Latest / The Rise of Colonialism: How Europe Divided the World — Fexingo History / The Dual Government of Bengal: Chaos Under East India Company Rule
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about how the East India Company got the diwani — the right to collect taxes in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa — in 1765. But what actually happened after that? It sounds straightforward, but the Company didn't just take over and run things. They created this bizarre system called the 'dual government.' Luna: Dual government — meaning two rulers? Lucas: Exactly. On paper, the Nawab of Bengal was still in charge. He was the ruler, the subahdar, sitting in Murshidabad. But the Company had the diwani — the revenue authority. So the Nawab handled law and order, justice, criminal matters — the nizamat — while the Company collected taxes. But here's the twist: the Company also had the military power. So the Nawab had responsibilities but no real authority, and the Company had real power but no direct responsibility for governance. Luna: Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Lucas: It was. Robert Clive, who basically set this up after the Treaty of Allahabad, thought he was being clever. He wanted to avoid the cost and trouble of direct administration. Let the Nawab do the messy work, the Company takes the revenue. But what happened was that the Nawab became powerless and demoralized, and the Company officials just focused on extracting as much money as possible. Luna: Who was the Nawab at that point? Lucas: Well, after Mir Jafar died in 1765, the Company put his son najm ud daula on the throne. He was young and inexperienced. And Clive made him sign a new agreement — the Treaty of Murshidabad — where he agreed to pay for a Company military force and basically handed over all real power. In return, he got a pension — a huge one, 53 lakh rupees a year initially — but it was still just a pension. He was a figurehead. Luna: So the Nawab was basically on the payroll. Lucas: Exactly. And the Company's officials — the collectors, the military officers — they saw this as an opportunity. They started taking 'gifts' from local zamindars, engaging in private trade without paying duties, and even manipulating the grain markets. The diwani was supposed to bring in revenue for the Company, but a lot of it was siphoned off by private individuals. Clive himself left India in 1767 with a massive fortune, and many others did too. Luna: That's the corruption Edmund Burke later talked about, right? Lucas: Yes, Burke called them 'birds of prey' — these Company men who descended on Bengal. And the dual government made it worse because nobody was accountable. The Nawab couldn't control them, and the Company directors in London were too far away. So you had this power vacuum where the old Mughal system of checks and balances was gone, but no new system had replaced it. Lucas: And this directly contributed to the Bengal Famine of 1770. When the crops failed in 1769, the Company didn't ease up on tax collection. In fact, some historians argue that the revenue demand was actually increased in 1770, even as people were starving. The dual government meant there was no coordinated relief effort. The Nawab had no resources, and the Company just cared about its dividend. Luna: That's horrific. Lucas: It was. And when Warren Hastings took over as Governor of Bengal in 1772, he realized the dual system was a failure. He abolished it outright. He moved the treasury from Murshidabad to Calcutta, reduced the Nawab's pension, and started direct Company administration. But by then, millions had died in the famine, and the reputation of the Company was permanently stained. Luna: What happened to najm ud daula and later Nawabs? Lucas: najm ud daula died in 1766, just a year after taking power — probably poisoned, some say. Then his brother mubarak ud daula became Nawab. He was even more of a puppet. Under Hastings' reforms, he was reduced to a titular ruler with a small pension. The Nawab's court in Murshidabad became a kind of museum — a symbol of past glory. The real power moved to Calcutta. Luna: And the Jagat Seth family — they were the bankers, right? What happened to them? Lucas: The Jagat Seths had been the financiers of Bengal for generations. They had backed Mir Jafar during Plassey, but after the dual government, their influence waned. They couldn't compete with the Company's power. Their banking network was gradually undermined, and by the early 19th century, they were essentially bankrupt. By 1800, their role was over. Lucas: You know, it's interesting — when we talk about the dual government, it's easy to think of it as just a colonial administrative quirk. But it really shows how the Company operated: they wanted the profits of empire without the responsibilities. And that attitude — extract wealth, don't govern — it caused immense suffering. The famine was not an accident; it was a direct result of the dual government's failures. Luna: It's a pretty damning chapter. Lucas: And it's one that people like Edmund Burke made sure the British public heard about. His speeches in Parliament in the 1780s — the impeachment of Warren Hastings — really brought the horrors of the dual government to light. But of course, by then, the Company had already entrenched itself. The dual government was gone, but the Raj was here to stay. Lucas: I think that's enough heavy history for one episode. Let me just say — making these shows takes a lot of work, and we're only able to do it because some listeners chip in through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No ads, just history. So thanks to those who do. Luna: Yeah, it's a small way to keep this going. Anyway, back to the story — so after Hastings abolished the dual system, how did the Company actually rule Bengal directly? Lucas: Good question. Hastings set up a board of revenue in Calcutta, and divided Bengal into districts, each with a British collector. They used Mughal-style revenue farming, but with more direct oversight. The Nawab was reduced to a pensioner, and the old Mughal nobility lost their power. It was the beginning of what we'd call the British Raj in India, even though the formal Raj didn't start until 1858. Luna: So the dual government was a kind of transition phase. Lucas: Exactly. It was this messy, greedy, short-lived experiment that failed because it was based on a fantasy — that you could have power without responsibility. The Company learned that lesson the hard way, through famine and scandal. But they also learned that direct rule was more efficient — and more profitable in the long run. So in a way, the dual government was the painful birth of British colonialism in India.