A.A.Hamim tinyurl.

com/EMBnotes Page 1

Murshid Quli Khan (1717-27)

Shuja-ud-Din (1727-39)

Sarfaraz Khan (1739-40)

Alivardi Khan (1740-56)

Siraj ud-Daula (1756-57)

MURSHID QULI KHAN (1717-1727)

Earlier, a CFA of Bengal under the Mughals
A.A.Hamim tinyurl.com/EMBnotes Page 2

Later, became first Nawab of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa

Let's talk about the beginning of the Plassey incident. Before that, there was a collapse of central Mughal rule in Delhi marking
the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. In Bengal, there was a chief financial administrator named Murshid Quli Khan who worked for the
Mughals. He quietly declared Bengal's independence by establishing an independent kingdom with its capital in present-day
Murshidabad. Keep in mind that Bihar and Orissa (known as Odisha today) were also part of this kingdom. Murshid Quli Khan was a
capable administrator. One of the reasons he detached Bengal from the direct rule of Delhi was to avoid the negative consequences of
civil wars, such as loss of life and resources. He wanted to ensure the continued progress of Bengal. However, there were two important
factors that would have an impact on the events of 1757.

1. Problem with British: Avoiding tax

Firstly, Murshid Quli Khan obtained a royal license from the Mughal emperor in Delhi, allowing the British East India Company
to trade with Bengal without paying taxes. However, this caused problems because the tax-free trade license only applied to the
Company, but not to individual officials. Here they tried to avoid paying taxes, which created conflicts with Bengal's revenue officials.
These conflicts persisted until 1757 and beyond.

2. Problem with Landlords: Granting more authority

Secondly, in an effort to improve the efficiency of land usage, Murshid Quli Khan initiates a process of granting more
authority to landlords, also known as zamindars. It is important to note that the landlords and zamindars before the events of 1757,
specifically the Battle of Plassey, are different from those that will be discussed afterward. However, this plan backfires over the
following two decades, leading up to the 1740s. The landlords grow more powerful and refuse to pay taxes to Nawab Alivardi Khan. This
defiance becomes a problem as these landlords conspire against the Nawab, posing a threat to his authority and rule.

SHUJA-UD-DIN (1727-1739)
Son-in-law of Murshid Quli Khan

SARFARAZ KHAN (1739-1740)

Son of Shuja-ud-Din
Involves in conflict with Alivardi Khan

ALIVARDI KHAN (1740-1756)

Earlier, a competent officer under Mughals
Later, Nawab of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa
A.A.Hamim tinyurl.com/EMBnotes Page 3

Sarfaraz Khan falsely accuses a competent officer named Alivardi Khan of treason against him, despite Alivardi Khan being
unlikely to commit such an act. Alivardi Khan attempts to reason with Sarfaraz Khan, asserting his innocence, but Sarfaraz Khan insists
on executing him for the alleged treason. This leads to a battle between them, and due to Alivardi Khan's military prowess, Sarfaraz
Khan is killed, and Alivardi Khan assumes the role of the new nawab, or ruler, of Bengal.

1. Problem with British & Europeans: Shrewd Diplomacy

At that time, European trade presented lucrative opportunities. However, Alivardi Khan, a shrewd ruler, understood the risks
associated with involving Europeans in political matters. He recognized that it was wise to engage in trade with them but to prevent their
interference in the region's political affairs. European trading stations in Bengal, such as Calcutta for the British and Chandannagar for
the French, were allowed to engage in trade but were not permitted to fortify themselves militarily. The wars of succession in
Hyderabad (Commonly known as the Carnatic War) vividly exemplify this understanding of how the British and French emerged as
dominant forces, overshadowing the Nizams and others.

2. Problem with Landlords: More powerful in 1740s, refusing to pay taxes

3. Problem with Marathas

During Alivardi Khan's 16-year reign, he faces continuous attacks from the Maratha Confederation. These attacks involve acts
of terrorism, characterized by swift strikes followed by a quick retreat before the Bengal Army can counterattack. Ultimately, they seized
most portion of Odisha The Marathas commit atrocities, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people and plundering available
resources. They did not discriminate based on religion when it came to violence against Bengalis. They would kill and kidnap both
Hindus and Muslims. Despite the human and financial losses caused by such conflicts, Bengal continued to prosper.

Bengal-Orissa Conflict (1740s)

In the 1740s, a significant conflict arose between the Deputy Governor of Orissa and the Nawab of Bengal. In an effort to resolve their
disagreement, the Deputy Governor of Orissa extended an invitation to the Marathas to attack Bengal. However, it's crucial to understand that the
Marathas' decision to attack Bengal was not solely motivated by this invitation. The invitation served as a convenient excuse or pretense for the
Marathas' actions, which had deeper underlying reasons.

SIRAJ UD-DAULAH (1756-1757)

Grandson of Alivardi Khan
Remarkably, Alivardi Khan passed away at the age of 84 from natural causes, which is noteworthy considering the tumultuous history
of violent deaths and wars of succession in the region. His ability to die peacefully indicates the stability of his rule. Furthermore, his favorite
grandson succeeded him without encountering any significant problems, signifying a smooth transition of power. Unfortunately, this brief period
A.A.Hamim tinyurl.com/EMBnotes Page 4

of peace would not last for Siraj ud-Daulah and Bengal. Siraj ud-Daulah becomes the successor of Alivardi Khan and becomes the ruler without
any issues. However, he soon faces three enemies, one of whom will bring tragedy to Bengal.

First Enemy: Family members

Firstly, he has family members who oppose his rule. His cousin named Shaukat Jang raises his own army and tries to defeat Siraj ud-
Daulah to become the Nawab himself. However, Shaukat Jang was defeated in October 1756. There is also an aunt named Ghaseti Begum who
strongly dislikes Siraj ud-Daulah for reasons unknown. Even though she doesn't have a son of her own, she holds a deep hatred towards him and
joins forces with anyone opposing Siraj ud-Daulah. To deal with this, Siraj ud-Daulah places her under house arrest. However, the most dangerous
enemy is yet to come: the British.

Second Enemy: The British

The Seven Years' War began in May 1756, marking a global conflict between the British and the French for dominance in the emerging
capitalist world system. This rivalry extended beyond Europe to regions like Africa, the Caribbean, North America, and South Asia. In Bengal,
where both British and French trading stations existed in Calcutta and Chandannagar, tensions escalated.

In June of that year, Bengali officials discovered the British had secretly fortified their Calcutta trading base, a move warned by Alivardi
Khan. Siraj ud-Daulah demanded the British dismantle their fortifications, but they refused. In response, Siraj ud-Daulah's Bengal army defeated
the British in Calcutta, capturing some prisoners who were initially placed in small cells. Unfortunately, a few died from suffocation overnight. The
British, upon learning of this, were moved to a larger prison cell. Despite the accidental nature of the deaths, the British created the "Black Hole of
Calcutta" myth, falsely claiming Siraj ud-Daulah intentionally killed the prisoners. In reality, Siraj ud-Daulah had more significant concerns, and the
prisoners were released promptly. John Holwell, the highest-ranking British official imprisoned, never blamed Siraj ud-Daulah for the incident.

Third Enemy: Some influential figures

After defeating Bengal in Calcutta, Siraj ud-Daulah thought he had Bengal under control. But the British, with strongholds in Madras
and Bombay, didn't need reinforcements from there to retake Calcutta. They began forming alliances with influential figures in Bengal, including
the Jagat Seths and landlords like Ami Chand, Ray Durlav, and Mir Jafar. Mir Jafar, who was disappointed at not becoming Nawab, believed the
British would help him take the throne and then leave, not realizing he would be a puppet ruler.

In February 1757, Bengali officials betrayed Siraj ud-Daulah, returning Calcutta to the British. Suspecting a conspiracy, Siraj ud-Daulah
questioned Mir Jafar, who lied. Trusting Mir Jafar, Siraj ud-Daulah ordered his forces to withdraw, but they misunderstood and retreated. The
British claimed victory, and Siraj ud-Daulah fled but was captured and brutally murdered in July. Displaying his body on an elephant, the British
showcased their control. Mir Jafar became infamous as a traitor for his role in the Battle of Plassey.

The Battle of Plassey, in late June 1757, wasn't a typical battle but a well-planned coup lasting two to three weeks. Though Siraj ud-
Daulah had a chance to win, the British victory marked a turning point, making Bengal a key to British dominance in South Asia. This triumph
paved the way for British global power until 1945. However, winning Plassey didn't ensure automatic control over the entire subcontinent. If
Marathas and Mysore had united against the British, resistance might have been possible. Unfortunately, most kingdoms expected to manipulate
the British for their gain, only Mysore rulers like Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan actively resisted. The British East India Company, seemingly private,
was controlled by the British government, with some private operations allowed.

Clickable Reading Materials!

1. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, “The British Rule in India”, New-York Tribune, June 1953.

2. Marx, Karl, “The Future Results of British Rule in India”, New-York Tribune, August 1953.

3. Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture and Political Economy
3. British India: 1757-1857 (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 53-59

4. Schendel, Willem Van, A History of Bangladesh (New York: Cambridge University Press,
(2009), pp. 47-66

5. Sarkar, Sumit, Modern India: 1885-1947 (New Delhi: Pearson, 2014), Chapter 2, pp. 22-24