Latest / The Hidden History of Bengal: Kingdoms, Empires, and Revolution — Fexingo History / Siraj-ud-Daulah's Reforms: Bengal's Last Nawab Before Plassey
Transcript
- Lucas: So today, we're going back to the mid-18th century, just before the British really took over. We've talked about siraj ud daulah before, but mostly through the lens of the Black Hole or the Battle of Plassey. What I want to do is look at him as a ruler — his reforms, his vision, and why he failed. Luna: That's interesting because most people just know him as the guy who lost to Clive. Lucas: Exactly. And that's a shame because he inherited a rich, stable kingdom from his grandfather Alivardi Khan in 1756, when he was only about 23. Alivardi had kept the Marathas at bay and maintained Bengal's autonomy from the Mughals. But Siraj faced immediate challenges — a depleted treasury, a powerful banking family in the Jagat Seths, and the East India Company acting like a state within a state. Luna: So he was young and ambitious, but surrounded by sharks. Lucas: Pretty much. One of his first moves was to demand that the Company tear down the unauthorized fortifications they'd built at Fort William in Calcutta. They'd been reinforcing it without permission, claiming it was for defense against the French, but really it was a strategic foothold. Siraj saw this as a violation of his sovereignty. He also demanded they stop abusing their trade privileges — they were exploiting the dastak system, which exempted Company goods from customs, but their employees were using it for private trade, costing the treasury huge sums. Luna: So he was trying to enforce the law, not just being anti-British. Lucas: That's key. The Persian chronicle 'siyar ul mutakherin' — written by Ghulam Husain Salim — portrays Siraj as high-handed but also notes his attempts to curb corruption. He ordered the Jagat Seths, who were essentially the bankers of Bengal, to account for their wealth. The Seths had been lending to everyone — the Nawab, the Company, the Mughals — and they resented any scrutiny. Siraj also tried to reduce the power of the great zamindars, like the Raja of Burdwan, who often withheld revenue. Luna: So he was taking on the establishment. That must have made him enemies. Lucas: Enemies everywhere. The Jagat Seths, the Company, and even members of his own court, including his aunt Ghaseti Begum and the powerful general Mir Jafar. Siraj made some crucial miscalculations. For instance, when he captured Calcutta in June 1756, he didn't press his advantage — he withdrew after a few months, giving the Company time to regroup under Clive and Admiral Watson. He also failed to secure the loyalty of his army; many troops were paid irregularly and felt no allegiance. Luna: Was there any attempt at diplomacy? Lucas: He tried. He sent envoys to the Mughal Emperor in Delhi, Alamgir II, but got no support. He also approached the French in Chandernagore, but they remained neutral. In January 1757, he signed the Treaty of Alinagar with the Company, basically accepting their terms in exchange for peace. But both sides knew it was temporary. The Company was already plotting with Mir Jafar and the Jagat Seths to replace him. Luna: So the conspiracy was already in motion before Plassey. Lucas: Absolutely. The famous 'Black Hole' incident, where 123 British prisoners allegedly died in a small cell, became propaganda used to justify the Company's aggression. But modern historians argue the number was likely exaggerated — Holwell's account is suspect. The real story is about power, money, and betrayal. At Plassey on June 23, 1757, Siraj's army outnumbered Clive's roughly 50,000 to 3,000, but key commanders like Mir Jafar held back their troops. Siraj fled, was captured, and executed shortly after. Luna: And with him died Bengal's independence. Lucas: Yes. After Plassey, Mir Jafar became a puppet Nawab, and the Company got the diwani rights — control over Bengal's revenue — in 1765. Siraj's reforms were forgotten, and he was vilified in British accounts as a tyrant. But if you read the 'siyar ul mutakherin' and other sources, you see a young ruler trying to assert control in a system designed to resist change. He wasn't a saint, but he was no monster either. Luna: It's a cautionary tale about taking on entrenched interests. Lucas: And about the cost of losing the narrative. The Company's version of events dominated for centuries. Even today, many Indians see Siraj as a tragic hero — the last stand against colonial rule. But his story is more complex: a mix of ambition, naivety, and circumstance. Luna: You know, it's funny — we're able to dig into these nuances because this podcast is completely listener-supported. No ads, no sponsors. Lucas: Yeah, that's the honest truth. A small group of people chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, and that covers the research, the recording, everything. It's what lets us spend time on stories like this, rather than chasing ad revenue. Luna: And we're really grateful for that. It keeps the show independent. Lucas: Absolutely. So back to Siraj — one of his reforms that often gets overlooked is his attempt to standardize the currency. He minted new coins with his own name, breaking from the Mughal imperial standard, which was a bold statement of sovereignty. He also tried to regulate the saltpetre trade, which was a huge source of revenue. Luna: Saltpetre — the key ingredient for gunpowder. Lucas: Exactly. Bengal produced the best saltpetre in the world, and the Company had a monopoly on it. Siraj wanted to break that and sell it directly to other European powers, which would have undercut the Company's profits. That alone would have made him a target. Luna: So it was economic warfare as much as military. Lucas: Right. And his downfall was sealed when the Jagat Seths, who controlled the flow of money, switched sides. They funded the Company's campaign and even provided intelligence. After Plassey, the Seths were rewarded, but ironically, they too were later destroyed by the Company when they became inconvenient. Luna: No one stays on top in that game. Lucas: No. And that's the lesson of Bengal's 18th century — the old order collapsed because it couldn't adapt. Siraj tried, but he was too late and too isolated. His story is a reminder that history is written by the winners, but the losers often have more interesting stories. Luna: I'd love to hear more about the Persian sources. Are they reliable? Lucas: The 'siyar ul mutakherin' is crucial — it was completed in 1781 by Ghulam Husain Salim, a Bengali Muslim scholar who had served under the Nawabs. He's critical of Siraj but also of the British. He describes Siraj as 'hasty and passionate' but also 'brave and generous'. Another source is the 'muraqqa e delhi', a collection of Mughal letters that includes correspondence from Siraj. They show a ruler trying to navigate a fractured political landscape. Luna: So there's more depth than the British accounts suggest. Lucas: Much more. For example, Siraj was a patron of music and poetry — he had a famous court musician named Adarang, who supposedly invented the sitar. He also built the Nizamat Imambara in Murshidabad, a religious complex. So he wasn't just a warrior; he was a cultured young man trying to leave his mark. Luna: And all that was erased by the defeat. Lucas: Pretty much. After Plassey, the British systematically dismantled the Nawabi administration. They replaced Persian with English in courts, imposed new taxes, and eventually triggered the devastating famine of 1770. Siraj's reforms, if implemented, might have prevented some of that. But we'll never know. Luna: It makes you wonder what could have been. Lucas: It does. And that's why we keep coming back to these stories — not to romanticize, but to understand the crossroads of history. Siraj's reign was brief, but it encapsulates the clash between old and new, local and global, that defined modern India.