Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:53:01.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capital and Crowd in a Declining Asian Port City: The Anglo-Bania Order and the Surat Riots of 1795

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Lakshmi Subramanian
Lakshmi Subramanian
Affiliation:
Visva Bharati University, Santiniketan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Surat, the waning port city of the departed Great Mughals, was rocked by riots on 6 August 1795. The lower orders of the Muslim population fell upon the shops and houses of the Bania residents of the city, looting grain, demolishing the images of their gods and tearing up their account books. This was the response of a collapsing social order to the thrust of a highly adaptive banking and trading group which had adroitly allied itself to the rising English power on the West Coast of India. A combination of circumstances in the half century following 1750 had resulted in the formation of a mercantile and political order distinguished by the mutually beneficial cooperation of the English East India Company and the Bania bankers and merchants of Surat and Bombay. The violent protest by the Muslims against the new order served only to reaffirm the significance of the Anglo-Bania alliance as the central fact in the unfolding political and commercial situation on the West Coast. The once powerful Mughal ruling élite and the once wealthy Muslim shipping magnates1 were no longer in a position to offer much resistance to the English East India Company and its Bania allies. Likewise the popular Muslim disaffection failed to shake by violence the foundations of the emerging Anglo-Bania order. An analysis of the August riots in Surat would afford the historian a unique opportunity to assess the nature and impact of the new order on the West Coast and to understand the crumbling social structure of a traditional port city—the composition of its lower orders and its burgher groups and their responses to the major changes that were taking place in the political and trading structure of Surat in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 205 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a study of the expansion of Surat's overseas trade in the late 17th and early 18th centuries and of the strength and influence of her merchant groups, see Gupta's, Ashin Das recent monograph on Surat entitled Indian Merchants and the Decline of Surat 1700–1750 (Wiesbaden, 1979).Google Scholar

2 Public Department Diary of the Bombay Government (henceforth referred to as P.D.D.) No. 114A of 1795, pp. 109–20, petition of Lackmandas Jagannathdas, Seth of the Banias and Warnasidas Jaidas, Seth of Shroffs for themselves and all the Mahajans, dated 22 August 1795.

3 Both Prof. N. K. Sinha and P. J. Marshall have referred to the Surat Banias' trade with Bengal. They exported raw cotton and piece goods in exchange for Bengal raw silk. It was on Bengal's raw silk that the Ahmedabad silk industry depended. See Sinha, N. K., The Economic History of Bengal Vol. I (Calcutta, 1965), p. 125Google Scholar; and Marshall, P. J., East Indian Fortunes: The British in Bengal in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1976), pp. 59, 77.Google Scholar

4 In 1793 the Bombay Government ordered the Surat factors to appoint a committee to investigate the workings of the investment system. Their report was read on 18 March 1794 by the Bombay Council. According to the findings of the committee, the principal Bania contractor employed a number of Bania merchants serving as subcontractors. There were also Bohra and Parsi subcontractors. The latter controlled several weavers and it was only through the subcontractors, that services of the weavers could be collected. See Commercial Department Diary of the Bombay Government (henceforth referred to as C.D.D.) no. 9 of 1794, pp. 132ff.

5 P.D.D. No. 114 of 1795, pp. 109–120.Google Scholar The petition presented by the Bania Mahajan on 22 August 1795 sets out clearly the functions of the Bania community of Surat city.

6 See Habib, Irfan, ‘Banking in Mughal India’, in Raychaudhuri, Tapan (ed.), Contributions to Indian Economic History, Vol. I (Calcutta, 1960)Google Scholar, for a general description.

7 Gupta, Ashin Das, Indian Merchants and the Decline of Surat, pp. 85–6.Google Scholar

8 P.D.D. No. 114A of 1795, pp. 109–20.Google Scholar See also Selections of the Bombay Govt (Misc.) No. 87 of 1795 (henceforth Selection No. 87), pp. 25–6, Nawab's letter to the Chief at Surat, undated. The Nawab complained that the Banias were often reluctant to lend to the poor.

9 Gupta, Ashin Das, Indian Merchants and the Decline of Surat.Google Scholar

10 Furber, Holden, Bombay Presidency in the Mid-Eighteenth Century (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

11 For an account of the Maratha expeditions of Bassein, see Dighe, V. G., Peshwa Baji Rao I and Maratha Expansion (Karnataka Publishing House, Bombay, 1944).Google Scholar

12 Gupta, Ashin Das, Indian Merchants and the Decline of Surat, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

13 Bombay's customs from the China Trade increased to Rs 2½ lakhs between 1787 and 1789 which placed the value of the trade between Rs 4 and 5 million. This increased nearly twofold by the end of the century and even further at the turn of the next century. See P.D.D. No. 94A of 1789, pp. 50–3Google Scholar, letter from cotton merchants read at the council meeting of the Bombay Government of 3 February 1789. In 1790 the Bombay merchants informed the Council that their trade was yielding to the Company a revenue equal to all customs on the other trade of the port. Nearly 100,000 bales of cotton were being exported every year and for purchase of which no less than Rs 40 lakhs were annually employed. See P.D.D. No. 96 of 1790, p. 213Google Scholar, petition of the Bombay merchants read in the council meeting of 23 March 1790. Also P.D.D. No. 104 of 1793, pp. 152ff.Google Scholar

14 Gupta, Ashin Das, ‘The Crisis at Surat 1730–52’, Bengal Past and Present LXXXVI, Pt II, No. 162 (07–12 1967).Google Scholar

15 Ibid.

16 Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. II Surat and Broach (henceforth referred as G.B.P.) 1877, ed. Campbell, J. M., pp. 116–17.Google Scholar Also see Surat Factory Diary (S.F.D.) No. 692 of 1797, p. 360, pp. 376ff, consultation meeting of the Surat Council of 13 December 1797. A committee of enquiry was instituted by the E.E.I.C. to consider the possibility of introducing a regular adalat for Surat. The committee presented their findings on the existing system of law and order in the city.

17 Ibid., pp 117–19. The Gaekwad stationed his officer known as the Choutea to receive the collections due to him from the Nawab.

18 Ibid., p. 123.

19 Subramanian, Lakshmi, ‘Bombay and the West Coast in the 1740's’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. XVIII, No. 2 (04–06 1981), pp. 208–9.Google Scholar In 1754, for instance, we have the case of Jayaram Navaram, a protected merchant being harassed by the ruling administration led by Safdar Khan and Sidi Masud. Jayaram was, however, released thanks to the efforts of the Surat factors. See P.D.D. No. 27A of 1754, pp. 207–8Google Scholar; No. 276 of 1754, pp. 209ff, council meeting of 2 July 1754 of the Bombay Government; p 217, letter from Surat dated 26 June 1754 to the Bombay Government; p. 220, letter from Surat dated 7 July 1754; pp. 224–5, letter from Surat received by the Bombay Government Council on 25 July 1754; pp. 274–5, council meeting of the Bombay Government of 3 September 1754; pp. 292–3, letters from Surat dated 14–15 September 1754 to the Bombay Council.

20 P.D.D. No. 321 of 1759, pp. 99–102Google Scholar, letter from John Spencer to Richard Bourchier, Governor of Bombay, dated 11 January 1759.

21 S.F.D. No. 14(1) of 1759, pp. 222ffGoogle Scholar, consultation meeting of the Surat Council 3 March 1759.

22 In February 1763 the Bombay Council intervened on behalf of Meer Cutbudeen who ascended the throne as Nawab. See P.D.D. No. 40 of 1763, p. 154Google Scholar, letter from Surat dated 1 March 1763 to the Bombay Council; pp. 155ff, council meeting of the Bombay Government of 7 March 1754. The Surat diaries are replete with references to the English East India Company's relations with the Maratha officers stationed in Surat district. See S.F.D. Nos 660 of 1772, 672 of 1780 and 678 of 1786.

23 P.D.D. No. 1144A of 1795, p. 110Google Scholar, petition of the Bania Mahajan dated 22 August 1795.

24 The Surat factors often made note of this fact in their correspondence with the Bombay Government. See P.D.D. No. 39 of 1762, p. 443Google Scholar, letter from Surat dated 7 August 1762 to the Bombay Government. See also No. 55 of 1770, pp. 416–17, letter from Surat dated 12 July 1770 to the Bombay Council; also No. 64 of 1773, p. 147, letter from Surat dated 8 September 1773 to the Bombay Council.

25 Custom figures available in the public department diaries of the Bombay Government bring out this fact clearly. The following table is reconstructed on the basis of this evidence.

Customs Value of Customs Value of

Year collected imports Year collected imports

1755/56 Rs 14920 Rs 2.4 lakhs appr. 1763/64 Rs21847 Rs 3 lakhs appr.

756/57 9470 1.5 " " 764/65 73912 1 million 2 lakhs

1757/58 26300 4 " " 1765/66 41154 6.8 lakhs

758/59 25400 2 " " 1766/67 32360 5.2 lakhs

1759/60 25500 4 " " 1767/68 69169 1 million 1 lakh

1760/61 8740 1.4 " " 1768/69 59929 9 lakhs

1761/62 16550 2.5 " " 1769/70 38291 5 lakhs

1762/63 26403 4.4 " "

26 S.F.D. No. 672 of 1780, p. 117.Google Scholar Eleven Bills of Exchange were sent by the Surat factors to the Bombay Council for half a lakh of rupees in September 1780. Also see S.F.D. No. 673 of 1781, pp. 224, 237–8, 259.Google Scholar Also No. 674 of 1782, pp. 118–20, 129, 167, 199–200.

27 S.F.D. No. 15(II) of 1759–61, p. 267Google Scholar, letter from Bombay received by the Surat Council on 28 February 1761. The factors were asked to make five lakhs of rupees immediately available. Bombay was presently notified that Rs 1.75 lakhs had been raised. See P.D.D. No. 37(11) of 1761, p. 334Google Scholar, letter from Surat dated 3 April 1761 to the Bombay Council; p. 381, council meeting of the Bombay Government 1 May 1761; S.F.D. No. is(II) of 1759–61, p. 323Google Scholar, letter signed to Bombay on 10 May 1761; also see p. 332, letter signed to Bombay 12 June 1761 notifying them of transactions made with shroffs for Rs 50,000. On 16 June negotiations for an additional sum of Rs 4000 were successful, see pp. 333ff.

28 P.D.D. No. 501 of 1768, pp. 1–2Google Scholar, letter to Surat dated 1 January 1768. The Bombay Council directed the factors to negotiate for Bengal Bills for Rs 2 lakhs. Also p. 100, letter from Bengal dated 30 November 1767 promising the Bombay Government a remittance of Rs 5 lakhs. Also see P.D.D. No. 51 of 1768, p. 268Google Scholar, letter from Surat dated 4 December 1768 to the Bombay Council indicating that they (Surat factors) expected to raise Rs 5 lakh and so on. See p. 271, council meeting of the Bombay Government of 9 December 1768. The Surat factors were asked to negotiate for one more lakh.

29 P.D.D. No. 55 of 1770, pp. 88–9Google Scholar, council meeting of the Bombay Government of 2 February 1770. The Accountant General mentioned in the meeting that the government would require at least Rs 12 lakhs for the following year.

30 P.D.D. No. 65A of 1774, p. 17Google Scholar, council meeting of the Bombay Government of 11 January 1774.

31 P.D.D. No. 95 of 1789, p. 64Google Scholar, letter addressed to Surat by the Bombay Council on 6 August 1789; also pp. 175ff.

32 Returns and statements of External and Internal Commerce of the Bombay Government 1802. This report contains an exhaustive report on the ‘want of sufficiently circulating medium to answer the accumulated demands of an extensive commerce’.

33 P.D.D. No. 114A of 1795, petition of the Bania Mahajan to the Surat Council, dated 22 August 1795.

34 Khan, Ali Muhammed, Mirat-i-Ahmadi (Persian Text), Vol. I (Bombay), pp. 427–34.Google Scholar Translation from the text was made by Dr Iqtidar Alam Khan.

35 Selection No. 87 of 1795, ‘Surat Riots’ p. 4.Google Scholar The Committee of Enquiry set up to investigate the antecedents of the August riots, estimated the population of Surat around three lakhs. Also see G.B.P. Vol. II, pp. 47–50Google Scholar, 134ff. See Parsons, Abraham, Travels in Asia and Africa (London, 1808).Google Scholar

36 Selection No. 87 of 1795, ‘Surat Riots' pp. 46ffGoogle Scholar for report of the enquiry committee. The Committee observed that the Nawab's slaves commanded the whole armed force ‘… they are stout hardy Africans, greedy of riches and very improper men to be entrusted with the powers they are left to exercise over a multitude of poor Hindus whom they have been taught to despise.’ Also see S.F.D. No. 692 of 1797, pp. 370ffGoogle Scholar, a Committee Report on the existing systems of justice in Surat.

37 S.F.D. No. 687 of 1795, p. 433Google Scholar, petition of the Surat Mahajan. The Mahajan pointed out that in every district of the city, there was a Masjid presided over by a Syed who maintained a very regular register of all their communities.

38 P.D.D. No. 56 of 1770, pp. 67–71Google Scholar, consultation meeting of the Bombay Council of 16 September 1770 to discuss the petition presented by the merchants.

39 Mishra, S. C., Muslim Communities in Gujarat (New York, 1964), p. 137.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., p. 143.

41 C.D.D.No. 1802, pp. 128 iffGoogle Scholar, minute of Commercial Resident regarding detaching of weavers from their intermediate agents; C.D.D. No. 9 of 1794.

42 S.F.D. No. 688 of 1795, pp. 12–13Google Scholar, representation of the Nawab of Surat 11 September 1795.

43 Selection No. 87 of 1795, pp. i37ff, evidence of Haji Ghulam Moiyum, p. 143, evidence of Punah Allah.Google Scholar

44 G.B.P. Vol. II, pp. 302ff.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., pp. 309ff.

46 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 111Google Scholar ff, evidence of Syed Abdul Wali presented before the Committee of Enquiry.

47 S.F.D. No. 688 of 1795, pp. 12–13Google Scholar, meeting of the Nawab's deputy with the Chief on 11 September 1795.

48 Selection No. 87 of 1795. See pp. 46ff for observations of the enquiry committee on the breakdown of law and order in the city. Also see S.F.D. No. 692 of 1797, p. 377Google Scholar, report of the Committee set up by the English East India Company on the feasibility of introducing a court of adalat in Surat city. The committee described the various arrangements in use and the abuses that had crept into their functioning.

49 S.F.D. No. 680 of 1788, p. 465Google Scholar, consultation meeting of the Surat Council of 3 December 1788. Also see pp. 424ff, report of the committee of enquiry appointed on 6 Nov. 1788 to investigate the Parsi Riots.

50 S.F.D. No. 687 of 1795, p. 357.Google Scholar

51 Selection No. 87 of 1795, p. 43Google Scholar, report of the committee of enquiry to the Chief and Council.

52 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 99ffGoogle Scholar, evidence of Khusalchand before the committee of enquiry set up by the Surat Council on 22 September 1795. Also see pp. 11 off for evidence of Parmanand Shamdas.

53 Selection No. 87 of 1795, pp. 8iff, evidence of Gulab Moolchand before the committee of enquiry.Google Scholar

54 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 99ff, evidence of Khusalchand; p. 100, declaration of Muhammed Reza Bengalee. Also see pp. 96ff for comments of the English Chief on the Nawab's letter, undated.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., pp. 99ff, Khusalchand's evidence before the committee of enquiry.

56 Ibid., pp. 110ff, evidence of Parmanand Shamdas.

57 Selection No. 87 of 1795, pp. 143ffGoogle Scholar, evidence of Punah Allah (a Bengalee belonging to the Fatty Masjid and nephew to the accused) before the committee of enquiry.

58 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, p. 112Google Scholar, evidence of Syed Abdul Wali.

59 Ibid., pp. 113ff, evidence of Dulah Shamdas.

60 Ibid., evidence of Purushottam Hiraramal.

61 Ibid., evidence of Kushal Gopal.

62 Ibid., p. 88, observations of the enquiry committee.

63 Selection No. 87 of 1795, pp. 52ffGoogle Scholar, the Nawab's letter to the Chief undated.

64 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 80ffGoogle Scholar, report of the committee of enquiry dated 22 September 1795. Also see pp. 112ff for evidence of Syed Shurufuddin.

65 Selection No. 87 of 1795, p. 42Google Scholar, report of the enquiry committee on the Surat Riot.

66 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 83–7.Google Scholar

67 P.D.D. No. 114A of 1795, pp. 49–52Google Scholar, letter received by the Bombay Council from Surat dated 8 August 1795.

68 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 83ffGoogle Scholar, report of the enquiry committee.

69 Ibid., pp. 112ff, evidence of Syed Shurufuddin.

70 Ibid., pp. 110ff, evidence of Parmanand Shamdas.

71 Selection No. 87 of 1795, p. 79Google Scholar, evidence of Sevakram before the enquiry committee.

72 Ibid., p. 80, evidence of Bhana Laldas before the enquiry committee.

73 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 112ffGoogle Scholar, evidence of Bahay Bhat Gopaljee.

74 Ibid., evidence of Tarwady Rupshankar Jaishankar.

75 Ibid., evidence of Kushal Gopal.

76 Ibid., evidence of Mayaram Narsingdas.

77 Selection No. 87 of 1795, p. 84Google Scholar, evidence of Gulabchand Moolchand.

78 Ibid., Also see P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795 for evidence of Gosain Sambooji.

79 P.D.D. No. 114A of 1795, pp. 52ffGoogle Scholar, letter from Surat dated 8 August and received by the Bombay Council on 19 August 1795.

80 S.F.D. No. 687 of 1795, p. 359Google Scholar, the Nawab's Roca or Memorandum to the English Chief, dated 7 August 1795.

81 Ibid., p. 359.

82 Ibid., p. 357, the Bania Mahajan's meeting with the English Chief 7 August 1795; pp. 366–8, consultation meeting of 13 August 1795 of the Surat Council.

83 Ibid., p. 311, representation from agent of Manohardas Dwarkadas, dated 13 August 1795.

84 S.F.D. No. 687 of 1795, p. 374Google Scholar, the Surat Council's letter to the Mahajan, dated 14 August 1795.

85 P.D.D. No. 114A of 1795, pp. 114–15Google Scholar, petition of the Bania Mahajan, dated 22 August 1795.

86 S.F.D. No. 687 of 1795, pp. 424–37Google Scholar, petition of Lakmandas Jagannathdas Seth of Banias and Waranasidas Jaidas, Seth of shroffs for themselves and for all the Mahajans, dated 22 August 1795.

87 Selection No. 87 of 1795, pp. 24ffGoogle Scholar, the Nawab's letter to the Chief, undated. Also see P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, pp. 64–5, 67–72 and 96–7.Google Scholar

88 S.F.D. No. 687 of 1795, pp. 394–5Google Scholar, consultation meeting of 29 August 1795 of the Surat Council.

89 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795 pp. 53–61Google Scholar, report of the enquiry committee read by the Surat Council on 25 September 1795.

90 Ibid., pp. 262–3, consultation meeting of 11 December 1795 of the Surat Council.

91 S.F.D. No. 688 of 1795, pp. 12–13Google Scholar, meeting of the Nawab's deputy with the Chief on 11 September 1795. Also No. 689 of 1796, pp. 164–5, the Nawab's letter to the Chief of Surat read on 11 February 1796.

92 P.D.D. No. 115A of 1795, p. 61Google Scholar, report of the enquiry committee and declaration of Tarwady Shankar.