the Company. Perhaps no less important was the fact that the Company gradually began to transform into a kind of state in the East, into a state that the famous English historian Macaulay described as “a subject in one hemisphere and a sovereign in the other.”

"The Great Break"

In 1767, the state, as they said in our country during the time of Ivan the Terrible and as they started talking again at the end of the 20th century, “came down” on the Company: Parliament obliged it to annually pay 400 thousand pounds sterling a year to the Ministry of Finance. In the early 1770s, the Company was on the verge of bankruptcy due to its devastation of Bengal and was forced to ask the government for a loan. However, she had to pay dearly for financial assistance. In 1773, Parliament passed Prime Minister North's Bill, which became known as the Regulatory Act. The state, among other measures aimed at establishing control over the Company, obliged its board of directors to regularly report on the Company's affairs to the ministries of finance and foreign affairs. The system of government in India was centralized. Government officials were appointed to the posts of three of the four advisers to the Calcutta Governor-General.

The North Act was a compromise between the state and the Company. This was clearly demonstrated by the subsequent struggle between Governor General Hastings and Councilman Francis. Although Francis, who defended the interests of the state within the Company, was defeated in this struggle, the Company ultimately found itself unable to resist the pressure of both parties of parliament and lost its political independence. In 1784, the Pitt Act was passed, which established a government board of control for Indian affairs and gave the governor-general - now effectively the appointee of the state - complete power in India. The Pitt Act formalized the relationship between the English state and the East India Company as unequal partners in governing India for a period of more than 70 years. The company retained independence only in the field of trade.

Conflict in the Calcutta Council

It often happens in history that a private conflict, in which personal ambitions play a large role, not only becomes an expression of opposing socio-political tendencies, but also determines certain extra-personal tendencies, sometimes in a very bizarre way. This is exactly what happened in the Calcutta Council of 1774 in the conflict between the Bengal Governor-General Hastings and his adviser Francis, who was a protege of the government.

One of the most important points of their disagreement was the issue of political governance of India. Francis considered it necessary to abolish political power Company and proclaim the sovereignty of the British Crown over English possessions in India (which was done in 1858). The Nawab of Bengal, restored to power, would now have to govern on behalf of the English king. Hastings, as a representative of the Company, advocated the maintenance of the Company's power in India, and his position in specific situation the end of the 18th century was more realistic, since the annexation of Indian territories by Britain could lead it to an armed conflict with other European powers that had interests in the East.

History has shown that in terms of short-term consequences, Hastings was right, although in the long term, in a different era - at the peak of British hegemony in the world, the "Francis program" was implemented. Another point of contention between Hastings and Francis was the issue of land management and tax collection. According to the plan of the Governor-General, the tax-farm system he introduced should have been replaced by the old Mughal system. However, Francis' plan, carried out in 1793, historically won: the zamindars were given the right to private property, depriving all the previous rights of the peasants and reducing them to the status of tenants.

Hastings and Francis argued over foreign policy Companies in India. If Hastings advocated the Company's active participation in the political events of Hindustan, concluding subsidiary agreements with the Indian princes, then Francis called for non-interference, and connected this with the plan to expand British power in India. In his opinion, Great Britain should have annexed only Bengal and controlled the rest of India through the Delhi Mughal. However, at that time such a plan was unrealistic: the British were not yet clearly the dominant force in India.

And these contradictory views were reconciled further development. They formed the basis of the political strategies of the first, complementary and alternating depending on the circumstances. half of the 19th century century: conquest and the "policy of non-intervention". Thus, in the disputes and struggles of individuals, on the one hand, and the state and the Company, on the other, strategies for the future were forged and worked out. Decisive period This production began in just over a decade between 1773 and 1784. This same time became the culmination of the confrontation between the Company and the state; a balance of power had been achieved in it: North’s act had already marked the beginning of the Company’s subordination to the state, but Francis was defeated in the fight against Hastings, and another parliamentary act was needed to tip the scales in favor of the state.

Last lap

The development of Great Britain during and after the industrial revolution led to a clash of interests between the Company and the emerging English industrial bourgeoisie, and to a further attack on it by the state. The milestones of this offensive were three Charter Acts - 1793, 1813 and 1833. The East India Company Charter Act adopted in 1793 became another compromise between the Company and its opponents, and the role of arbiter in the confrontation was naturally played by the state. A “regulated monopoly” was established: the state obliged the Company to provide part of its ships at reasonable freight prices to private merchants for trade with India.

By the Charter Act of 1813, Parliament, under pressure from British industrialists and shipowners, generally abolished the Company's monopoly on trade with India. This abolition was required both by the logic of the industrial development of the “workshop of the world” and by the need to resist the continental blockade organized by Napoleon. State intervention in the administrative sphere of the Company also increased sharply: Parliament clearly prescribed to the Company how it should manage the government revenues of the Asian country it governs. The crown's approval of the Company's senior officials in India dramatically expanded the state's zone of authority at the expense of the Company's in their joint administration of India.

The Charter Act of 1833 abolished the Company's last monopoly rights to trade with China. The logic of the development of relations between the state and the Company led to the parliament banning the Company from engaging in trade in India, that is, what the Company was once created for.

By the middle of the 19th century, the East India Company was doomed. She was a political-economic centaur, and the time of these “organizational beings” was over - they had no place in the world of industry and nation-states.

In the three-quarters of a century (minus one year) that separates 1784 and 1858, England has transformed from a pre-industrial country into the “workshop of the world.” Being a form of organization of commercial, pre-industrial capitalism, the Company was inadequate to industrial capitalism, its era, its political and economic structures. It is only natural that the institutions and organizations of the pre-industrial era should go with it, as happened with the East India Company. What in the XVII - XVIII centuries constituted strength and was the main victory of the East India Company, namely: a rather organic (for that time) unity, a combination of political, trade and economic functions in its activities, became the reason for its weakening and death.

In a certain sense, the degree of freedom and privileges of the East India Company can be considered a measure of the underdevelopment of English capital as, in Marxist language, formational, the English state as a bourgeois and English society as a class society in the capitalist sense of the word. The development of the bourgeois state and society in England, the increasing isolation of society and the state, the divergence of administrative management and business management (“Lane’s Law”) - all this reduced the “living space” of the Company.

Why a company-state if there is a nation-state? Being a carrier administrative functions, which in a mature capitalist society are the monopoly of the state as the personification of the functions of capital, the East India Company turned out to be something of an alternative or parallel government structure, which in the middle of the 19th century, of course, was an anachronism to be destroyed.

In 1853, wide circles of the English bourgeoisie demanded the liquidation of the Company as a political institution - the British instrument for governing India - and the annexation of India. However, parliament limited itself only to further reforming the Company. The Charter Act of 1853 was an example of government intervention in the internal structure of the Company: the number of directors was reduced. Moreover, the Company (board of directors) has partially - by a third - ceased to be itself. It became one-third a ministry, as 6 of the 18 directors were now appointed by the crown.

It is difficult to say how much longer the veteran Company would have lasted if not for the circumstances - the Sepoy uprising of 1857 - 1859, one of the reasons for which was the activities of the Company officials.

In 1858, the Government of India Act was passed, which completed the history of the East India Company as a political institution. This act proclaimed the sovereignty of the British Crown over India. After this, the Company existed until 1873, but only as a purely commercial organization. An entire era passed with the Company (now a company), but contemporaries hardly noticed it: the Franco-Prussian War, the Communards in Paris, Russia’s refusal to comply with the terms of the Paris Peace of 1856, the abdication of the Spanish King Amadeus and the declaration of the first republic in Spain, the collapse on the Vienna Stock Exchange and the beginning of the US economic crisis, which opened the Great Depression of 1873 - 1896 - a global economic crisis that undermined the hegemony of Great Britain.

In short, in the early 1870s the world had no time for the East India Company, this relic of the past. The world, without knowing it, was entering an era that would end in 1914 and become a watershed between two “short” centuries - the XIX (1815 - 1873) and XX (1914 - 1991). This era began as the era of imperialism, the era of the final formation of colonial empires by national states. In this era, nation states were the main actor, the main monopolist, who generally successfully fought private monopolies.

East India Company - a memory of the future?

However, this was the case until the 1950s, until transnational corporations (TNCs) began to gain strength and began to gradually squeeze out the state, including the British one. Only a century has passed since his victory over his "transnational" subject-competitor, and new transnational competitors have emerged, perhaps more serious than the Worshipful Company.

Despite the surface of the analogies, it can be said that there is a certain similarity between the East India Company and modern transnational corporations: in one way or another, they are all associated with a monopoly, represent a challenge to the national state and national sovereignty, and combine political and economic forms of activity. In a certain sense, we can say that TNCs are taking revenge on the state as an institution for the East India Company. TNCs are not the only competitor of the state in the current “post-modern” world. There are others too. These are supranational associations such as the European Union and ASEAN, these are “region-economies” (K. Omae), that is, zones that arise within one state (the Sao Paulo region in Brazil, Lombardy in Italy), at the junction of two (the Languedoc region - Catalonia) or even three (Penang - Medan - Phuket region) states and representing fully integrated units of production and consumption with a population of 20 - 30 million. Finally, these are the so-called “gray zones”, that is, areas not controlled by the legal authorities (various “drug triangles”, zones of self-perpetuating inter-tribal conflicts, etc.).

In a world in which the state is increasingly becoming just a cartographic reality, an increasingly important role is played by political-economic “centaurs”, more precisely - neocentaurs, structures of the type that more or less successfully competed with the national state in the 16th - 18th centuries, at the dawn of Modernity , and lost to him in the first half of the 19th century. Nowadays they appear like shadows from the past, but the shadows are quite material. From this point of view, the phenomenon and history of the English East India Company acquire a completely modern sound and become relevant. Venerable Company as a memory of the future? Why not. Her four hundredth anniversary, which fell on the last day of the century and millennium, - A good reason think about it.

The site's observer studied the history of the trading British East India Company, which practically seized control of India, became famous for its robberies and abuses, and also made the British Empire one of the most powerful countries in the world.

The British East India Company, like its Dutch counterpart, was effectively a state within a state. Having its own army and actively influencing the development of the British Empire, it became one of the most important factors brilliant financial situation states. The company allowed the British to create a colonial empire, which included the jewel of the British crown - India.

Founding of the British East India Company

The British East India Company was founded by Queen Elizabeth I. After winning the war with Spain and defeating the Invincible Armada, she decided to seize control of the trade in spices and other goods brought from the East. The official founding date of the British East India Company is December 31, 1600.

For a long time it was called the English East India Company, and became British at the beginning of the 18th century. Among its 125 shareholders was Queen Elizabeth I. The total capital was 72 thousand pounds sterling. The Queen issued a charter giving the company a monopoly on trade with the East for 15 years, and James I made the charter perpetual.

The English company was founded earlier than its Dutch counterpart, but its shares were listed on the stock exchange later. Until 1657, after each successful expedition, income or goods were divided among the shareholders, after which the money had to be invested again in a new voyage. The company's activities were led by a council of 24 people and the governor general. The British of that time had perhaps the best navigators in the world. Relying on her captains, Elizabeth could hope for success.

In 1601, the first expedition led by James Lancaster set off to the Spice Islands. The navigator achieved his goals: he conducted several trade transactions and opened a trading post in Bantam, and after returning he received the title of knight. From the trip he brought mainly pepper, which was not uncommon, so the first expedition is considered not very profitable.

Thanks to Lancaster, the British East India Company introduced a rule to prevent scurvy. According to legend, Sir James forced the sailors on his ship to drink three tablespoons of lemon juice every day. Soon other ships noticed that the crew of the Lancaster Sea Dragon were less sick, and began to do the same. The custom spread throughout the entire fleet and became another calling card of the sailors who served in the company. There is a version that Lancaster forced the crew of his ship to use lemon juice with ants.

There were several more expeditions, and information about them is contradictory. Some sources talk about failures; others, on the contrary, report successes. We can say for sure that until 1613 the British were mainly engaged in piracy: the profit was almost 300%, but the local population chose between two evils of the Dutch, who tried to colonize the region.

Most of the English goods were of no interest to the local population: thick fabric and they did not need sheep's wool in hot climates. In 1608, the British first entered India, but mostly robbed merchant ships there and sold the resulting goods.

This could not continue for long, so in 1609 the company’s management sent Sir William Hawkins to India, who was supposed to enlist the support of Padishah Jahangir. Hawkins knew the Turkish language well and really liked the padishah. Thanks to his efforts, as well as the arrival of ships under the command of Best, the company was able to establish a trading post in Surat.

At Jahangir's insistence, Hawkins remained in India and soon received a title and a wife. There is an interesting legend about this: Hawkins allegedly agreed to marry only a Christian, secretly hoping that a suitable girl would not be found. Jahangir, to everyone's surprise, found a Christian princess as his bride, and with a dowry at that - the Englishman had nowhere to go.

The British East India Company, like its Dutch counterpart, was effectively a state within a state. Having its own army and actively influencing the development of the British Empire, it became one of the most important factors in the brilliant financial position of the state. The company allowed the British to create a colonial empire, which included the jewel of the British crown - India.

Founding of the British East India Company

Most of the English goods were of no interest to the local population: they did not need thick fabric and sheep's wool in the hot climate. In 1608, the British first entered India, but mostly robbed merchant ships there and sold the resulting goods.

What did they trade?

The English merchants who created the East India Company in 1600 sought to gain access to eastern goods that were in demand in Europe. These were Indian fabrics, Malay pepper, dyes, tea, grains. If Elizabeth I granted the company the right to a trade monopoly in the East for 15 years, then James I made this privilege indefinite.

The 18th century opened up for Europeans new way get rich quick - opium. The opium poppy from which the drug was obtained was grown in India. The finished potion was sold in neighboring China. In 1799, the Chinese authorities banned the trade in opium, and later introduced the death penalty.

Chinese opium smokers

Draconian laws did not stop the company - it took up smuggling. The British government tacitly supported these illegal activities. The expansion of trade led to two Opium Wars in 1839-1842 and 1856-1860. Qing China lost every time, made economic concessions, established preferential customs tariffs and paid gigantic indemnities.

In 1830 the company sold 1,500 tons of opium

Other important exports from India to Europe for the company were satin, taffeta, silk, saltpeter, coffee, rice, indigo, etc. Due to frequent cases of famine, plantation farming was established in the colonies. Tea was in great demand in the metropolis and its American possessions. In 1773, a cargo of tea belonging to the East India Company was destroyed in Boston Harbor during a protest against the actions of the British government. This episode (the Boston Tea Party) was the impetus for the American Revolution and the American War of Independence.

How things stood with European competitors

The British East India Company was not alone. There were similar organizations in Holland and France. However, it was the English experience that turned out to be the most successful. The French company was completely dependent on the state; the expansion of the Dutch company stopped in the middle of the 17th century, and later it lost the Indian market to British competitors.

The irony is that the British were originally interested in the islands South-East Asia. But it was precisely because of the Dutch that they failed to gain a foothold in the disputed region. The ousted British company has refocused on India. There she earned her fabulous capital.

How India became British

East India trading post in Bengal, 1795

The first possession of the Honorable Company (as it was sometimes called) was a trading post in Surat in western India. The trading settlement was secured by the British in 1612 after defeating the Portuguese at the Battle of Suvali. The Portuguese colonial empire was never able to stop the onslaught of its opponents in India. In 1668, she leased Bombay to the company, where the organization's headquarters were soon moved.

The largest Indian state proper at that time was the Mughal Empire. In Childe's War (1686 - 1690), the British were defeated. However, already in the first half of the 18th century, due to internal contradictions, the previously monolithic empire began to disintegrate on its own. The map of India began to look like a patchwork quilt. The disunited feudal princes could no longer stop the expansion of the trading company, which was increasingly looking like a military-political force.

The Seven Years' War (1756 - 1763) was fought not only in continental Europe, but also in the colonies. In India, the interests of the British clashed with the interests of the French. Victory here again went to the British company. Having finally gotten rid of its European competitors, it established control over Bengal, a region in eastern India and modern Bangladesh.

Something went wrong

The end of the East India Company was not caused by native revolts or losses. She could not withstand the pressure of her own state. Long years crown and Joint-Stock Company coexisted on the principle of mutual benefit. The company received a monopoly from the state and support at the diplomatic level, and the government had a convenient buffer in the east, which generated income and allowed it to avoid direct annexation of native principalities.

Everything changed after the Seven Years' War. The large-scale conflict was not in vain: the British treasury was depleted. Meanwhile, the company continued to grow richer. In 1765, in addition to exclusive trading privileges, it received the right to collect Bengali taxes and began to serve as the colonial administration.

London headquarters of the East India Company in the TV series Taboo

The organization has reached the pinnacle of its power and influence. But by its nature it was the fruit of capitalism in a pre-industrial economy. Meanwhile, the industrial revolution began in the metropolis. Moreover, in London the number of opponents of the East Indian monopoly increased.

The company's monopoly was abolished under pressure from industrialists

In 1773, Parliament passed the Regulatory Act. The company was now required to report to the ministries of foreign affairs and finance. 20 years later, part of its fleet went to independent merchants. Finally, on July 1, 1813 (while the war with Napoleon was still going on and the country was experiencing a continental blockade), the company's trade monopoly was abolished. At the same time, the government took away more and more levers of internal governance of India, depriving the “state within a state” of administrative functions.

How it all ended

The British East India Company is unique in that it was an alternative to the state in India. Independent management of the colonies, replacement of trade profits with tax revenues - all this ran counter to the interests of the authorities who were building the largest power of their time.

The company appeared under Elizabeth I and disappeared under Victoria.

1858 is the year the Indian Administration Act was passed. The document declared that the country was now under the sovereignty of the crown. The inhabitants of the subcontinent became Victoria's subjects. The act came at the height of the Sepoy Mutiny. Although it was suppressed by the colonial administration, local dissatisfaction with extortions and other hardships showed the obvious failure of the company's policies. It has completely outlived its usefulness as an administrative institution. And its economic decisions (for example, the mass introduction of continuous production of fabrics) led to the decline of entire industries. Subsequently, the organization existed exclusively as a commercial one. In 1874 it was liquidated.