critical note on the British East India Company

Answer

How did Burke’s knowledge and treatment of the East India Company’s abuse of power in India?

Or What picture of the East India Company do you get from Edmund Burke’s ‘Speech on the East India Bill”?

Or “That in its present state, the government of the East India Company is absolutely incorrigible.” – Discuss.

Or Write a critical note on the British East India Company.

The British East India Company (1600-1874) was a complex and multifaceted organization. It was both powerful and controversial during its reign. The Anglo-Irish Statesman Edmund Burke (1729-1797) represents this company in his “Speech on East India Bill” (December 1, 1783) in detail. Let us study the speech he gave in the British Parliament as a Whig Party MP to learn about the tyrannical company. 

Abuse of Power and Monopoly: The East India Company held extensive power and a monopoly over trade in the East Indies. It led to significant abuses. Mr Burke explicitly states that the Company’s charter is “a charter to establish monopoly, and to create power” rather than restrain it. This sharply contrasts the notion of the Magna Carta, which aimed to “restrain power, and to destroy monopoly”. This monopolistic control allowed the Company to exploit resources and people without adequate checks and balances.

Neglect of Indian Interests: A monopolistic organization never values the natives’ choices. Like others, The East India Company is no exception. One of the central criticisms raised by Burke is the Company’s neglect of the welfare of the Indian people. He highlights the unexpected difference between the vigorous debate over legal and corporate privileges in England and the silence on the suffering in India. The orator laments regarding this issue followingly, 

The total silence of these gentlemen concerning the interest and well-being of the people of India……..

These words demonstrate a lack of concern for those most affected by the Company’s policies.

Financial Exploitation: The financial exploitation carried out by the Company is another critical issue. The Company managed an annual territorial revenue of seven million sterling and controlled the fortunes of thirty million people. This vast wealth and power were often used for the benefit of the Company and its shareholders rather than for the development or welfare of the Indian territories under its control.

Political Corruption and Tyranny: Burke portrays the Company as a corrupt and tyrannical entity. He refers to its administration as “exercised in the plenitude of despotism, tyranny, and corruption.” The Company’s governance style was more akin to that of an oppressive regime than a fair and just administration. This led to widespread injustice and suffering among the Indian populace.

Impact on British Politics: The influence of the East India Company extended into British politics. Burke criticizes the way the Company’s issues were debated in Parliament. He noted that discussions were often more about political intrigue and less about substantive reforms. He remarks that the debate has been filled with:  

Invectives against coalition; with allusions to the loss of America; with the activity and inactivity of ministers…

Here, the author says that the British parliament is not a suitable place for discussing the true facts. Rather, it is a gathering to discuss their ministerial losses and gains.

Moral Responsibility and Legislative Duty: Burke stresses Parliament’s moral and legislative responsibility to intervene and correct the Company’s abuses. He asserts that if Parliament is the source of the Company’s authority, it must “interfere with effect, wherever power and authority originating from ourselves are perverted from their purposes, and become instruments of wrong and violence.” This statement emphasizes the obligation of the British government to ensure that the Company’s power is used justly.

In termination, Mr. Burke’s speech paints a critical picture of the British East India Company. This speech highlights the company’s abuse of power, neglect of Indian interests, financial exploitation, and political corruption. His arguments display the moral and legislative duty of the British Parliament to address these issues effectively.