The grip of monopoly: Indian commerce as battleground in the British Parliament (From the Archives)

New Delhi, Nov 3 From the distant chambers of the British House of Commons in 1809, a series of debates unfolded that, on the surface, concerned the dry technicalities of the East India Company's private trade. To a casual observer, they were about freight charges, shipping tonnage, and petitions for financial aid. However, viewed through an Indian lens, these discussions -- recorded as debates were far more than commercial squabbles.

They were a stark reflection of the interconnected nature of colonial exploitation, where commercial disputes were inseparable from political subjugation, military aggression, and the systemic draining of a subcontinent’s wealth. For India, this was not a debate about partners, but about the competing appetites of its masters.

A Quarrel among Masters: The Private Trader vs. The Company

The central conflict animating these debates was a fierce contest between private British merchants and the Directors of the East India Company. The private traders, feeling harshly treated, demanded fairer access to the vast Indian market, accusing the Company of using its monopoly to crush competition.

From an Indian perspective, however, this was not a struggle for freedom of trade, but a dispute over the division of spoils. Both factions were foreign entities vying for a larger share of the profits derived from Indian labour and resources.

The private traders' grievances, as articulated by a member of parliament Mr Prendergast, laid bare the mechanics of the Company’s exploitative control:

Exorbitant Freight Charges: Merchants who relied on Company shipping found themselves charged rates as high as 44 pounds per tonne, a figure far exceeding the rates they had been led to expect.

This arbitrary inflation of costs was described not only as "injustice and oppression" but also as outright "fraud", as the Directors used their absolute power to violate their own published agreements. For Indian producers and artisans, these inflated costs meant less return for their goods, as the foreign merchants passed the expense down the chain.

The Primacy of "Political Purposes": A recurring complaint was that ships promised to private merchants were frequently diverted for what the Company termed "political purposes".

These diversions left merchants "completely in the lurch," their goods stranded and their capital locked. From an Indian viewpoint, these "political purposes" were the wars of conquest and territorial expansion, such as those waged by Marquis Wellesley, which were destroying native sovereignty.

The incident reveals a core truth of British rule: imperial ambition and military strategy always took precedence over the supposedly stable and predictable rules of commerce.

Flight to Foreign Flags: The oppressive policies of the Company had a predictable, yet telling, consequence. As stated by Mr. Howorth, the conduct of the Directors had pushed British capital into clandestine trade under foreign flags. This meant that while the Company strangled its own countrymen’s trade, American, Portuguese, and other neutral vessels were flocking to Indian ports, carrying on a vibrant commerce that Britain sought to monopolise.

For India, the ultimate effect was the same: its wealth continued to flow outwards, enriching foreigners, with the only difference being the flag on the ship’s mast.

Excuses and Evasions: The Company's Defence

In response to these accusations, the Company Directors and their allies offered justifications that, from an Indian perspective, appeared as little more than self-serving evasions. They argued they were only bound to provide a limited amount of shipping -- 3,000 tonnes -- and that the disruptions were the result of war, a factor beyond their control.

This defence was transparently flawed. The very wars that caused the disruptions were of the Company’s own making. The debates themselves linked the Company's financial ruin directly to the aggressive policies of figures like Marquis Wellesley, whose conduct had been condemned by the Directors themselves for having acted in violation of their laws.

The renewal of a Select Committee to investigate the Company’s affairs was precipitated by a petition for public aid, a direct result of the "lavish expenditure" and "fraud and peculation" that defined this era of conquest.

This financial desperation, which led to the exploitation of private traders, was rooted in the military subjugation of Indian states. In essence, the Company defended its commercial abuses by citing the consequences of its political crimes.

Glimpses of the Indian Reality: Disaffection and Mutiny

While the debates centered on British interests, they offered chilling glimpses into the real-world consequences of these policies within India. The discussions were not merely abstract. A parliamentarian, Mr. Howorth brought the stark reality of the situation to the floor of Parliament, speaking of the widespread discontents among the Company’s officers and the growing disaffection of the native troops.

This was a direct result of the arrogant and culturally ignorant policies being imposed.

He specifically cited the "system of foisting king's officers into the native corps," men who were "unacquainted with their language, and unused to their customs". This practice, detailed in other sources, bred deep resentment within the military structure that upheld British rule.

Furthermore, the reference to the mutiny at Vellore served as a powerful and "awful" lesson. The fact that hundreds of British soldiers and nearly a thousand men in total lost their lives over the imposition of regulations concerning a "turban and a whisker" demonstrated the profound absurdity and danger of enforcing British norms on Indian armies.

It was a clear sign that the foundations of British power were more fragile than many in London believed, resting on a bed of simmering cultural and religious resentment.

Conclusion: A Unified System of Control

Ultimately, these parliamentary debates on private trade reveal, from an Indian standpoint, that the various facets of British engagement -- commercial, political, and military -- were not separate but were part of a single, integrated system of imperial control.

The push by private merchants for more access, the Company's defence of its monopoly, the charges of "fraud and peculation", and the massive "lavish expenditure" were all part of an internal struggle among the British over how best to exploit their Indian possessions.

The Company’s financial crisis, which necessitated a parliamentary committee and a plea for a public loan, was a direct consequence of its wars of "aggrandizement" and the "seizing of kingdoms".

The commercial grievances of private traders stemmed from their interests being cast aside in favour of these military ambitions. And the simmering disaffection within the native army was a reaction to the cultural insensitivity that accompanied this assertion of absolute power.

While the members of Parliament debated, from an Indian perspective, the verdict was already clear: whether under the Company’s monopoly or a more "open" system, the ultimate purpose of British presence was the extraction of wealth and the consolidation of power, with the immense cost being borne by India itself.

(The author is a researcher specialising in Indian History and contemporary geopolitical affairs)

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor