Lesson video

Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin and I'll be your history teacher for today.

I'm really looking forward to starting our learning journey together, and my role will be to make sure that you can meet today's learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the East India Company, where we're asking ourselves, when did Mughal authority in India collapsed? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to explain why historians have described the changes in India between 1757 and 1765 as revolutionary.

There are four key words which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are fortifications, revolution, puppet ruler, and treaty.

Fortifications include strong walls and towers that are built to protect a place.

A revolution is a period of time when there is significant change, such as change in who holds power in a country.

A puppet ruler is someone who appears to be in charge of a country, but is actually controlled by other people or groups.

And a treaty is a written agreement between two or more countries approved and signed by their leaders.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts, and we'll begin by focusing on the trigger for war in India in the mid 18th century.

In 1754, multiple different groups possessed power in India, including the Mughal Empire, success states like Bengal, and European trading companies, especially the British East India Company, the EIC, and the French Compagnie des Indes.

Between 1756 and 1764, the EIC for against virtually all of these other powerful groups in India.

The EIC and Compagnie des Indes were trade rivals in India.

The company's power grew significantly during the 1740s and 1750s.

Both companies made alliances with Indian leaders and developed large private armies as part of their rivalry against one another.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

Which of the following groups did the EIC not rely upon to protect it from rivals in India? Was it its own private army, Indian allies, or European allies? Remember, you are looking for the answer that is not correct.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C, the EIC did not rely upon European allies to protect it from rivals in India.

Instead, it turned to its own private army and Indian allies for support against those who threatened it.

The EIC and Compagnie des Indes were increasingly interested in Bengal by the 1750s.

Bengal, which was located in the east of the Mughal Empire, was the richest part of the Mughal Empire and was ruled over by a nawab.

The nawab claimed to be loyal to the Mughal emperor, but in reality, they actually had full control over Bengal themselves.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

Which reason best explains why the EIC and Compagnie des Indes were interested in Bengal? Was it because it was the richest area of India, because it was the most populated area in India, or because it was the easiest part of India to sail to? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

The EIC and Compagnie des Indes we're very interested in Bengal, in large part because it was the richest area of India.

In the mid 1750s, the EIC and Compagnie des Indes expected a new war between them and as a result, both sides began fortification works in Bengal.

Neither company asked the nawab of Bengal for permission to begin these works.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that reads the EIC always respected the authority of Indian leaders like the nawab of Bengal.

Is that statement true or false? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the EIC declared war and attacked the nawab in 1756.

The second said that the EIC began building forts without permission in 1756.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

We can tell that the EIC did not always respect the authority of Indian leaders like the nawab of Bengal, because when it began building fortifications in Bengal in 1756, it had not asked for permission to do this.

In 1756, the nawab of Bengal ordered the European companies to stop their fortification works.

The French stopped, but the EIC ignored the nawab's orders and continued to fortify their factory in Kolkata, now known as Calcutta.

As a result of the EIC'S defiance, the nawab of Bengal sent an army to attack and conquer the British factory at Calcutta.

So let's check our understanding of what we just heard.

Which statement is most accurate? The British and French both ignored the nawab of Bengal's orders to stop building fortifications, that the British followed the nawab of Bengal's order to stop building fortifications, but the French did not, the French followed the nawab of Bengals order to stop building fortifications, but the British did not, or that the British and French both followed the nawab of Bengal's order to stop building fortifications.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

The French followed the nawab of Bengal's order to stop building fortifications, but the British EIC did not.

So now we're ready to put all of our knowledge into practise starting with the earliest.

I want you to sort the following events into chronological order to explain why the EIC went to war in 1756.

The events we have are EIC and Compagnie des Indes suspected a new war would begin, the British factory at Calcutta was conquered, European companies began building forts without permission, and EIC ignored an order from the nawab of Bengal.

So user numbers one to four to indicate the correct chronological order of those four events.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answers.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So I asked you to sort the following events into chronological order to explain why the EIC went to war in 1756.

You should have said that the first of our events was that the EIC and Compagnie des Indes suspected a new war would begin.

As a result of these suspicions, both European companies began building forts without permission.

So you should have had that numbered as statement number two.

The third event, which you should have identified was that the EIC ignored an order from the nawab of Bengal who told both European companies to stop their fortification works.

As a result of the British defiance, the British factory at Calcutta was conquered by an army of the nawab of Bengal.

So well done if you got all of those events listed in the correct chronological order.

We are now ready to move on to the second part of today's lesson where we'll focus on the battles of Plassey and Buxar.

After the nawab of Bengal captured Calcutta, the EIC spent most of the next eight years at war.

During this period of conflict, the EIC achieved two particularly significant military victories at the 1757 Battle of Plassey and at the 1764 Battle of Buxar.

So we'll think about each of these battles in turn.

After the nawab of Bengal occupied Calcutta, the British East India company began organising its armies to recapture its factory.

Worried about the threat which the EIC posed, the nawab of Bengal organised an alliance with the French Compagnie des Indes.

Meanwhile, the EIC made its own alliances with important Indian figures in Bengal.

In particular, the company made an agreement with Mir Jafar, who held a leading position in Bengal's army.

Jafar was unhappy with the rule of the nawab and was willing to work with the British to overthrow him so long as the agreement was kept secret.

In June, the army of the EIC led by a man called Robert Clive confronted the combined armies of the nawab of Bengal and a French Compagnie des Indes close to the village of Plassey.

Clive commanded a force of up to 700 European soldiers and 2,100 sepoys.

By contrast, the nawab commanded a much larger army of almost 50,000 men, including French artillery support to fight against the EIC.

However, when the Battle of Plassey began a large portion of the nawab's army, the part which was under the command of Mir Jafar refused to take part in the fighting.

By the end of the day, Clive's army had defeated the forces of the nawab of Bengal and of the French.

After the Battle of Plassey, the EIC overthrew the nawab of Bengal, and replaced him with Mir Jafar.

Meanwhile, over the following six years, the conflict in India spread beyond Bengal.

By 1763, further military victories for the EIC led to the complete defeat of the French Compagnie des Indes.

So let's reflect on everything that we've just heard.

I want you to identify two examples which show the EIC benefited from Indian support at the Battle of Plassey.

So you might pick any two from the following.

Mir Jafar did not lead his troops into the battle, the Compagnie des Indes supported the nawab, the nawab of Bengal commanded almost 50,000 men, and 2,100 sepoys were part of Robert Clive's army.

So which two of those examples show that the EIC benefited from some Indian support? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answers.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answers were A and D.

We can tell that the EIC benefited from Indian support at the Battle of Plassey because Mir Jafar did not lead his troops into the battle, in accordance with a secret agreement he'd made with the EIC and the EICs army, which was led by Robert Clive, included 2,100 sepoys Indian soldiers serving European commanders.

Despite having worked with the British at the Battle of Plassey, Mir Jafar found the EIC difficult to work with, and the relationship between the two sides soon broke down.

The East India Company used its growing power to replace Mir Jafar as nawab.

However, the next nawab of Bengal, Mir Qasim, also dislikes the growing power of the EIC because the company refused to pay taxes to him for their trading operations in Bengal.

The nawab gained support for the nawab of Awadh and also for Mughal emperor himself, Shah Alam, who formed an alliance against the British East India Company.

In 1764, the combined armies of Mir Qasim, the nawab of Awadh, and the Mughal emperor fought against an East India Company army at the Battle of Buxar.

Although the EICs opponents had more soldiers, the allies were poorly coordinated, so they could not make the most at their combined strength.

Both sides suffered high losses during the battle, but the EIC emerged victorious and Emperor Shah Alam surrendered to the British forces.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we've just heard.

Why did Mir Qasim turn against the EIC? Was it because of disagreements over tax, because of disagreements over religion, or because of disagreements over security? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was A, Mir Qasim turned against the EIC because the disagreements over tax.

The EIC had stopped paying tax for the trade it conducted in Bengal.

And let's try another question.

This time I want you to write the missing word for the following statement.

At the end of the Battle of Buxar the Mughal emperor blank to the EIC army.

So what's the missing word? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was surrendered.

At the end of the Battle of Buxar, the Mughal emperor surrendered to the EIC Army.

The British were victorious despite the fact that the combined armies of Mir Qasim, the nawab of Awadh the Mughal emperor had actually outnumbered the East India Company's army.

So we are now ready to put all of our knowledge about the Battles of Plassey and Buxar into practise.

I want you to study the statements below.

We have three that say Indian support helped the EIC to win the Battle of Plassey.

The EIC did not respect the authority of Mir Qasim in Bengal, and the EIC commanded a stronger military than the Mughal Empire by the mid 1760s.

For each of those statements, I want you to provide an example which can support it.

So pause the video here and press play when you are ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I gave you free statements, and for each of them, I asked you to provide an example which can support it.

Your answers may have included for our first statement that Indian support helped the EIC to win the Battle of Plassey, that Mir Jafar helped the EIC by refusing to fight alongside the rest of the nawab of Bengal's army during the Battle of Plassey.

For our second statement that the EIC did not respect the authority of Mir Qasim in Bengal, you may have put the EIC refused to pay tax to the nawab for their trade in Bengal.

And for our third statement that said, the EIC commanded a stronger military than the Mughal Empire by the mid 1760s, you may have put the Mughal army was defeated by the EIC at the Battle of Buxar in 1764, and Empress Shah Alam was forced to surrender to the company.

So really well done if your own responses look something like those models, which we've just seen.

So now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of today's lesson where we are going to focus on the EIC and the Plassey Revolution.

Many historians have referred to the years between 1757 and 1765 as part of the Plassey Revolution.

These historians argue that there was a significant change in the balance of power between different groups in India during this period.

Their victory at the Battle of Plassey had helped the British overthrow the nawab of Bengal and replace him with a leader who they believed would be more supportive of their interests, Mir Jafar.

Mir Jafar's power was very reliant on British support.

Once Jafar began to challenge the EIC, the company simply replaced him with a new nawab who they believed would be easier to control.

Similarly, once Mir Qasim challenged British power in Bengal and was defeated during the Battle of Buxar, the EIC replaced him too.

For this reason, historians have suggested that during the Plassey Revolution, the nawabs at Bengal became puppet rulers controlled by the British East India Company.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

I want you to write the missing word from the following statement.

Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim were blank rulers of Bengal.

So what's the missing word? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the missing word was puppet.

Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim were puppet rulers of Bengal.

They looked like they were independent, but actually they were controlled by the British East India Company.

And let's try another question, which are the following reasons best demonstrates that Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim were puppet rulers, is it that both Jafar and Qasim were Indian rather than British, that both Jafar and Qasim were removed when they challenged the EIC, or that both Jafar and Qasim acted as nawabs of Bengal? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

We can tell that both Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim were puppet rulers because when they challenged the EIC, they were simply removed from power showing that it was the East India Company, which really held the most control in Bengal.

In 1765, the EIC and the Mughal Emperor signed the Treaty of Allahabad.

As part of this treaty, the Mughal emperor agreed to give the EIC formal control over Bengal, including the right to collect taxes in the state.

The money which the company was able to earn from collecting taxes in Bengal was greater than the profits it had ever made from trade.

With its new rights, rather than just controlling small vulnerable factories along the Indian coastline, the Treaty of Allahabad gave the complete power over India's richest region and a population of roughly 30 million Indians.

In effect, the EIC gained control over an area nearly as big as the British Isles with a population nearly four times greater than the population of Britain at that time.

As part of the Treaty of Allahabad, the EIC agreed to respect the authority of the Mughal emperor and pay the emperor 2.

6 million rupees each year.

Although the EIC recognised the authority of the Mughal emperor symbolically, in reality, Shah Alam had virtually no control over the company.

For one, the payment made to the Mughal emperor by the EIC was just a fraction of the money the company earned through its tax collection and trade in Bengal.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Allahabad actually placed Shah Alam under the protection of the EIC, which included a ban on the emperor returning to Delhi, the capital city of the Mughal Empire for several years.

Over the following decades, the EIC used its armies and wealth to conquer more areas of India acting as it wished, rather than seeking the permission of the Mughals.

So let's check our understanding of what we've just heard.

Who benefited the most from the Plassey Revolution between 1757 and 1765? Was it the EIC, the Mughal Emperor, or the nawabs at Bengal? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was A, it was the British East India Company who benefited the most from the Plassey Revolution.

And let's try another question.

This time we have a statement that reads, after the Plassey Revolution, the EIC was only focused on trade.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well then to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the EIC gained control over Bengal and the right to collect taxes there.

And the second says that the EIC became responsible for maintaining security across the Mughal Empire.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was A.

We can tell that the EIC was not only focused on trade after the Plassey Revolution because it actually gained control over Bengal, an area that had a population of 30 million people, and it also had the right to collect taxes there.

So it was doing much more than just trading after 1757.

And let's try one more question.

Which statement is most accurate? The Treaty of Allahabad banned the EIC from entering Delhi, the Mughal capital, the Treaty of Allahabad banned the Mughal emperor from entering Delhi, the Mughal capital, or the Treaty of Allahabad banned the nawab of Bengal from entering Delhi, the Mughal capital.

So pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B, the Treaty of Allahabad banned the Mughal emperor from entering Delhi, the Mughal capital.

This shows just how much power in India had changed during the Plassey Revolution, seeing as the Mughal emperor was not able to enter his own capital city.

So we are now ready to put all of our knowledge about the EIC and the Plassey Revolution into practise.

I want you to explain two reasons why changes in India from 1757 to 1765 have been described as part of the Plassey Revolution.

You may use the following sentence starters to help you.

One change which occurred between 1757 and 1765 was for example, this could be considered revolutionary because, and another change which occurred during the Plassey Revolution was, so pause the video here and press play when you are ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So I asked you to explain two reasons why changes in India in 1757 until 1765 have been described as part of the Plassey Revolution.

Your answer could have included one change which occurred between 1757 and 1765 was the increase in the East India Company's wealth.

For example, after the Treaty of Allahabad was signed in 1765, the EIC benefited from the right to collect taxes in Bengal.

This could be considered revolutionary because the money the EIC began making from tax collection was greater than the profits it had ever been able to achieve and trade, making the company and its leaders extremely wealthy.

So well done if your first paragraph, your first reason, look something like that model we've just seen, and you should have explained a second reason why the changes in India during this period have been described as a Plassey Revolution.

So your second paragraph may have looked like another change which occurred during the Plassey Revolution was the rise in the East India Company's authority.

For example, after the Battle of Plassey, the company controlled Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim as puppet rulers in Bengal, and even captured Mughal emperor, Shah Alam.

After winning the 1764 Battle of Buxar, this could be considered revolutionary because it shows that the EIC gained authority to rule important areas like Bengal and even suggests that it had grown more powerful than the Mughals themselves.

So really well done if your own responses look something like those models, which we've just seen.

And that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson, which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about the Plassey Revolution.

We've seen that the EICs decision to build fortifications without the permission of the nawab of Bengal triggered a war.

The EIC achieved significant military victories at the Battles of Plassey in 1757 and Buxar in 1764, defeating a range of opponents including the nawab of Bengal, the French Compagnie des Indes, and Mughal Emperor.

The changes which occurred in India between 1757 and 1765 have been described as part of the Plassey Revolution and the EIC gained control over puppet rulers in Bengal, which extended to the right to collect taxes in the region by 1765.

So really well done for all of your effort during today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you through our resources today, and I look forward to seeing you again in future as we think further about the East India Company and continue to ask ourselves, when exactly did Mughal authority in India collapsed.