lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The making of subjects on British India's north-eastern frontier
Uppsala University. (Centre for Concurrences in Colonial and Postcolonial Studies)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0932-4082
2014 (English)In: 23rd European Conference on South Asian Studies: University of Zurich (Switzerland), 23-26 July 2014, 2014Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

The process of forming British colonial governance and ruler-subject relations in Eastern Bengal was contextual, negotiated, and diverse. 

The Mughal diwani of Bengal (1765) granted the British East India Company access to revenue resources over territories larger than the British Isles. However, collecting revenues depended on participation in complex socio-economic webs, resting on norms of personal relations between sovereign and subject. These were the Achilles' heel of the EIC. It not only lacked attachments to subjects, it also lacked the status and identities that would have made such attachments possible. We may usefully see the Company's revenue surveys as a search for subjects capable of claiming and justifying specific rights under EIC governance. These could only be established by meeting people and assessing the validity of their claims.

The fiscal relations of landed property were by far the most extensive and institutionalized of the Company's relations to subjects. As such, it gave subjects only limited rights in the emerging polity. We may think of them as "fiscal subjects".

But the EIC was an early-modern corporation of merchants; not a state. Driven by commercial interests and accountable to shareholders, the extensive revenue surveys in the 1790s became a bureaucratic quick-fix which the Company came to regret. The consequences proved disastrous. Universal land classifications clashed with environmental realities in a monsoon climate and, until the 1830s, the Company was forced to acknowledge Mughal privileges in land since they could not stand up against the socio-economic tenacity of the former polity.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014.
National Category
History
Research subject
Humanities, History
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-53970OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-53970DiVA: diva2:939618
Conference
23rd European Conference on South Asian Studies in Zurich, Switzerland, 23-26 July 2014
Note

QC 20150623

Available from: 2015-05-26 Created: 2016-06-20 Last updated: 2017-03-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Table of Contents

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Cederlöf, Gunnel
History

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf