|
Magazine
History
A mutiny revisited
MOUSHUMI BASU
|
The mutiny of 1683 in Bombay is special as it was the first instance of a major revolt from within against the East India Company.
|
Deceptive peace: A print showing the countryside from the late 17th century.
AS we mark 150 years of the Sepoy Mutiny this year, a lesser known but nevertheless significant mutiny that preceded the 1857 event by nearly a century and a half comes to mind. History, social and political history in particular, has an ingenuous way of repeating itself. A few years back, while browsing through files at the Oriental and India Office collections at the British library, I came across a reference that caught my eye. In a certain file of the Secret Committee of the East India Company, lay documented the events of a mutiny led by none other than the Commander-in-Chief of the British garrison, Captain Richard Keigwin, against the Company in Bombay in 1683. History has it that Keigwin, appalled at the misconduct and the tyranny of the Company towards its own servants, threw in his lot with the rest of his regiment in seizing the administrative controls of the island from the hands of the Company for well up to a year.
Interesting contrast
The "white" revolt against the Company, at a time when the East India Company's forces were entirely European, forms an interesting contrast to subsequent "native" insurrections in the latter half of the Company's history. Interestingly, the tone of the mutiny has a very contemporary ring to it. Keigwin's mutiny against the Company is in many ways similar to workers' struggles against big multinational companies in the contemporary period. The measures taken by the East India Company to maintain the flow of profits arising from its monopolistic control over trade bear an uncanny resemblance to the current tactics employed by big business houses to retain their competitive hold over markets the world over.
The circumstances leading to the 1683 rebellion tell a fascinating story. An important seaport, Bombay, part of the dowry presented by Catherine of Braganza to Charles II, was acquired by the Company from the British Crown in 1668. Under the royal charter, the Company was given exclusive powers to issue currency, build fortifications, negotiate trade concessions — in short complete juridical autonomy over settlements under its control. While technically it was Surat rather than Bombay that was the seat of the Presidency, Bombay replaced Surat as the headquarters in 1672 due to its strategic location. Under Gerald Aungier, the Company's President, Bombay was transformed into a bustling port town with heavy fortifications and a regular army.
Expensive proposition
Financially, however, the island proved to be an expensive proposition for the Company as the expenditure incurred in governing the island far exceeded the revenue which the population and territory could be made to yield. Each year, "a good part of the money that was sent out to India, and that should have gone to their investment in pepper and silks, was spent on the fortifications and upkeep of a place that produced no commodity of profit for Europe". In 1683-84, the year of the mutiny we are talking about, the total debt of Bombay amounted to 3,00,000 xeraphines alone (James Mill, History of British India, Vol.1, 1826). The Directors, new to the business of government, writes Mill, laboured to correct the deficit by first attempting to raise revenues, and simultaneously reducing the Company's expenses. In doing so, they, however, alienated almost all classes of subjects, including their own men. The people of Bombay felt the weight of taxation, and the Company's officers and men faced retrenchments and reduction in expenses. Periodic revision in salaries, for example, was stalled. Troops were paid at the rate of 380 budgrooks to one xeraphine while the existing exchange rate was much higher — one xeraphine to 580 budgrooks. This created strong feelings of distrust and resentment towards the Company from all sections of its men.
It thus came as a big surprise for the Company's management when on December 27, 1683, the Company's troops rose in rebellion under the command of Richard Keigwin. The ease with which Keigwin was able to displace the Company's administration, forcing it to renounce its authority over the island, showed the unanimous discontent against the injustices of the Company amongst the people. The rebellion, in Keigwin's words, was "disloyalty neither to his King or his country, but only to the East India Company" (Ray and Oliver Strachey, Keigwin's Rebellion (1683-84): An Episode in the History of Bombay, 1917). In a letter addressed to the King, Keigwin offered to manage the island's affairs on behalf of the British Crown until such time as arrangements for direct assumption of administrative responsibilities by the Crown were complete.
Official records provide detailed correspondence amongst the Company's representatives regarding the startling nature of the events. Previously rewarded by the Company for his role in recapturing the island of St. Helena from the Dutch in 1673, the fact that Keigwin should now lead a revolt against the very same Company seemed incredulous. For the first time in the history of the Company, its business interests were being put at risk by those very men employed to defend its interests at sea. It is precisely in this respect that the mutiny of 1683 is so special. Several accounts of smaller mutinies by European units exist in the Company's history in India, but none can be said to be as successful as the one led by Keigwin.
Successful administrator
In his role as Governor of Bombay, Keigwin was almost as successful as his performance as a naval officer on field. One of the first things that Keigwin took on was the reorganisation of the Company's finances. Through careful management of the Company's finances, Keigwin was able to generate enough revenues to cover all the necessary expenses. On November 19, 1684, when he formally handed over the controls to a new administration headed by Sir Thomas Grantham, not only had Keigwin been successful in bringing the deficit down; he also made it a point to hand over to the Company the whole sum of 60,000 xeraphines that he had seized, untouched, proving that a satisfactory government could be carried on, "prestige adequately maintained, troops properly paid, and the Island kept in state of security from outside threats", without undertaking any of the drastic measures executed by the Company.
Lasting impact
The temporary siege in fact left an indelible impact on the offices of the Company. A separate committee called the Secret Committee was established almost immediately after, to safeguard against any future disruptions in business. The Secret Committee in fact went on to become one of the most important committees in the organisational structure of the East India Company. Entrusted with the specific responsibility of issuing and transmitting secret instructions between the Company's offices in London and colonies elsewhere, the Committee functioned as the Company's war cabinet till the final days of its reign in India.
As the Company gradually increased its hold over other parts of India, there were many more reports of sepoy mutinies that came to light. On September 8, 1764, Lal Paltan, the native regiment raised by Clive, mutinied and imprisoned its officers at Manji. In 1765-66, Robert Fletcher, a British officer, led a small group of soldiers to revolt against the Company in Munger. In 1806, there were reports of yet another native mutiny at Vellore in the Madras army area. In 1844, there were simultaneous reports of "mixed" sepoy mutinies by the 4th, 7th, 34th, 64th and 69th Native Infantry battalions in different parts of the country. The mutiny of 1857 was perhaps the biggest and the most important of all. Collectively, they symbolised growing anger amongst both Indian and Europeans employed in the service of the Company against the Company's Raj in India. While the top management reaped huge dividends for each new plunder, the fruits, much in the same way as now, never did trickle down to those in the field.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
