How the East India Company Took Over An Entire Country

#eastindiacompany #history #documentary
WATCH THIS AND ALL OUR VIDEOS COMPLETELY AD-FREE OVER ON OUR SUBSTACK: thisishistory.substack.com/?r...
Recommended reading:
The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company - amzn.to/3wtuqAn
The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company - amzn.to/3XQ3bMg
Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600-1757 - amzn.to/3j1pHTA
The Indian Mutiny: 1857 - amzn.to/3kJzbmT
The city of London has been the centre of Britain’s economic and commercial activity for centuries, with many of the largest and wealthiest companies in the world choosing to locate their headquarters in the nation’s capital to this day. However, none of these modern businesses can compare to what was undoubtedly the most powerful multinational corporation the world has ever seen. Established over 400 years ago, the East India Company, from it’s headquarters on Leadenhall Street, would rise from humble beginnings as a trading company for voyages to India; to effectively becoming the de facto state government of the entire sub-continent.
During it’s heyday, the Company would surpass the strength and wealth of even the mightiest nation states, and with it’s own private armies, would push aside the long established native dynasties of India, seizing control of their territories for itself. All this would be achieved by maintaining an iron grip on the most valuable trade routes in the world, which generated staggering amounts of wealth for it’s employees and shareholders. But how did this private corporation come to rule over one of the largest and richest regions on earth in the first place? This is the history of the East India Company.
The East India Company (EIC) was an English, and later British, joint-stock company founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia. The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world. The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company's three Presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time. The operations of the company had a profound effect on the global balance of trade, almost single-handedly reversing the trend of eastward drain of Western bullion, seen since Roman times.
Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies", the company rose to account for half of the world's trade during the mid-1700s and early 1800s, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, sugar, salt, spices, saltpetre, tea, and opium. The company also ruled the beginnings of the British Empire in India.
The company eventually came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey and lasted until 1858. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India in the form of the new British Raj.
The company subsequently experienced recurring problems with its finances, despite frequent government intervention. It was dissolved in 1874 under the terms of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act enacted one year earlier, as the Government of India Act had by then rendered it vestigial, powerless, and obsolete. The official government machinery of the British Raj had assumed its governmental functions and absorbed its armies.

[@VntiHero]

Fascinating how a tiny island conquered these big Empires with a much larger population.

[@adrianking5661]

With superior military technology and a divide and conquer policy.... also by being utter utter bastards, committing genocide that continued into the 20th century... look up Churchill and the 3 million dead...

[@VntiHero]

@@adrianking5661 British took down the 3 big empires in india, you can’t blame them for having better technology lol. You also forget to mention that India’s population was 180 million when they arrived, and British brought it up to 400 million by the time they left. They are the reason india Is even more modernized today than they would be without them.

[@adrianking5661]

@@VntiHero the british did it exactly like I said, like the British did all over the world, they murdered their way to the biggest empire and robbed those countries of their riches.... you can blame the British for what they did to create their empire.

[@VntiHero]

@@adrianking5661 Wow almost like every other Empire in history, you should go to EVERY civilization that was an empire, and post what you just posted about the British. Asian, African, European and the America’s are all waiting for you to say that about them as well 👍

[@adrianking5661]

@@VntiHero no... no other empire was as big, which means the British fucked over more people's than anyone else, even in the 20th century... 3 million in Bengal and they had the nerve to take a moral high ground against the nazi... just as bad as the nazi, if not worse.

[@studytime2570]

Fun Fact: The same cornwalis who was defeated by George Washington in the Americas was reassigned as governor general of eic in India and his prior experience was put forth in defeating Maratha-Nizam-Mysore triple alliance.

[@Waterford1992]

Fun Fact: You misspelt Fun Fact

[@studytime2570]

corrected thanks. typing misalignment mean the input was fatc instead of the usual😅

[@aghaali2217]

'Facts' again u misspelled.

[@piyushjaiswal9283]

All the fighting was done by sepoys. Credit taken by whites

[@RKN47]

this is rather a fake fact because those 3 were never allied togehter against the british

[@RishiGupta09]

British East India company won first territory in India with the help of one of the wealthiest and powerful banking family at that time whose name was “Jagatseth Family”. Jagatseth family lived in Kingdom of Bengal (one of the most powerful wealthy kingdom at that time situated in East part of India) and they used to give loans to many Indian kigdoms and fund war but during 17th century head of Jagatseth family was not happy with the economic policies of then Newab of Bengal and he saw British East India Company is trying to defeat the Kingdom of Bengal but they are getting defeat from Bengali Army so Jagatseth family Head dicided to fund the British conquest of India and with the help of Jagatseth Family British east India company. When Nawab of Bengal got to know about low interest loans given to British East India company by Jagatseth Family, they got brutally murdered by Bengal secret service before EIC could reach Capital, but they surrounded it and at the end conquered the whole Kingdom. This is how Britishers won their first territory in India.

[@kalyanighosh932]

That is not king of Bengal , the title of the ruler was: Nawab of Bengal. "Nawab" literally means deputy to the (Mughal) Badshah

[@pedrolmlkzk]

How did they fare under British rule?

[@jonathanbowen3640]

You need to have shorter sentences.

[@Holy_Reich]

​@@pedrolmlkzkmostly well off

[@yashpatel261]

Apparently Jagatseth and his cousin was killed immediately after the war but not by the British but the new ruler namely a Qasim. His family became broke the following generations since British controlled most of the money and did not need competition from Indian bankers. Indian merchants were dumb and short sighted when they thought they could trust outsiders and expect to survive in the long run. The wealthy became beggars in their own country.

[@rishikeshwagh]

A very well made video! This channel has huge potential. Thanks for the video 🙏

[@olivierantoine2265]

I really like the way you edit these vids. Very well done

[@joecarrick5177]

the channel has so much potential honestly, the videos are so well put together, good luck mate and keep at it, hundereds of thousands of subscribers will flock! xx

[@condorone1501]

It was the British State Disguised as a private company designed to steal the wealth of their occupied nations and backed up by the British Military.

[@ibexlodge213]

Hell yeah, was just thinking the same 👍

[@Janus-fn2uz]

Fyi It is spoiled the poor knowledge of English grammar. I.e. His term of 'gifted ' instead of given as a gift.

[@zefifier]

​@@Janus-fn2uzthe only "poor knowledge of English grammar" I see is yours. 🤷‍♂️

[@RonanTOC]

this is fantastically put together video, breaking down the key facts, events and results in a logical and easy to understand manner.

[@gillesleduc6363]

The Hudson's Bay co. in Canada had some of the same effects in the early development of my country spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Difference is that it did not affect nearly the overall number of people. Fewer people lived in North America in comparison to India. The Bay department store is still around as a vestige of that commercial empire.

[@jamessteel1719]

Really good video - great content and production, well done

[@antonlenting5383]

No, it is history falsification. It was not the first stock trading company and also not the most richest ever. That honour belongs to the VOC from the Netherlands.

[@cowart73]

Great video. Factual and to the point. Definitely will show to my 8th graders.

[@PegasusFleets]

Loved Love on it !!

[@keithfernandes7350]

It was the local Maharajas who had no backbone to stand up for the locals; helped the EI company and justiably so

[@catonpillow]

Very informative and well organized video.

[@inUSA072]

I like how a company from a small island defeated two big powers at the time

[@SukhwinderSingh-yb1vn]

Big luck good time

[@mohandhanoa4797]

India was not a single country at that time , There were scores of small independent kingdoms , who were taken over one by one by the East India company.

[@mihovilraboteg6160]

​​@@mohandhanoa4797 True, but most of those "small"kingdoms were larger and had many times more men and resources than UK, which was also half a world away

[@aaronclarke1434]

“India is not a real country. Instead, it is 32 separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.” Lee Kuan Yew.

[@mohandhanoa4797]

@@mihovilraboteg6160 The British used Indians to fight other Indians.

[@fredvaladez3542]

One of the most fascinating stories I have ever heard and very well presented. I often wondered about the East India company and how India became the Jewel in the Crown for Victoria.

[@SarisTX]

Cool video man! Say where did you get the world map from, it looks really good?

[@HankD13]

No mention of the French at Pondichéry and their involvement at Plassey? In 1756 (France and Britain were at war), the French encouraged the Nawab (Siraj ud-Daulah) to attack and take the British Fort William in Calcutta, which led to the Black Hole massacre. That is what led to Plassey (and the French artillerymen that supported the Nawab)? The French had their own Indian ambitions which Plassey ended. Not as simple and black and white as this makes out.

[@DaliHas]

The author didn’t research it well

[@HankD13]

@@DaliHas The author had his own political agenda I suspect. Britain was in a war of survival against much stronger European powers and did what she had to, to survive and eventually prosper.

[@Magooch86]

It's a 15 minute primer on KZbin, not a thesis, it might not cover everything you personally want it to.

[@mohandhanoa4797]

His real name was Sir Roger Daulah , He pretended to be a Bengali called Siraj ud Daulah .

[@James-sk4db]

includes bengal famine but not black hole of calcutta.

[@CrimsonAlchemist]

You forgot to mention the Anglo-Burmese Wars which were the most expensive wars in the East India Company's and British India's history.

[@iron2684]

That was in Burma tho, not India

[@Randomname254]

​@@iron2684 it was incorperated into British India

[@japorto100]

Nicely done

[@neilvarghese9138]

A fascinating piece of world history.

[@Myavepea]

New subscriber bro

[@kylewit924]

Bit of an exaggerated point about the inevitability of acquiring Japanese markets. The English did open a trade port in Hirado, Japan in the early 17th century but their efforts failed in the face of Dutch competition. And Japanese markets were only forced open by an American naval threat in 1853

[@chrismccartney8668]

My Local Park Wanstead Park was owned by the Head of East India Company who spent a fortune upgrading the Park, which at one time rivalled Versai

[@bradleybreslin945]

I work for a precious metals conpanies and one of the new coins i was packaging is from the East Indian Company. So do they still exist in a smaller capacity? Or perhaps another company just owns the name now?

[@geoffhoppy]

There was no Indian tea produced until approximately 1840. Prior to that the East India Company shipped Chinese tea to Britain.

[@Recklesscharge]

A unknown KZbin channel with the quality of the armchair historian and other more known counterparts you deserve publicity

[@karanveersingh6367]

Thank you for great explanation. 👍

[@nicolasclermont893]

Pretty amazing how small England conquered so much using relatively little. Incredibly based.

[@FGPR01BrunoCauz]

The East India Company may have started out as a trading company, but by the 1780's it had withdrawn from general trade, keeping only the opium trade (which later became a Crown monopoly) and deriving the bulk of its revenues from taxation. That's where its shareholders got their dividends from. The EIC also started the (illegal) international drug trade, which contributed to the demise of the Chinese Empire. Opium and cocaine were freely available in Victorian Britain. Laudanum was cheap and available without a prescription. Even marketed for use by children and babies. Opium wasn't illegal in Britain until 1916 after the tendency to addiction had become apparent.

[@freneticness6927]

You cant just say that the drug trade was illegal and then say the drugs were legal in britain.

[@leonardwei3914]

@@freneticness6927 I think the OP meant to say the international drug trade, specifically opiates, became illegal in China even while remaining legal within the British Empire.

[@freneticness6927]

​@@leonardwei3914 While the chinese did make the sale of opium illegal in china that part of china was under british influence and the chinese government was unable to control the region. In my opinion if your government is unable to defeat the army of a private company you deserve pretty much what you get. Its like getting mad at mexico when drug cartels operate in the usa. The one problem with the chinese is that they were so weak pretty much everyone could walk all over them and pretty much everyone did.

[@leonardwei3914]

@@freneticness6927 The Qing dynasty at that time was indeed corrupt and weak, plagued by internal revolts, failures to modernize and external pressures. But I wouldn't go so far as to say just because a country is so weak it deserves a particularly fate. To wage a war specifically over the importation of drugs is very morally dubious. And this period of "national humiliations" is something that the current Communist Government uses as historically grievances. All while banning domestic drug use but capitalizes on the exportation of methamphetamine chemicals to Mexico and elsewhere.

[@freneticness6927]

​@@leonardwei3914 I would say the beics property was destroyed causing them to attack the chinese authorities there and defeated them. Britain and the eic were more able to dominate southern china which was outside of the influence of north china and Beijing. Much like the usa launches wars to protect oil the british launched wars to protect free trade even though in this case the free trade was opium. Britain was more able to dominate the area in this time so the morality of whether britain or beijing should rule the area was debatable. The usa often had banana and sugar corporations in latin america which began to dominate countries hence the term banana republic. The usa has many times kept latin american dictators in power in return for cheap goods from their countries like the batista family in cuba and duvalia family in haiti. Given the fact that the opium wars coincided with widespread slavery it wasnt the worst thing going on and did not really involve the british government as much the private eic.

[@davidevans3227]

can anyone recommend a longer film on this subject?? these things are always so short

[@russellrodger4686]

William Dalrymple's book The Anarchy is excellent so is his BBC podcast Empire

[@davidevans3227]

@@russellrodger4686 thankyou 🙂 i've noticed the empire podcast and will check it out, also the book.. a familiar title.. currently listening to something called the history of English podcast, listening better than reading for me these days..

[@stephenmailu6072]

Try searching for "How Britain made the modern world" narrated by Prof. Neil Ferguson

[@davidevans3227]

@@stephenmailu6072 this is good.. another recommendation.. thankyou i will 🙂

[@davidevans3227]

@@stephenmailu6072 i see it's here on KZbin

[@cda8713]

The British planted opium in India and sold it to the Chinese, which led to the outbreak of the Sino British War in 1842 and the cession of China's Hong Kong Island. At the same time, the Chinese realized that the ancient system was outdated. In 1911, the Emperor of China abdicated and became the Republic of China. In 1949, the Republic of China was replaced by the China

[@freneticness6927]

Britain selling hard drugs for soft drugs. A bit like how the americans destroyed british property tea and think it was a moral act. Or how the usa invades countries for oil. Britain invaded them for tea. But really it was a case of might makes right. And the british east india company independently fought a war with china and won. The usa sells weapons to saudis to kill yeminis for oil. China didnt really have a functioning navy so the east india company managed to beat them pretty much by themselves.

[@nee7884]

7:05 Clive did not win because of superior weapons. Rather they conspired with the Head General of Bengal Mir Jafar. It was a victory through strategy and conceited diplomacy, conspiracy.

[@hirensankey8578]

Really if that's the case what about all the other battles and wars not only in India but also China and basically the entire non western world. Ignoring reality of inferior indian technological capabilities is just your way to downplay the real reason why the west dominated the world, and I am an Indian from very near surat the first British colony in India and won't fall for your race baiting because Ignoring the shortfalls leads to the same path again. We learn from our mistakes unlike the Africans who just blame and twist the truth to save face.

[@ObsidianSpearhead]

​@@hirensankey8578 read about actual writings of the brits who fought Marathas and Sikhs , first Anglo-Maratha war was won by Maratha easily but 2nd and 3rd not because 2nd and 3rd war was Maratha vs Maratha with brits siding with one side . Maratha Empire became a confederacy after 1790 and it was ruled mainly by 5 rulers , and they didn't fight together against brits . It was the lack of unity and the idiotic caste system which didn't allow a vast majority of population to join army . EIC gained majority of India after defeating Maratha Empire in 3rd war in 1818 and if you go and see(Wikipedia) who fought whom in that war , you'll know why Maratha Empire lost . And people think that Brits took over India from Mughals , No they took it from Marathas .

[@saurishghosh2142]

Bengal Subah ( province of bengal) was not a seperate entity from Mughal Empire, Nawabship literally meant: deputy to the Badshah (Emperor). In 1765 The Emperor granted the tax collecting rights of three of its provinces (Bengal Bihar and Orissa) to East India Company in exchange of a yearly tribute. The coinage and system of government were still very much Mughal even after 1765. The map and some of the information presented here ..are factually incorrect.

[@turabislamchayon]

But Nawabs were de-facto independent rulers starting from Murshidkuli Khan.That makes Bengal Nawabi independent.

[@saurishghosh2142]

@@turabislamchayon Bengal was still minting coins in Mughal Badshh's name in 1765 n beyond, Nawabs were sending money to Delhi regularly. In fact Bengal was Delhi's largest tax provider until 1739. Only the old seperation of nizamat and diwani became currupted. the appointments of Nawabs became complicated. But its worth remembering that Alivardi Khan had to bribe Delhi Durbar to ease his inauguration. The official recogntion of nawabship was coming from Delhi

[@RR-pc7yv]

And not to forget the fact that the Nawabs of Bengal, were tributary vassals of the Marathas. They paid annual Chauth aka 1/4th region's revenue to the Marathas. Even the Brits kept continuing this tribute.

[@moinakbhattacharya878]

A corporate getting into a foreign country and then goes ahead to rule it, i mean rule it literally, requires direct support from the government back home. For other countries like Portugal and Spain, the case was bit different, crude, if I may. Few were organized imperialism, few were just plain plundering. In all the cases however, each got direct support from their countries in exchange of looted materials.

[@youtcomment]

The crown....evil

[@lucasrcastelli9987]

I don't know who made the supposed maps of the Spanish and Portugese empires in the 1600's shown at 1:37, but it makes it hard to take the rest of the video seriously after such a flagrant mistake

[@jllumpas6192]

can u please do spanish east indies?

[@daddy_1453]

I never understood why these local Kings allowed foreign business's to set up FORTS on their homeland.

[@soorajpoojary]

A timely benifit was paid to the king, hence it was allowed. And in india a one local king took help from british to defeat another local king. This helped british to take control on indian lands

[@saurishghosh2142]

not local rulers, the mughal emperor of delhi allowed that.

[@freneticness6927]

​@@soorajpoojary It also meant massive taxable trade to other countries and also foreign mercenaries and technology. India was completely divided at the time so there was no real central authority anywhere. In india the indians recruited the british to fight the french and the french to fight the british. But all of the coastal forts were essentially european byt he 1650s anyways.

[@Azrael1st]

“Taking advantage of ones kindness”

[@saurishghosh2142]

@@freneticness6927 in the 1600s East India Company (EIC) took the permits from the Badshah in Agra/Delhi (Emperor of Hindustan) to establish in Surat (Gujrat) or In Bengal. In 1717 Emperor Farrukhsiyar gave EIC the right to do duty free trades in Bengal, About which the Nawab (deputy) of Bengal did not agree, which was the primary flashpoint for Plassey war of 1757. The French company tried to help the Benagl's Nawab againgst EIC after plassey, , nothing worked out. ...Things got really out of control (no central authority) from the 1770s-1780s onwards.

[@ruudraijmakers7090]

Some people say that the Dutch VoC more rich was than the britisch, when you speak about ability. In 1637 the VOC was worth 78 million Guilders on the stock exchange. If you convert that to today, that would be 7.9 trillion dollars, about 6.7 trillion euros. This is based on an inflation rate of just over 3 percent per year. The VOC was by far the largest listed company that has ever existed.

[@freneticness6927]

Do you think india is worth more than 8 trillion dollars.

[@ruudraijmakers7090]

@@freneticness6927 Not today!!! The VoC is cancelled in 1799 because they had debt of 120 million guilders.

[@shanealarcon7928]

My gran mom family came from Bombay Indian bahadur , to the Caribbean Belize 🇧🇿

[@mayelonrajanathan9631]

Great video, just one error that needs to be pointed out. Sri Lanka was also part of the East India Company. The map in this video doesn't include Sri Lanka in red colour.

[@mustangsally5426]

Ceylon

[@TCGMusic]

I just watched your informative video on the East India Company, and it so happens that we're currently developing a drama series based on The East India Company. We're urgently seeking a knowledgeable consultant to help us ensure some historical accuracy and effectively characterize some key events from the East India Company's history. I couldn't locate your email address on your about page, so I hope you'll respond to this message so we can discuss further. By the way, excellent work on the video; it was truly well done.

[@piyushjaiswal9283]

Look for India office and it's content. Visit India office of British library and find and locate other places that hold records on India , you will find things most of the people don't know.

[@jazzmancoltrane]

I recommend William Dalrymple and Anita Anand. Listen to their Empire podcast and you will thank me later.

[@beefy1986]

​@@jazzmancoltrane William Dalrymple also has a great book out about the EIC. Recommend that too

[@user-kt3jn7wx5f]

Read the book of J Sai Deepak book or listen to his podcast ✌️

[@beefy1986]

@@user-kt3jn7wx5f In that case, might as well throw all logic and reason aside and straight away come to the conclusion that Hindus were discriminated against.

[@Phoszoe137]

Country? Weren’t these individual kingdoms?

[@saurishghosh2142]

Even When the central Mughal authority was not like before, in the 1750s most of Indian princes were still subject to the Mughal Emperor sitting in Delhi, The princes were still the nobles (Emir) in the Emperor's court, system of Administration and currency were uniform throughout India (except in south). I don't know why there's such a conception (that there were many "independent" kingdoms in India when the English company came into political prominence) : Is that what people in the UK learn at schools ? Google : "Treaty of Allahabad": When during the aftermath of the Battle Of Plassey and Buxar, in 1765 the Emperor handed over the tax collection rights of three of his provinces (Bengal, Bihar and Odisha) to the English, in return for an annual tribute from the Company to Delhi.

[@shuvomukhopadhyay5655]

Robert Clive probably couldn't secure a victory in battle of plassy without the mutiny of Mir jafar to Nawab Siraj ud Dawla.

[@pancakemacbuttery9142]

Celtics plus Britons plus romans plus Vikings plus Anglo saxons equals British!

[@uhkbeat905]

Just wanna note that India wasn’t ONE country it was multiple

[@alexrobinson2103]

Yeah just like Europe. Will be nice to see Europe become single country like India

[@beefy1986]

Dude the squabbles will be a headache. The Euro currently is perfect. Common currency and foreign policy but individual cultures and autonomy. The Indian states and cultures also squabble but the centralized constitution adds another layer of problem

[@saurishghosh2142]

Its facile and misleading to say that by mid 1700s india was merely an assemblage of independent kingdoms, Hindostan was still an unified centralized state until 1739, (until nader shah's plunder of delhi), the mughal currency and frameworks of administration were in place even after 1765. (When the Mughal Emperor granted tax collection rights of three of its provinces: of bengal bihar and orissa to EIC) The political maps used in this video are devoid of veracity

[@beefy1986]

@@saurishghosh2142 It's not in that context that the OP is commenting. He is talking about cultures and languages and groups which continued to exist during Mughal times as well as today. Each state technically is a different country along those lines. But what you said about the Mughal Empire and continuance, I agree. Administratively and economically India was about 75 percent integrated. But I feel that's what made the Mughal empire's back break and made it easy to colonize once everything splintered. It's impossible to govern so many different cultures, regions, etc.

[@saurishghosh2142]

@@beefy1986 It was 1700s and the situation in Hindostan is Just like of those "Safavid Persia" or "Qing China" . Multiple sub-cultures exist everywhere. And Europe is different Even In the deccan : Technically Travancore (south Kerala) paid tribute to the Nawab of Arcot, ( Nawab of Arcot also had Madras ) who acknowledged the Nizam of Hyderabad's power, who in turn was on paper vassal of the Mughal badshah till 1858.

[@abhimanyukarkara4218]

I know this is History, but as an Indian I feel really sad for our doings during 17 the and 18th century

[@Tubejczyk]

what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger

[@yashpatel261]

No point feeling sad. Remember this happened and make sure to get even whenever you get the chance.

[@vatsal7640]

@@yashpatel261 even with whom exactly

[@mudra5114]

You forgot to mention that the Battle of Plassey was part of the seven years war, England and France.

[@arpansaha5638]

One important fact is missing. East India Company conspired with Bengal Nawab Siraj-ud-dowla's general Mir Jafar to win in the battle of Plassey, thus beginning the colonization of Indian subcontinent

[@user-qj2ey1wp7i]

0:17 the Dutch east India company was much bigger

[@mikavanderbrug8082]

Fact

[@Stormer-Europa]

Owned by the same group including The Hudson Bay Corp.

[@marcioborgesreis9066]

It was easy , for a start there was no country name India . India is a subcontinent , home of various diferent group of people , cultures and languages .

[@lunchbag_larry]

when the tea trade collapsed and they moved to opium shipments is when it gets fun

[@roguesorcerer1145]

And we still have not learnt about curbing the power and influence of private companies.

[@joshjacob1530]

Tamils how could u let this happen?? Kerala STRONG 💪🏾🗿

[@amunra5330]

And now an Indian is PM of the UK….oh how the world changes 😂

[@borhanuddin8447]

My Bangladesh was big and ruled by Muslim Nawab, at that time it was the most richest country. The British division makes it a small and poor country now.

[@burmeseempire5241]

Bro skipped 3 entire wars in Burma

[@donaldbosle9273]

What about VOC

[@Hansjoh21]

This video is made by a Britt, so what do you expect? ;)

[@mehak8395]

Due to treacherous generals and backers of the Nawab of Bengal, in 1757 battle he lost at least 500 men but the British only lost 19 men.

[@The-Iron-Duke]

Epic

[@navneetlucky3803]

LONG LIVE INDIA 🇮🇳 JAI HIND 🇮🇳 JAI BHARAT 🇮🇳

[@indiafirst3676]

So apparently a company controlled more area in the Indian Subcontinent only after the Maurya Empire

[@lordjazoijua94]

Yes that right.

[@bain13100]

It should be noted that the Mughals collapsed...this video really skips that part. There was a lot going on at this time, 100 years of internal instability and backstabing

[@msachin4885]

@@bain13100 This video grossly overlooks many historical events including how the Mughals played perhaps the most important hand in allowing the EIC to trade certain areas and later collapsed from infighting between the actions of King Aurangzeb and other local princely states

[@bain13100]

Oh yeah for sure, the video mentioms Plassey but not the Carnatic wars. This is like a secondary school intro

[@no1wasgeorgiebest]

​@@msachin4885it's 15 minutes long. It would do pretty well to cover any of that when it isn't the point of the video, hence the title.

[@chripianflopez]

They had the backing of dutch jews that sailed over to them in the mid 1500s when they created the westminster bank..

[@amritpalsingh3293]

Cant understand. Companies were allowed to have militaries? And what would be the modern equivalent

[@shahrulamar5358]

Vasco Da Gama 🇵🇹 the first European arrived in India. But British 🇬🇧 which later conquered the entire sub-continent.

[@dcmhsotaeh]

Only half of it

[@shahrulamar5358]

@@dcmhsotaeh Almost entire Indian sub-continent.

[@arghadeepchoudhury7250]

Now East India Company is owned by a Indian

[@pht9317]

Where lmao, Sunek isn't in charge of the banks kiddo.

[@rainingsound2317]

😂

[@AlbertoHernandez-yq2nm]

We can learn much from the past; we have been worrying about corporations controlling national interests too much now. The east india company is the epitome of this. A true genocide was committed; it is interesting that India and the UK still have a good connection. We can't forget the millions of people that died for the interests of a few.

[@kaikwa4160]

There was no genocide in India, unless you don't know what the term truly means. India's population grew from 180 million to 420 million (prior to the British the population stayed stagnant for 1000 years straight) and under the British, and not once did the British mass murder them with the intent of wiping them out of existence (not denying the atrocities the British perpetrated to keep their hold in tact, which quite frankly, has been done by every single empire in history)

[@shreydwivedi9043]

​@@kaikwa4160Bengal famine 💀 Jalliawala bagh massacre 💀 0.001 % GDP contribution from 27.5% 💀 Literacy was all time low 💀

[@kaikwa4160]

@@shreydwivedi9043 "0.001%" Lmaooooo 😹😹, correction it was 4%*, 4000x higher than your claim And that very same research paper also states that > "From 1850 to 1947, India's gross domestic product (GDP) in 1990 international dollar terms grew from $125.7 billion to $213.7 billion, a 70% increase, or an average annual growth rate of 0.55%. This was a higher rate of growth than during the Mughal era (1600-1700), when it had grown by 22%, an annual growth rate of 0.20%, or the longer period of mostly British East Indian company rule from 1700 to 1850 where it grew 39%, or 0.22% annually." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj#:~:text=Under%20British%20rule%2C%20India's%20share,that%20figure%20had%20been%2027%25. You just study 20% of the paper, the bits that conveniently back your narrative, and ignore the rest. And did Indians stop learning indoors? 😂 Let me remind you that the Mauryan Empire was archeologically discovered by the British, Indians had no written records of the Mauryans, their script was also deciphered by the British. And lastly, the Indus Valley Civilisation was also discovered and excavated by the British. And I see, a lot of you like sympathising with the Bengalis but when they migrate to India from Bangladesh, yous start crying your lungs out 💀

[@incognito-px3dz]

life under the east india company was far better than life under the Mughals

[@pulse3554]

@@kaikwa4160 it wasn't "archaelogically discovered" by the British lmao that's a horse shit reductionist take - there was knowledge of the Mauryan empire in the subcontinent. The British innovated various archaelogical measures which allowed them uncover more. But you're implying as if Indians were unaware of their history which is total horse shit. India would have done the same without British colonization. The British themselves record higher rates of education in the subcontinent (surveyed) than the British themselves, prior to mass colonization. Your take that what the British did to keep the population "in tact" is a ridiculous take. The suppression was unprecedented on a historic level. We're talking about record breaking density of famines, impoverishment (to the degree that South Asian bodies are physiologically affected to this day), and an unprecedented level of wealth plunder / destruction. The subcontinent was taken from holding industries like the best ships in the world (see British accounts, particularly on the ports of Gujarat) to literally a level of development that was worse than the IVC, over 5000 years prior. I highly recommend a book called "The Case for India", which was written by an American philosopher, Will Durant, after he visited India. Here's a link: www.vifindia.org/sites/default/files/139221701-The-Case-for-India-1930.pdf. Granted the book is dated, and still holds some colonial viewpoints, but it should be illuminating to the level of unique destruction colonialism caused in India. It's easily one of the greatest human travesties. Your point about GDP growth is also ridiculous - you should examine the rate of GDP growth relative to the rest of the world in the different time periods you compared. Industrialization skyrocketed GDP growth globally (largely funded by colonial activity), and yet the Indians didn't get to participate in any of it. All of India's profits were reaped by the British lol. Come on, this is ignoramus level 6th grade knowledge. Have you no idea the sort of taxes levied against India?

[@vipinkumar7]

Bengal remain reluctant to any corporate after EIC and still till date is anti capitalist. But Madras and Bombay presidency has never left corporate and pulled labourers from across India to make capital and still to date making capital for corporates across world. The North is diluted much of it except the few in up north still believe in freedom. Majority of North West is divided and that was issue for centuries.

[@moinakbhattacharya878]

I personally feel that's not a right correlation. During heydays of bengal, after independence till 1960s, quite a few large corporates, factories were thriving. Check the data. After that naxalite disturbances and communists came in, things started going down at a fast rate.

[@swaminathank2727]

In all we forget the fact that this India was 56 kingdoms duting Mshabharatha period. So also all were conspiring with one snother all the time.This suited british East India Company to anbex part by part the entire area. Moghul or british or dny other it was our fight with each other helped them.

[@snaik44]

That was whole reason..nothing more.than true

[@Myavepea]

Battle Of Bhima Koregaon ⚔️💪🦁❤️

[@Dandydan93]

Great video! I see the company as an evil. It would be scary to live in a land controlled by a company who's only concerned is about making money. Like, you try to leave work, but the company owns your nation 😂😱

[@rishikeshwagh]

This was basically how our ancestors had to live. The EIC plunged my country into abject poverty. As John Sullivan, the Member of the Government of Madras and President of the Board of Revenue put it himself: “Our [British] system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames.”

[@atomicmelodies]

They are just much better at being unseen manipulators now

[@globalmogul]

USA is a corporation

[@NyalBurns]

Ok, you would rather live in a medieval Islamic kingdom instead haha.

[@Dandydan93]

@@NyalBurns naaa

[@hermit44]

Artillery OP!

[@syedmaricar9946]

Even you are tiny well organised can succeed in dominating others weak and less organised.

[@280SE]

Hmmm I wonder if Plantation Place aka Plantation House , on Leadenhall St, was the site of the old EIC? 🤔

[@Valhalla88888]

Think the East India company had good luck with Scots Governor Generals both in india, Malaysia and Hong Kong

[@Valhalla88888]

Jardine Matheson a Scottish merchant house also responsible for the development of HSBC under Sutherland 🇬🇧

[@shelleyphilcox4743]

​@@Valhalla88888Jardine and Matheson were side hustle drug dealers working for the EIC and used their influence to persuade Parliament to go to war to recover their drugs and preserve their drug trade...which they also practised in the UK as well...with everyone hooked on laudanum and 'tonics'. The agreement for the first Opium War passed by just a handful of votes.

[@mathematicsandstuff]

You know, I always think about the beetle in the box as about nukular proliferation... While the Private Language Argument is the best thing that can be said clearly in phenomenology. That's as far as I got, besides studying Descartes.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

In 1770, Bengal was under native rule civil rule.

[@Th3Lov3Gun]

You miss named London theres actually the City of London and the City named London the capital of the UK

[@historylearner9998]

Yes. There was no INDIA before the arrival of britishers because there was Bharatvarsh/Hindustan/Aryavart. Jai Hind 🇮🇳

[@BabarKhan-vf1wt]

Thank you for a deep insight 🍄🌠🌌🐅🇬🇧🇵🇰👋🐞🥰🤔🐒🌠

[@aylyi-huh9355]

"the world has ever seen". i thought that was the VOC?

[@morcap]

And it was; VoC was about 8 Trillion dollars in today's (2023) currency given a ultraconservative 3% inflation annually. In contrast BEIC was around 4.5 trillion dollars. But what VoC wasn't is the fact that BEIC changed its name and became what is known today as United States of America; even the American flag is the BEIC' flag modified by Betsy Ross.

[@MrHarjeetDhaliwal]

Great explanation. However, North India contributions to the mutiny and the persistent attacks on the EIC (especially following the aftermath of Jalianwala Bahg) was unreasonably overlooked.

[@LuKing2]

He mentioned parts of it around 13:00

[@denverbritto5606]

Some if North india mutinied, the rest stayed neutral or helped the British suppress it -the NorthWest and Punjab. The EIC was long gone by jalianwalabagh.

[@hsaaasss7455]

​@@denverbritto5606 😂 wait your foolish empire is about to fall ..6th economy 😂😂

[@hsaaasss7455]

​@@denverbritto5606 can't launch their own rockets

[@sasmalprasanjit2764]

Lol, EIC rule ended in 1857, It was Direct Rule by Britishe Monarchy and INDIANS were rebelling with Peasant, Since 1911, New modern Times era.. Lovedai!

[@Nasuto1702]

the VOC (Dutch East India Company) was better

[@freneticness6927]

Younger and not as big.

[@irish7summits]

'was granted full independence'... Might need to check India notes on that one! Fought for and won their independence.

[@Az-my3fu]

History being tampered with.

[@billwalton4571]

British introduced so much infrastructure and industry to India, I find it hard to believe India would have been better off economically without their invasion.

[@riyaborge5116]

hey bill what if u take someones hard earned money ,destroy their home ,beat the shit out of them , and at the end of it ,u give them an apple phone . would you think this person will be happy at the end and thank you ? invasions are never good PERIOD.

[@mahmudii2081]

I thought the Dutch East India Company was more richer than the East India Company

[@MrMirville]

more richer, what do you mean? My opinion is that the British EIC proper was not so big compared to the Dutch one but that the EIC in India was first and foremost a Jewish company (not only Jewish though as they could have common interests with many ethnic groups very similar to Jews in India) of Persia, headed by the Sassoons. That Jewish company had already operated the economic conquest of India (by mergers) when they chose to merge with the British company proper.

[@ramp597]

​@@MrMirvilleit was actually the ISRAELI east india company but now people think it's British because of the baghdadi jews editing people's brains with their Jewish powers

[@freneticness6927]

@@MrMirville The beic was created by elizabeth the first. The sassoons had nothing to do with it and voc was probably more jewish. The jews were only allowed in britain after 1650.

[@freneticness6927]

Beic owned india. The voc owned nothing. Its like saying google is richer than walmart.

[@sagnikjana8789]

And now Rishi Sunak is returning those favours .

[@beefy1986]

He isnt doing shit. Just as clueless a putz as the other blooming Premiers. Just cuz he is of Indian origin doesn't give him carte blanche

[@byomkeshbabu]

How though? He has nothing Indian except his name.

[@RichardEdwards40]

he wants to deport other indians

[@alexlun4464]

They conquered India in the same fashion the spaniards conquered the americas... get the natives to the fighting for you. The east india company saw gold in the division India was currently in.

[@saneman7177]

More interesting would be dissecting where the wealth created went & where the people who inherited it are today

[@GnomaPhobic]

Most family wealth tends to dissipate within a few generations. Times are always changing, and economic conditions are no different; some adapt to the changes and maintain their wealth, but most do not.

[@freneticness6927]

Almost no british people got rich trading with india. They got much more rich selling opium to the chinese, slaves to brazil or turning slave produced cotton into cloth. India never produced anything so prety difficult to extract wealth from it. The british put way more money into india than it took out. Britain exploited argentina much more harshly and it wasnt even a colony by monopolizing its beef exports.

[@BigBrotherTheWatcher1984]

They didn't just come and take over the entire place, it took them a hundred years.

[@VntiHero]

Which india its self couldn’t do.

[@freneticness6927]

And the british were in india from 1600 to 1949. 350 years.

[@blessingmasawi3616]

Wellll it definitely wasn't *infinitely* superior military technology, but definitely enough profit to afford r&d for better technology.

[@RohanXVII]

A Company owning an entire country or a single monarch owning an entire country I see no difference. At least I can be a shareholder in company, can't say that about a monarch.

[@neilritson7445]

You missed the Dutch, Portuguese and French East India companies! The Dutch were arguable first to exploit the East and were possibly far richer.

[@krishnashah2542]

I wonder why these company only have india in its name and not japan , korea , singapore , china , vietnam. Saudi arabia , egypt. Why only india ?

[@neilritson7445]

@@krishnashah2542 there were various companies set up such as the British Hudson Bay company which traded in what is now Canada also the New Zealand Company etc. the search for the riches of foreign lands centred on the mythical Indies so we have the West Indies the East Indies and so called Red Indians in what is now the USA. The East India companies went East of India too - hence their name!

[@freneticness6927]

@@krishnashah2542 India was the name for almost everything in the east.

[@freneticness6927]

So the british east india compay which owned india was poorer than the voc which owned pretty much nothing. Also the dutch were invaded by napoleon in 1800 so pretty much after then the voc went into decline and british east india company was bigger even though it was often in debt and unprofitable. Maybe it was a situation where places like haiti and jamaica brought in 100 times more revenue than all of the 13 colonies due to the colonies being a drain on resources and the caribbean islands being a place to exploit sugar and coffee plantations.

[@jabrigtecno7071]

Perang Jawa sangat menguras kas VOC, dan perang Napoleon diEropa membuat Belanda harus mengambil alih aset VOC diHindia timur untuk pemulihan. CEO VOC memindahkan aset keUSA,. USA itu Negara swasta, USA meniru VOC bekerja😂

[@alfredthevarajah1344]

If all the Indian watch this once you will have more than 1.2 billion views. 😮

[@soothingaryal7906]

Nepal 🇳🇵 and Bhutan 🇧🇹 watching from the corner

[@keralanaturelover196]

Nepalis were in British army so not attacked

[@soothingaryal7906]

@@keralanaturelover196 Neh both Nepal and Bhutan were in war with the British Empire. After 1816 Nepal and British had a peace treaty where Nepal gave 2/3 of its territory to the British. However these lands are still occupied by current day India

[@purpleninja7249]

“It simply became too big to be allowed to exist” Modern corporations: 👀

[@michaeljoby5244]

as an Indian it was a smart move by the company

[@aelardiz]

Truly and invading other nations and expanding themselves was even what a country was supposed to do back in the days, colonialism has become demonized today according to the modern day morals...

[@podcastler]

The British won on Plassey because the Bengal army betrayed on the orders of Mir Jafar and retreated en masse, leaving the French mercenaries and allied troops at mercy of british.

[@mudra5114]

This video is flawed. It divides the Battle of Plassey or the Conquest of Bengal from.the seven years war. The Battle of Plassey was part of the seven years war in between England and France which was fought in three continents.

[@aqeelkhurshid4860]

India was not a country but a sub continent with many counteries and kingdoms in it, very much like Europe. Brits took advantage of the fact that these counteries and kingdoms had been at war with each other for many centuries. Just as Britain, France, Portugal, Netherland and many others had fought one another in Europe for hundreds of years.

[@saurishghosh2142]

no that wasnt the case in 1760s, Mughal Hindostan was in decadence but still a centralised state (may be malfunctioning framework by then). The statement of yours and maps and some information presented in this video follow a facile narrative, Situation in Europe was/is very different.

[@aqeelkhurshid4860]

In the 1700s India was under the Mughal empire. I emphasize the word "Empire" Empires are created through conquest and violence. If empire is the definition of a country then can the Brits and Central Asian counteries claim India back? The counteries and kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent were always a part of one empire or another and were always fighting each other. Their rulers were always trying to extend their empires.

[@saurishghosh2142]

@@aqeelkhurshid4860 There were no present day like countries in the 1700s, nation state figuration is a recent phenomenon. The suzerainty of the Mughal Emperor was officially called " Hindostan", Hindostan was just like "Safavid Persia" or "Qing China" . And regarding claiming back ? ..Mughals were of central Asian orgin thats it, (just like british monarchy is of German origin), Later Uzbeks were Mughal's enemy. Mughals became Hindostani. and after WW2 the scrawny British were driven out

[@aqeelkhurshid4860]

Noone talked about present day nation-states. There were kingdoms and empires. England, France, Spain and Portugal were kingdoms at the time. Bhutan is still a kingdom, until recently so was Nepal. Punjab and Kashmir were kingdoms. You say mughals were of Central Asian origin and hence outsiders and I agree with that. But to a punjabi a keralan could be an outsider if Kerala had an empire controlling Punjab. To a Kashmiri a Tamil could be an outsider and I could go on and on. Don't forget the areas that make up what is Pakistan today are at least geographically closer to central Asia and Persia than to Assam, Bengal and many other areas of present day south India. You can conveniently declare some people outsiders, some areas to be a loosely centralised government but those who know history know that India waa always a subcontinent and not a country

[@saurishghosh2142]

@@aqeelkhurshid4860Nepal Bhtan Assam werent part of of mughal Hindostan. parts of kerala eventually was. and Thatta, Lahore r geographically culturally closer to Dilli and present day north india, than they r/were ever to Samarkand or Bukhara or isfahan. Look I can understand your point of view. ... and can write paragraphs upon paragraphs, but those r of no use in youtube comment section. You can read prof Manan Ahmed Asif's "loss of Hindustan" to begin with. bdw South India is not exactly part of Historic Hindostan, it was called Deccan. Your argument is a part of a paradox, here we have ignorant BJP people and then the Pakistanis are oblivious. anyway my original point is not wrong, when EIC was going political, the Mughal State was still in place. The Emperor's currency, the administration, the judiciary, the lingua franca, the hierarchy of officials.. all were unifrom throughout North India ( from the banks of Indus to Gangetic Delta of Bengal (including Punjab Kashmir) ) It was not like Europe at all.