Eh… the story preceding that rebellion argues, if anything, that the Company tried too hard to bend to local practices, and the British public was outraged that “Clemency Canning” didn’t want to come down like a hammer on the natives.
Look, explanations of complex stuff that happened is basically what historians do. The fact of the matter is, the EIC policies led to an enormous rebellion that ultimately resulted in the Crown taking over in India, and the EIC ending its independent existence. The EIC policies were terrible and very heavy handed, here is one example:
(And it’s not like it was not known by this point that people hated salt taxes, they could have just asked the French about how the gabelle worked out for them.)
I am not sure in what sense it can be said that the EIC used a ‘light touch’ in India, unless that phrase can mean basically anything you want it to mean.
The Dutch EIC in Indonesia was much better (but then the Dutch were much better about free trade than the English. The Dutch idea was always to be super efficient about maritime trade and thereby drive others out of a market, the English idea was always to let things run and put tariffs on them. That sounds like a ‘light touch’ policy, but in fact this always got them into trouble, see also the Molasses Act.)
Look, explanations of complex stuff that happened is basically what historians do. The fact of the matter is, the EIC policies led to an enormous rebellion that ultimately resulted in the Crown taking over in India, and the EIC ending its independent existence.
I suspect we should not use “fact of the matter” to describe counterfactual claims. You know how hard the problem of inferring causal knowledge from statistical data is, and specifically, how difficult it is to differentiate between different counterfactual hypotheses. (A says that a plan will fail because it is insufficiently yellow, B says that the plan will fail because it is insufficiently purple. When the plan fails, who do you update towards?)
And even this is highly suffused by interpretation—enormous rebellions are common against governments during this time period, and the implication is that the rebels won, because the EIC lost, which isn’t correct. The EIC forces were 80% Indian, and I can’t easily find numbers, but it seems likely that more Indians fought on the side of the EIC than on the side of the mutineers.
The EIC policies were terrible and very heavy handed, here is one example:
One example… where the British government continued to use similar policy for 90 years? This is pretty terrible evidence for the EIC being worse than the British government, and that you put this forward to support your claim suggests to me you might want to approach this a bit more carefully.
(If you want to argue that governance in general is terrible and heavy handed, we have a case, but to argue that the EIC is bad by the standards of Indian governance seems to me fairly mistaken.)
I am not sure in what sense it can be said that the EIC used a ‘light touch’ in India, unless that phrase can mean basically anything you want it to mean.
In this specific instance, I mean that they recruited from the highest caste of the natives and respected their superstitions, instead of recruiting soldiers who already shared their values or would be more pliable.
More broadly, I share Napier’s views on the EIC and Indian cultural practices.
The Dutch EIC in Indonesia was much better (but then the Dutch were much better about free trade than the English. The Dutch idea was always to be super efficient about maritime trade and thereby drive others out of a market, the English idea was always to let things run and put tariffs on them. That sounds like a ‘light touch’ policy, but in fact this always got them into trouble, see also the Molasses Act.)
I have grown less impressed by these sorts of comparisons since reading Albion’s Seed. because there’s pretty good evidence that people move to places where their strategies will work. American colonists varied widely in their approaches to the Indians, for example, but picked places where their preferred strategy would work. Those who wanted peaceful interaction with Indians settled near peaceful tribes (as determined by their relationships with other Indian tribes) and those who were not opposed to fighting Indians for land settled near aggressive tribes (again, as determined by their relationships with other Indian tribes). It seems highly likely that the Dutch sought out the lands where they expected their approach to work best, and likewise for the British.
I suspect we should not use “fact of the matter” to describe counterfactual claims.
Well, there are two competing claims here: EIC was a light touch government, or the EIC was a heavy-handed disaster. Now you can argue that the EIC was in fact a light touch government, and all the disasters in India that resulted in EIC terminating its existence were just due to confounders of the time and place. Maybe that’s true! But what exactly is the evidence for the original claim, just some priors on corps being better than governments in some Platonic sense?
One example… where the British government continued to use similar policy for 90 years?
I think the point of the argument is whether somehow corporate colonial governments were better than regular ones, so saying a regular government also continued a [bad policy] isn’t really evidence for this.
I mean that they recruited from the highest caste of the natives and respected their superstitions
I define ‘light touch’ operationally—did it work as intended?
It seems highly likely that the Dutch sought out the lands where they expected their approach to work best, and
likewise for the British.
The Dutch were late to the game, and got what they could. They did not have a luxury of choosing. Even the British, who essentially were the premier power in a multipolar world, had to worry about other powers sniffing around.
But what exactly is the evidence for the original claim, just some priors on corps being better than governments in some Platonic sense?
Sense of history is notoriously hard to boil down to specific pieces of evidence, and it’s likely that Douglas_Knight would give a different answer than I would. But I would point primarily at the incentives (corporations are presumably weighting profit higher than glory, governments might be doing the reverse) and the number of boots on the ground; it seems to me that colonial corporations were more likely to use native power structures to suit their own ends, and colonial governments were more likely to replace native power structures. Whether or not this is a ‘light touch’ depends on what specifically you’re measuring. For example, the EIC never outlawed sati (though individual officers did in regions they had control over), and generally prevented Christian missionaries from operating in their lands, presumably because this would disrupt the creation of profit.
I think the point of the argument is whether somehow corporate colonial governments were better than regular ones, so saying a regular government also continued a [bad policy] isn’t really evidence for this.
I agree with you that the salt tax isn’t relevant evidence, because both the EIC and the British government enforced that policy. The point I was making is that you introduced the salt tax as relevant evidence for comparing the EIC and the British government, and that suggests to me that you may want to be more cautious in reasoning about this area.
(I don’t think inertia has enough of an effect to make creating and continuing a policy significantly different, especially given the amount of time involved.)
Initially, the company struggled in the spice trade because of the competition from the already well-established Dutch East India Company.
The Dutch and British appear to have been operating at roughly the same time—the first British voyage to the area seems to have been a few years sooner, but the first significantly profitable voyage seems to have been Dutch.
and got what they could.
I wouldn’t describe the Moluccas as “got what they could!”
A light touch compared to 19th century state colonialism, which is the context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
Light touch indeed. They fucked it up so badly, the Crown had to come in and take over directly.
Eh… the story preceding that rebellion argues, if anything, that the Company tried too hard to bend to local practices, and the British public was outraged that “Clemency Canning” didn’t want to come down like a hammer on the natives.
Look, explanations of complex stuff that happened is basically what historians do. The fact of the matter is, the EIC policies led to an enormous rebellion that ultimately resulted in the Crown taking over in India, and the EIC ending its independent existence. The EIC policies were terrible and very heavy handed, here is one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India
(And it’s not like it was not known by this point that people hated salt taxes, they could have just asked the French about how the gabelle worked out for them.)
I am not sure in what sense it can be said that the EIC used a ‘light touch’ in India, unless that phrase can mean basically anything you want it to mean.
The Dutch EIC in Indonesia was much better (but then the Dutch were much better about free trade than the English. The Dutch idea was always to be super efficient about maritime trade and thereby drive others out of a market, the English idea was always to let things run and put tariffs on them. That sounds like a ‘light touch’ policy, but in fact this always got them into trouble, see also the Molasses Act.)
I suspect we should not use “fact of the matter” to describe counterfactual claims. You know how hard the problem of inferring causal knowledge from statistical data is, and specifically, how difficult it is to differentiate between different counterfactual hypotheses. (A says that a plan will fail because it is insufficiently yellow, B says that the plan will fail because it is insufficiently purple. When the plan fails, who do you update towards?)
And even this is highly suffused by interpretation—enormous rebellions are common against governments during this time period, and the implication is that the rebels won, because the EIC lost, which isn’t correct. The EIC forces were 80% Indian, and I can’t easily find numbers, but it seems likely that more Indians fought on the side of the EIC than on the side of the mutineers.
One example… where the British government continued to use similar policy for 90 years? This is pretty terrible evidence for the EIC being worse than the British government, and that you put this forward to support your claim suggests to me you might want to approach this a bit more carefully.
(If you want to argue that governance in general is terrible and heavy handed, we have a case, but to argue that the EIC is bad by the standards of Indian governance seems to me fairly mistaken.)
In this specific instance, I mean that they recruited from the highest caste of the natives and respected their superstitions, instead of recruiting soldiers who already shared their values or would be more pliable.
More broadly, I share Napier’s views on the EIC and Indian cultural practices.
I have grown less impressed by these sorts of comparisons since reading Albion’s Seed. because there’s pretty good evidence that people move to places where their strategies will work. American colonists varied widely in their approaches to the Indians, for example, but picked places where their preferred strategy would work. Those who wanted peaceful interaction with Indians settled near peaceful tribes (as determined by their relationships with other Indian tribes) and those who were not opposed to fighting Indians for land settled near aggressive tribes (again, as determined by their relationships with other Indian tribes). It seems highly likely that the Dutch sought out the lands where they expected their approach to work best, and likewise for the British.
Well, there are two competing claims here: EIC was a light touch government, or the EIC was a heavy-handed disaster. Now you can argue that the EIC was in fact a light touch government, and all the disasters in India that resulted in EIC terminating its existence were just due to confounders of the time and place. Maybe that’s true! But what exactly is the evidence for the original claim, just some priors on corps being better than governments in some Platonic sense?
I think the point of the argument is whether somehow corporate colonial governments were better than regular ones, so saying a regular government also continued a [bad policy] isn’t really evidence for this.
I define ‘light touch’ operationally—did it work as intended?
The Dutch were late to the game, and got what they could. They did not have a luxury of choosing. Even the British, who essentially were the premier power in a multipolar world, had to worry about other powers sniffing around.
Sense of history is notoriously hard to boil down to specific pieces of evidence, and it’s likely that Douglas_Knight would give a different answer than I would. But I would point primarily at the incentives (corporations are presumably weighting profit higher than glory, governments might be doing the reverse) and the number of boots on the ground; it seems to me that colonial corporations were more likely to use native power structures to suit their own ends, and colonial governments were more likely to replace native power structures. Whether or not this is a ‘light touch’ depends on what specifically you’re measuring. For example, the EIC never outlawed sati (though individual officers did in regions they had control over), and generally prevented Christian missionaries from operating in their lands, presumably because this would disrupt the creation of profit.
I agree with you that the salt tax isn’t relevant evidence, because both the EIC and the British government enforced that policy. The point I was making is that you introduced the salt tax as relevant evidence for comparing the EIC and the British government, and that suggests to me that you may want to be more cautious in reasoning about this area.
(I don’t think inertia has enough of an effect to make creating and continuing a policy significantly different, especially given the amount of time involved.)
From the East India Company wikipedia page:
The Dutch and British appear to have been operating at roughly the same time—the first British voyage to the area seems to have been a few years sooner, but the first significantly profitable voyage seems to have been Dutch.
I wouldn’t describe the Moluccas as “got what they could!”
History can be all things to all people, like the shape of a cloud it’s a canvas on which one can project nearly any narrative one fancies.