The Sunday Times of India drew my attention to this book, if I remember well. The book review was objective about this book, and I bought it within a week of having read the review. I knew that the book would be a good read, a blend of history, business and geo-political economics. So far, it has been a very good read, as interesting as non fiction can get, if you ask me. But it is the part I am reading today that has touched me emotionally enough to do some loud thinking about certain issues. Until now, I have enjoyed Nick Robin's analysis of the East India Company's activities in India, with an economic and political dimension to his narration. The fact that the flow of wealth had been eastwards for over a millennium was an eye-opener for me. I never really knew that apart from spices, the East had always more things to trade with the West than the latter could offer of interest to the East. Its not something I say with pride due to my being an Asian. But what intrigued me was the reversal of this cash flow, due in large to the metamorphosis of mercantilism(capitalism as was known then) to imperialism. Centuries of trade in textile/cotton, spices and other commodities had made Asia, and more particularly India, a bullion sink. Gold, silver and precious jewels and metals were the only things that could interest the regional traders.

The culture of the East must also have been of particular interest to the West if one were to use an argument that art and culture are generally of interest to people only if their more basic needs have been already taken care of to a certain minimum extent.
Nick Robins describes the changing nature of the East India Company from an association of merchant traders to strategizing/scheming businessmen, often decadent and with scant regard to any kind of business ethics. It is not the profit driven nature of trade that I want to be critical of.

In fact, the book has made me look at the East India Company as one of the earliest multi-national corporations. The EIC was a joint stock company, accountable and answerable to shareholders back in London, its shares were subjected to the vagaries of market perception, and all this centuries before the present day stock markets. The understanding of the Board of Directors that Company executives in India would also be driven by self interest is something worthy of appreciation. The fact that the Company allowed its executives to a certain amount of private trade apart from that of the Company exports only shows the economic sense prevalent in the Board.

But this economic sense must have failed to percolate to the foot soldiers, as is the case with most other senses, to this date. I am going to come back to this in a minute or two now.
The fact that the East India Company operated under a charter from the British Crown (BBC’s charter expires in 2007 now!), and was promised Monopoly is worth noting. Also, the local rulers, mostly Mughals exempted this and other European and other trading companies from taxes reminds me of the Special Economic Zones and MNC’s operating in India today.

Now, human greed is of particular interest to me. The book also outlines another fact. The Company’s economic success, and the abuse of the consequent power would not have been possible without support from conspiring Indian traders/power brokers. That individuals are driven by incentives is perfectly acceptable. But human greed, the accompanying short-sightedness, and the disregard to moral and ethical principles while acting in self interest only brings public harm and grief.
And, though I was emotionally touched when reading this, it is only economics that is important in this argument. When individuals’ interests clash, the market should decide what public interests are. And this can happen only when there are no power brokers.

The capture of Bengal, by Robert Clive’s small, yet focused and disciplined army vis-à-vis Siraj-ud-Daulah’s army supported by Bengali civilians seems impossible. But traitors like Mir Jafar and Amir Chand would make this happen. The worst dimension to this is that Mir Jafar would only a puppet after the coup, and Amir Chand, would faint and die unable to bear the shock of being tricked by Clive.

Clive goes on to pursue his flawed business strategy to bring inevitable doom to the Company, himself and most importantly, Bengal.

The review spoke about the “beggarisation” of Bengal, and I had been looking forward to reaching this part of the book. The fact that the average living standards of Bengali weavers was far better than their British equivalents is hard to imagine. In the present context, when India is this third-world, developing country, with perceived and possibly true poor living standards, and U.K is this global hub of commercial and financial activity, with very high standards of living, all this is very very difficult to digest.

The “Economic Violence” that Clive’s trade practices inflict on Bengali weavers is shameful to say the least. It demonstrates the lack of economic sense in Clive’s strategy of artificially keeping purchase price down. The lack of moral and ethical sense has evidence in the fact that produce was classified as sub-standard with a view to further reduce purchase prices, thus making beggars of respectable labourers, the weavers.

Disregard to human labour is a cardinal sin, if you ask me, in the light of the fact that the UK is perceived to be economically and commercially more advanced than India even today.

The scale of this economic violence was such as to cause extreme disgust and frustration. The Bengali weaver was really helpless because he could not sell his cloth to traders other than the Company’s. The throwaway prices his produce fetched would not be enough to lead an existence of dignity and self respect.
Bengali weavers would cut their thumbs off to avoid being forced to weave in these conditions…..

(Searching for Shahid Ali’s “Dacca Gauzes” in “The Half-inch Himalayas”, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1987)