Politics and Morality

Since the Rome of Julius Caesar is portrayed as the pinnacle of civilization, arguments about

Rome’s governance are also arguments about what constitutes an ideal government. The
entire play centers around Brutus upholding the truth of two moral statements: First, that
monarchy is intrinsically tyrannical; and secondly, that killing Caesar, an as-yet-innocent
man, is morally acceptable if it prevents Rome from becoming a monarchy. Brutus's strict
moral code makes no allowance for self-preservation, however, and so he rejects the killing
of Antony, and even allows Antony to address the plebeians—a step that wins Antony mass
support and proceeds to Brutus’s and the conspirators’ ultimate demise. Giving in
to Cassius on either of his moral points, then, would have prevented Brutus's ruin, but
violated his principles. Through Brutus’s moral plight, Shakespeare argues that it’s hardly
possible for moral principle and political advancement to coexist; one will inevitably
undermine the other.

Brutus’s principled opposition to monarchy is exploited by more politically ambitious

characters like Cassius, who are simply hungry for power. One of the central arguments of
the play is that, in the context of ancient Rome, kingship is equated with tyranny. When
Cassius begins manipulating Brutus in the direction of the conspiracy, he appeals to the
“shame” of Rome accepting a king: “Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods! / When
went there by an age, since the great flood, / But it was famed with more than with one
man?” In this view, it’s not just immoral but “un-Roman” for Rome to be governed by a
solitary figure; historically, Rome has been distinguished by its elevation of many worthy
men. Cassius uses this argument to sway Brutus not only in the belief that Caesar is too
ambitious, but that he, whose “hidden worthiness” rivals Caesar’s alleged godlike status, has
a moral obligation to actively oppose it. This reasoning works on Brutus even more
effectively than Cassius expects—or wants. Later, in private, Brutus recalls his forebears’
expulsion of the “Tarquin,” Rome’s last king: “Shall Rome stand under one man’s awe? […]
O Rome, I make thee promise […] thou receivest / Thy full petition at the hand of Brutus.”
Brutus believes that opposing Caesar is not just a matter of current political expediency, but
of maintaining an inherently Roman tradition of preserving greater liberty by resisting the
pretensions of the ambitious.

This belief also shapes Brutus’s attitudes about the assassination and its aftermath, to
Cassius’s frustration. Brutus opposes the idea of killing Caesar’s close confidant, Antony, on
the grounds that this would make the conspirators mere butchers. He reasons that because
Antony is simply a “limb” of Caesar, killing Caesar is sufficient to stifle any backlash;
furthermore, “Our purpose [must be] necessary and not envious […] We shall be called
purgers, not murderers.” In other words, in order to remain consistent with their own ethics,
the conspirators must do only as much as is necessary to forestall tyranny; going beyond that
risks making the conspirators tyrannical themselves. However, Brutus’s restraint ends up
backfiring, as Antony quickly stirs up popular support and incites civil war in the aftermath
of Caesar’s murder, leading to his eventual victory and Brutus’s own death. So Brutus’s
moral principles end up undermining the purposes for which Cassius recruited him for the
conspiracy. This suggests that it’s difficult for morality to withstand political ambitions of
any kind.

SIRAJ UD DAULAH

Battle of Plassey : A Story of Treachery and

Deception
The Battle of Plassey, fought on 23 June, 1757, at the banks of Hooghly river in Bengal changed
the course of the Indian history forever. Around 1,000 European soldiers under Robert Clive with
the help of around 2,000 Indian sepoys decisively put to defeat an Indian army of 49,000
commanded by Nawab Siraj Ud-Daulah. The English army was heavily outnumbered as well as
less armoured. 
This victory provided a morale boost to the English sense of invincibility in a battlefield. Until
then they were one of many competing powers for the trading rights in India, alongwith the
French and Portuguese, but this victory established them as a power which could match the ranks
of mighty Indian emperors. The battle of Plassey started a process which culminated in the
capture of Delhi in 1858 and subsequent transfer of political control to the British crown. 
In fact, treachery, and treachery alone was the reason behind the Indian defeat. While on paper
we find 3000 English army fighting 40,000+ Indian army, in reality only less than 15,000 soldiers
were fighting from the side of the Nawab and all others either remained neutral or took sides with
the English.
Robert Clive was not very sure of challenging the mighty army of the Nawab in the battlefield
even a day before the battle. On 22 June, 1757, he received a message from Mir Jafar that Robert
Clive should attack the Nawab immediately and Jafar would side with the British. The English
had a traitor on their side. A man trusted by the Nawab with more than 10,000 soldiers under his
command had formalised a deal with the English. Robert Clive with his visibly ‘small army’
challenged a mighty army of the Nawab at the battlefield. This visibly ‘large Indian army’ was
divided into three sections. One section, with 12,000 soldiers, was commanded by Mir Murdan,
another section was led by Rai Durlab and the third was under the command of Mir Jafar.
Interestingly, only one of three commanders, Mir Murdan, was loyal to the Nawab. Rai Durlab
and Mir Jafar had already secretly finalised deals with the English. 
When the battle started the Indian army under Mir Murdan charged upon the English army with
vigour until Murdan fell to a grapeshot in the battlefield. His death was decisive as the other two
commanders were already sold out. Mir Jafar and Rai Durlab, with their soldiers, just stood
and watched Murdan’s men, who were only loyal soldiers, getting destroyed by the
English. The war ended with an Indian defeat, where only six European soldiers and fourteen
Indian sepoys of English army were killed as against more than 500 deaths in the Indian camp.
Nawab was later captured and put to death as Mir Jafar was installed as a puppet Nawab.
The battle opened the gates for the British control of India. For the next 190 years
India remained under the exploitative colonial regime of the British.

Perhaps the most celebrated expression of betrayal in Western culture

is Julius Caesar’s “et tu Brute?” Stabbed by each of the assassins,
bleeding profusely, he stumbles towards his closest friend, only to be
stabbed by him too. “And you, Brutus” sums up Caesar’s surprise,
disappointment and sadness at being betrayed by this particular friend.
Betrayal is something that comes from deep inside human nature – a
phenomenon that underlies all the unpleasant things that human
beings do to each other. Moreover, the very nature of betrayal is
dramatic, both in the act, and in its consequences.
Julius Caesar is one of those plays that are driven by betrayal. The first
part of the play is taken up with that – Caesar’s apparent arrogance and
Cassius’ jealousy of Caesar’s rise in the political world and his
popularity; Cassius’ gathering of conspirators around him and his great
effort in persuading the faithful Brutus to join him in assassinating
Caesar, and then that most dramatic of dramatic scenes, the murder of
Caesar in the Capitol. The rest of the play is the working through of
that, culminating in the death of the conspirators and the great irony –
the establishment of a monarchy in Rome, the very thing, in
assassinating Caesar, the conspirators were trying to avoid.
In Julius Caesar, betrayal is central to the drama, and it drives the action,
but it isn’t one single act of betrayal: it’s a prolonged narrative of
betrayal with several other betrayals throughout the play,
encompassing all of the main characters, right up until the very end. As
the play progresses through its final scenes it’s almost unbearable for
the audience, who are watching the betrayals, witnessing the pain it
produces, everyone’s emotions mercilessly manipulated by a
psychopathic character’s heartless actions.
In this remarkable play the effects of betrayal are laid bare. We see a
man of the noblest character fall to the level of an animal.

William Shakespeare the writer of Julius Caesar decided how

Cassius would be portrayed in his play. In the play, Cassius has an
evil, manipulative personality; he can be your friend one minute
then Cassius can be your worst enemy. Although Cassius was not
popular with the people of Rome, he became the ringleader of the
conspirators.
Cassius displays the personality of a shrewd opportunist, who
doesn’t believe in the rule of one person. He believes there should
be an elected set of officials; to decide on the laws for Rome. He
resides as a very close friend to Julius Caesar, before he became the
Roman king. Cassius played a large role in the assassination of
Julius Caesar (I.ii.90-115). When Julius Caesar became godlike to the
roman people, Cassius had much dislike toward Julius. He thought
that Julius appeared too incompetent and weak to the point of
embarrassment, and wanted him removed from the throne. In the
play, Cassius manipulates Brutus into thinking that Caesar has
become too powerful and that he needed to be killed. He also uses
flattery to sway Brutus into becoming part of his plan (I.ii.48-51).
Cassius tricked Brutus into finally believing the Roman people
wanted Caesar dead by forging letters from the people that do
convey these thoughts (I.iii.142-148). He also made Brutus feel like it
was his civic duty to the Roman people.
 Mir Jafar: The General
Who Betrayed India And
Opened The Door To
British Rule
More than 250 years later, Mir Jafar's name is still synonymous with "traitor" in
India and Bangladesh today.

Syed Mir Jafar Ali Khan Bahadur also commonly known as Mir Jafar,is controversial in history
and he has become a symbol for conspiracy and treachery. In Bengal and Bangladesh his
name is used like an abusive word. The one who collaborates with the enemy whom you
have thought of as a friend. Like the word (Asteen Ka Saanp is used in hindi).

With a single act of treachery, Mir Jafar helped set the stage for nearly
200 years of British rule in India.

History is rarely decided by individuals, but sometimes one person’s

actions at the right moment can decide the fate of millions. Mir Jafar
was a man whose political ambition and fateful betrayal of India
allowed the country to become one of the world’s largest and most
oppressive empires.

A man whose name is synonymous with “traitor” in India even today.

Consulship and military campaigns
In 60 BC, Caesar sought election as consul for 59 BC, along with two other candidates. The
election was sordid—even Cato, with his reputation for incorruptibility, is said to have resorted to
bribery in favour of one of Caesar's opponents. Caesar won, along with conservative Marcus
Bibulus.[48]
Caesar was already in Marcus Licinius Crassus' political debt, but he also made overtures
to Pompey. Pompey and Crassus had been at odds for a decade, so Caesar tried to reconcile
them. The three of them had enough money and political influence to control public business.
This informal alliance, known as the First Triumvirate ("rule of three men"), was cemented by the
marriage of Pompey to Caesar's daughter Julia.[49] Caesar also married again, this
time Calpurnia, who was the daughter of another powerful senator. [50]
Caesar proposed a law for redistributing public lands to the poor—by force of arms, if need be—
a proposal supported by Pompey and by Crassus, making the triumvirate public. Pompey filled
the city with soldiers, a move which intimidated the triumvirate's opponents. Bibulus attempted to
declare the omens unfavourable and thus void the new law, but he was driven from the forum by
Caesar's armed supporters. His lictors had their fasces broken, two high magistrates
accompanying him were wounded, and he had a bucket of excrement thrown over him. In fear of
his life, he retired to his house for the rest of the year, issuing occasional proclamations of bad
omens. These attempts proved ineffective in obstructing Caesar's legislation. Roman
satirists ever after referred to the year as "the consulship of Julius and Caesar". [51]
When Caesar was first elected, the aristocracy tried to limit his future power by allotting the
woods and pastures of Italy, rather than the governorship of a province, as his military command
duty after his year in office was over.[52] With the help of political allies, Caesar secured passage
of the lex Vatinia, granting him governorship over Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy)
and Illyricum (southeastern Europe).[53] At the instigation of Pompey and his father-in-law
Piso, Transalpine Gaul (southern France) was added later after the untimely death of its
governor, giving him command of four legions.[53] The term of his governorship, and thus his
immunity from prosecution, was set at five years, rather than the usual one. [54][55] When his
consulship ended, Caesar narrowly avoided prosecution for the irregularities of his year in office,
and quickly left for his province.[56]

Conquest of Gaul
Caesar was still deeply in debt, but there was money to be made as a governor, whether by
extortion[57] or by military adventurism. Caesar had four legions under his command, two of his
provinces bordered on unconquered territory, and parts of Gaul were known to be unstable.
Some of Rome's Gallic allies had been defeated by their rivals at the Battle of Magetobriga, with
the help of a contingent of Germanic tribes. The Romans feared these tribes were preparing to
migrate south, closer to Italy, and that they had warlike intent. Caesar raised two new legions
and defeated these tribes.[58]
In response to Caesar's earlier activities, the tribes in the north-east began to arm themselves.
Caesar treated this as an aggressive move and, after an inconclusive engagement against the
united tribes, he conquered the tribes piecemeal. Meanwhile, one of his legions began the
conquest of the tribes in the far north, directly opposite Britain.[59] During the spring of 56 BC, the
Triumvirs held a conference, as Rome was in turmoil and Caesar's political alliance was coming
undone. The Lucca Conference renewed the First Triumvirate and extended Caesar's
governorship for another five years.[60] The conquest of the north was soon completed, while a
few pockets of resistance remained. [61] Caesar now had a secure base from which to launch an
invasion of Britain.
In 55 BC, Caesar repelled an incursion into Gaul by two Germanic tribes, and followed it up by
building a bridge across the Rhine and making a show of force in Germanic territory, before
returning and dismantling the bridge. Late that summer, having subdued two other tribes, he
crossed into Britain, claiming that the Britons had aided one of his enemies the previous year,
possibly the Veneti of Brittany.[62] His knowledge of Britain was poor, and although he gained a
beachhead on the coast, he could not advance further. He raided out from his beachhead and
destroyed some villages, then returned to Gaul for the winter. [63] He returned the following year,
better prepared and with a larger force, and achieved more. He advanced inland, and
established a few alliances, but poor harvests led to widespread revolt in Gaul, forcing Caesar to
leave Britain for the last time.[64]
Though the Gallic tribes were just as strong as the Romans militarily, the internal division among
the Gauls guaranteed an easy victory for Caesar. Vercingetorix's attempt in 52 BC to unite them
against Roman invasion came too late.[65][66] He proved an astute commander, defeating Caesar at
the Battle of Gergovia, but Caesar's elaborate siege-works at the Battle of Alesia finally forced
his surrender.[67] Despite scattered outbreaks of warfare the following year,[68] Gaul was effectively
conquered. Plutarch claimed that during the Gallic Wars the army had fought against three
million men (of whom one million died, and another million were enslaved), subjugated 300
tribes, and destroyed 800 cities.[69] The casualty figures are disputed by modern historians.[70]

Civil war
Main article: Caesar's Civil War

Further information: Alexandrine war, Early life of Cleopatra VII, and Reign of Cleopatra VII

While Caesar was in Britain his daughter Julia, Pompey's wife, had died in childbirth. Caesar
tried to re-secure Pompey's support by offering him his great-niece in marriage, but Pompey
declined. In 53 BC Crassus was killed leading a failed invasion of the east. Rome was on the
brink of civil war. Pompey was appointed sole consul as an emergency measure, and married
the daughter of a political opponent of Caesar. The Triumvirate was dead. [71]
In 51 BC, the consul Marcellus ensured that Caesar's command would not be extended, but
tribunes vetoed his proposal that it be ended at once. [72][73] As 50 BC progressed, fears of civil war
grew. In the autumn, Cicero and others sought disarmament by both Caesar and Pompey, and
on 1 December 50 BC this was formally proposed in the senate by Caesar's supporter Curio. It
received overwhelming support but was itself vetoed. [74][75] At the start of 49 BC, Caesar's renewed
offer that he and Pompey disarm was read to the senate, which refused to vote on it. His
supportive tribunes were driven out of Rome, the Senate declared Caesar an enemy and it
issued its senatus consultum ultimum.[76]
There is scholarly disagreement as to the specific reasons why Caesar marched on Rome; the
possibility of prosecution for actions in his consulship of 59 BC was unlikely.[77] His objectives
prior to the civil war were to secure himself an immediate second consulship and a triumph,
having given up his triumph in 60 BC to stand for his first consulship. Caesar feared that his
opponents – then holding both consulships for 50 BC – would reject his candidacy, refuse to
ratify an election result in which he was a victor, or deny him a triumph for Gaul.
On about 10 January 49 BC,[78] Caesar crossed the Rubicon river (the frontier boundary of Italy)
with only a single legion, the Legio XIII Gemina, and ignited civil war. Upon crossing the Rubicon,
Caesar, according to Plutarch and Suetonius, is supposed to have quoted the Athenian
playwright Menander, in Greek, "the die is cast".[79] Erasmus, however, notes that the more
accurate Latin translation of the Greek imperative mood would be "alea iacta esto", let the die be
cast.[80] Pompey and many of the Senate fled to the south, having little confidence in Pompey's
newly raised troops. Pompey, despite greatly outnumbering Caesar, who had only his Thirteenth
Legion with him, did not intend to fight. Caesar pursued Pompey, hoping to capture Pompey
before his legions could escape. [81]
Pompey managed to escape before Caesar could capture him. Heading for Hispania, Caesar left
Italy under the control of Mark Antony. After an astonishing 27-day route-march, Caesar defeated
Pompey's lieutenants, then returned east, to challenge Pompey in Illyria, where, on 10 July 48
BC in the battle of Dyrrhachium, Caesar barely avoided a catastrophic defeat. In an exceedingly
short engagement later that year, he decisively defeated Pompey at Pharsalus, in Greece on 9
August 48 BC.[82]
In Rome, Caesar was appointed dictator,[85] with Antony as his Master of the Horse (second in
command); Caesar presided over his own election to a second consulship and then, after 11
days, resigned this dictatorship.[85][86] Caesar then pursued Pompey to Egypt, arriving soon after
the murder of the general. There, Caesar was presented with Pompey's severed head and seal-
ring, receiving these with tears.[87] He then had Pompey's assassins put to death. [88]
Caesar then became involved with an Egyptian civil war between the child pharaoh and his
sister, wife, and co-regent queen, Cleopatra. Perhaps as a result of the pharaoh's role in
Pompey's murder, Caesar sided with Cleopatra. He withstood the Siege of Alexandria and later
he defeated the pharaoh's forces at the Battle of the Nile in 47 BC and installed Cleopatra as
ruler. Caesar and Cleopatra celebrated their victory with a triumphal procession on the Nile in the
spring of 47 BC. The royal barge was accompanied by 400 additional ships, and Caesar was
introduced to the luxurious lifestyle of the Egyptian pharaohs. [89]
Caesar and Cleopatra were not married. Caesar continued his relationship with Cleopatra
throughout his last marriage—in Roman eyes, this did not constitute adultery—and probably
fathered a son called Caesarion. Cleopatra visited Rome on more than one occasion, residing in
Caesar's villa just outside Rome across the Tiber.[89]
Late in 48 BC, Caesar was again appointed dictator, with a term of one year. [86] After spending
the first months of 47 BC in Egypt, Caesar went to the Middle East, where he annihilated the king
of Pontus; his victory was so swift and complete that he mocked Pompey's previous victories
over such poor enemies.[90] On his way to Pontus, Caesar visited Tarsus from 27 to 29 May 47
BC (25–27 Maygreg.), where he met enthusiastic support, but where, according to
Cicero, Cassius was planning to kill him at this point. [91][92][93] Thence, he proceeded to Africa to
deal with the remnants of Pompey's senatorial supporters. He was defeated by Titus
Labienus at Ruspina on 4 January 46 BC but recovered to gain a significant victory
at Thapsus on 6 April 46 BC over Cato, who then committed suicide.[94]
After this victory, he was appointed dictator for 10 years.[95] Pompey's sons escaped to Hispania;
Caesar gave chase and defeated the last remnants of opposition in the Battle of Munda in March
45 BC. During this time, Caesar was elected to his third and fourth terms as consul in 46 BC and
45 BC (this last time without a colleague).

Reign as Nawab
Siraj ud-Daulah's nomination to the Nawab ship aroused the jealousy and enmity of his maternal
aunt, Ghaseti Begum (Mehar un-Nisa Begum), Mir Jafar, Jagat Seth, Mehtab Chand and
Shaukat Jang (Siraj's cousin). Ghaseti Begum possessed huge wealth, which was the source of
her influence and strength. Apprehending serious opposition from her, Siraj ud-Daulah seized
her wealth from Motijheel Palace and placed her under confinement. The Nawab also made
changes in high government positions by giving them to his own favourites. Mir Madan was
appointed Bakshi (paymaster of the army) in place of Mir Jafar. Mohanlal was elevated to the
rank of peshkar (courtclerk) of his Dewan-khane and he exercised great influence in the
administration. Eventually, Siraj suppressed Shaukat Jang, governor of Purnia, who was killed in
a clash.

Black Hole of Calcutta

During this period, the British East India Company was increasing their influence in the Indian
subcontinent, particularly in Bengal; Siraj soon grew to resent the politico-military presence of
the East India Company in Bengal. In particular, he was angered at the Company's alleged
involvement with and instigation of some members of his own court to a conspiracy to oust him.
His charges against the company were broadly threefold. Firstly, that they strengthened the
fortification around the Fort William without any intimation or approval; secondly, that they grossly
abused trade privileges granted them by the Mughal rulers – which caused heavy loss of
customs duties for the government; and thirdly, that they gave shelter to some of his officers, for
example, Krishnadas, son of Rajballav, who fled Dhaka after misappropriating government funds.
Hence, when the East India Company began further enhancement of military strength at Fort
William in Calcutta, Siraj ud-Daulah ordered them to stop. The Company did not heed his
directives; consequently, Siraj retaliated and captured Calcutta (for a short while renamed
Alinagar) from the British in June 1756. The Nawab gathered his forces together and took Fort
William. The British captives were placed in the prison cell as a temporary holding by a local
commander, but there was confusion in the Indian chain of command, and the captives were left
there overnight, and many of them died. Sir William Meredith, during the Parliamentary inquiry
into Robert Clive's actions in India, vindicated Siraj ud-Daulah of any charge surrounding the
Black Hole incident: "A peace was however agreed upon with Surajah Dowlah; and the persons
who went as ambassadors to confirm that peace formed the conspiracy, by which he was
deprived of his kingdom and his life."

Nizamat Imambara[edit]
Shi'ism was introduced to Bengal during the governorship of Shah Shuja (1641–1661 AD), son of
Shah Jahan. From 1707 AD to 1880 AD, the Nawabs of Bengal were Shias. They built huge
Imambargahs, including the biggest of the Subcontinent built by Nawab Siraj-ud Daula,
the Nizammat Imambara. The nawabs of Bengal and Iranian merchants in Bengal
patronised azadari and the political capital Murshidabad and the trading hub Hoogly attracted
Shia scholars from within and outside India.

Conspiracy
The Nawab was infuriated on learning of the attack on Chandernagar. His former hatred of the
British returned, but he now felt the need to strengthen himself by alliances against the British.
The Nawab was plagued by fear of attack from the north by the Afghans under Ahmad Shah
Durrani and from the west by the Marathas. Therefore, he could not deploy his entire force
against the British for fear of being attacked from the flanks. A deep distrust set in between the
British and the Nawab. As a result, Siraj started secret negotiations with Jean Law, chief of the
French factory at Cossimbazar, and de Bussy. The Nawab also moved a large division of his
army under Rai Durlabh to Plassey, on the island of Cossimbazar 30 miles (48 km) south of
Murshidabad. Popular discontent against the Nawab flourished in his own court. The Seths, the
traders of Bengal, were in perpetual fear for their wealth under the reign of Siraj, contrary to the
situation under Alivardi's reign. They had engaged Yar Lutuf Khan to defend them in case they
were threatened in any way.[20] William Watts, the Company representative at the court of Siraj,
informed Clive about a conspiracy at the court to overthrow the ruler. The conspirators
included Mir Jafar, the paymaster of the army, Rai Durlabh, Yar Lutuf Khan and Omichund (Amir
Chand), a Sikh merchant, and several officers in the army. [21] When communicated in this regard
by Mir Jafar, Clive referred it to the select committee in Calcutta on 1 May. The committee
passed a resolution in support of the alliance. A treaty was drawn up between the British and Mir
Jafar to raise him to the throne of the Nawab in return for support to the British in the field of
battle and the bestowal of large sums of money upon them as compensation for the attack on
Calcutta. On 2 May, Clive broke up his camp and sent half the troops to Calcutta and the other
half to Chandernagar. Mir Jafar and the Seths desired that the confederacy between the British
and himself be kept secret from Omichund, but when he found out about it, he threatened to
betray the conspiracy if his share was not increased to three million rupees (£300,000). Hearing
of this, Clive suggested an expedient to the committee. He suggested that two treaties be drawn
– the real one on white paper, containing no reference to Omichund and the other on red paper,
containing Omichund's desired stipulation, to deceive him. The Members of the Committee
signed on both treaties, but Admiral Watson signed only the real one and his signature had to be
counterfeited on the fictitious one. Both treaties and separate articles for donations to the army,
navy squadron and committee were signed by Mir Jafar on 4 June. Lord Clive testified and
defended himself thus before the House of Commons of Parliament on 10 May 1773, during the
Parliamentary inquiry into his conduct in India: "Omichund, his confidential servant,
as he thought, told his master of an agreement made between the English and Monsieur Duprée
[may be a mistranscription of Dupleix] to attack him, and received for that advice a sum of not
less than four lacks of rupees. Finding this to be the man in whom the nawab entirely trusted, it
soon became our object to consider him as a most material engine in the intended revolution.
We, therefore, made such an agreement as was necessary for the purpose, and entered into a
treaty with him to satisfy his demands. When all things were prepared, and the evening of the
event was appointed, Omichund informed Mr Watts, who was at the court of the nawab, that he
insisted upon thirty lacks of rupees, and five per cent. upon all the treasure that should be found;
that, unless that was immediately complied with, he would disclose the whole to the nawab; and
that Mr. Watts, and the two other English gentlemen then at the court, should be cut off before
the morning. Mr Watts, immediately on this information, dispatched an express to me at the
council. I did not hesitate to find out a stratagem to save the lives of these people, and secure
success to the intended event. For this purpose, we signed another treaty. The one was called
the Red, the other the White treaty. This treaty was signed by everyone, except admiral Watson;
and I should have considered myself sufficiently authorised to put his name to it, by the
conversation I had with him. As to the person who signed Admiral Watson's name to the treaty,
whether he did it in his presence or not, I cannot say; but this I know, that he thought he had
sufficient authority for so doing. This treaty was immediately sent to Omichund, who did not
suspect the stratagem. The event took place, and success attended it; and the House, I am fully
persuaded, will agree with me, that, when the very existence of the company was at stake, and
the lives of these people so precariously situated, and so certain of being destroyed, it was a
matter of true policy and of justice to deceive so great a villain."

Battle of Plassey
The Battle of Plassey (or Palashi) is widely considered the turning point in the history of the
subcontinent, marking the start of British rule in India. After Siraj-ud-Daulah's conquest
of Calcutta, the British sent fresh troops from Madras to recapture the fort and avenge the attack.
A retreating Siraj-ud-Daulah met the British at Plassey. He had to make camp 27 miles away
from Murshidabad. On 23 June 1757 Siraj-ud-Daulah called on Mir Jafar because he was
saddened by the sudden fall of Mir Mardan who was a very dear companion of Siraj in battles.
The Nawab asked for help from Mir Jafar. Mir Jafar advised Siraj to retreat for that day. The
Nawab made the blunder in giving the order to stop the fight. Following his command, the
soldiers of the Nawab were returning to their camps. At that time, Robert Clive attacked the
soldiers with his army. At such a sudden attack, the army of Siraj became undisciplined and
could think of no way to fight. Much of the army retreated. Betrayed by a conspiracy plotted
by Jagat Seth, Mir Jafar, Krishna Chandra, Omichund, etc., Siraj lost the battle and had to
escape. He rode away and went first to Murshidabad, specifically to Heerajheel or Motijheel, his
palace at Mansurganj. He ordered his principal commanders to engage their troops for his safety,
but as he was bereft of power due to the loss at Plassey, they were reluctant to offer
unquestioning support. Some advised him to deliver himself up to the English, but Siraj equated
this with treachery. Others proposed he should encourage the army with greater rewards, and
this he seemed to approve of. Yet the numbers in his retinue were considerably diminished.
Soon he dispatched most of the women of his harem to Purneah, under the protection of
Mohanlal, with gold and elephants. Then, with his principal consort Lutf-un-Nisa and very few
attendants, Siraj began his escape towards Patna by boat, but was eventually arrested by Mir
Jafar's soldiers.