The 251 remembrance day of the Battle of Palassey was observed recently in Bangladesh. Some newspapers brought out special supplements on the occasion of the event in 1757 that marked the beginning of the end of self rule in the Indian subcontinent and the passing of the overlordship of the region to the imperialist British. Seminar and discussion meetings were also held on the occasion to pay tribute to the memory of Nawab Sirajdoullah who is remembered like a martyr and the epic figure of a great tragedy.
Most of the analyses of events before, during and after the battle of Palassey by subcontinental scholars have one thing in common : the British were too devilish in their conspiracies and acts that led to their triumphing over the immature but otherwise fearless nawab. The analyses also tend to put all truths and piety on the nawab' side while denying the same completely to his opponents.
But can we really accept such analyses on their face value? For a deeper examination is bound to reveal that the chain of events leading up to Palassey cannot be explained so easily blaming only one side for the fatal outcome. First of all, let us see what kind of a man was Robert Clive, the leader of the small band of Englishmen who confronted the nawab at Palassey. Clive was known to be a fortune seeker with little scruples who come to India to satisfy his basic instincts and nothing else. But in all fairness, he cannot be called a coward or lacking in braveness. Clive and his 900 English soldiers and 2,100 soldiers of Indian origin were no match for the nawab's formidable army of over 50,000 battle hardened horsemen and 50 cannons. There was absolutely no knowing for Clive whether, according to the conspiracy plan, the greatest number of the nawab's forces would stay away from the battle or not. At the start of the battle, only a few hundreds of the nawab's loyalists participated in it with enthusiasm. But they, too, posed a direct physical threat to Clive and his small band of English soldiers. But the small number of Englishmen led by Clive, did not withdraw in the face of resistance from the nawab's loyalists and engaged them fiercely and fully in battle. So, neither Clive nor the small number of Englishmen he commandeered, can be mocked as not courageous relying only on conspiracies to fulfill their plans. They could be accused as wicked and lacking in character but not for backing down in the face of the enemy.
As for the nawab, he was a poor military strategist. No wonder, therefore, that he lost. Even the small number of troops who were loyal to him, they had almost routed the English forces and they were in retreat. At that time, the traitor commander of the nawab's army, Mirzafar, advised the nawab to halt his forces who were chasing very successfully after the enemy. There was no need for the nawab to listen to Mirzafar to give the English a reprieve and time to save themselves and regroup. But the nawab's meekly decided to go by Mirzafar's suicidal advice. Thus, the battle turned against him soon afterwards and the nawab had to court defeat for his own very bad military decision. Conspiracy had little relevance to such a fatal decision.
It also needs realization that the result of the battle was not so much the outcome of a master plot by the British imperialist against the local monarch. The tragedy was ensured by forces and personalities who were entirely the natives of the soil. The conspirators of mainly local origin joined together to hand over the throne to the aliens on a platter. Perhaps, even Clive and his English associates were very surprised by the extent of the treachery by the nawab's own people against him so heartlessly and insensitively. It was commented by some historians that the Europeans or Englishmen were so few in number that even if farmers and village men nearby, if they came with their sticks and spears, they would be enough to drive them out from Palassey in great fear. This observation only corroborates the fact that the great tragedy of Palassey was very much the doing of the Indians themselves and no amount of blame shifting on English cunning can quite hide this fact.
Even long after Palassey, the march of British victories or spread of British rule to nearly all of India, was much the same story. In those days of sailing ships and stormy seas, it was impossible for great number of the colonizers and supplies to be transported over the vast and perilious expanses of the seas and brought to India for subjugating the native population. But the colonialists had no difficulty in getting local troops and local supplies in abundance for the purpose. Thus, it should be an objective statement that the British founded their most coveted colony in India because they were so much facilitated and welcomed in doing so by the local people . So, instead of blaming the alien oppressors, the Indians should blame themselves in large measures for the servitude they invited on themselves for 200 years starting from Palassey. On the other hand, the British can justifiably take pride in the bravery, fearlessness and cunning of persons such as Robert Clive that paved the way for them to get control of the richest of their colonial possessions.
Then, another factor that is so much overlooked is that the time of Palassey in the mid eighteenth century, was a time when imperialism was still much in vogue. It was an era when universal values that peoples and nations should determine their own destinies, were simply not developed. One people thought it perfectly in the fitness of things to conquer and rule over another people and enjoy the fruits of victory unconscionably. The English were doing it, the Portugese were doing it and also the Spaniards. The Arabs had done this even before the Europeans and also the Turks. Even the white people dominated East European countries remained under the heels of the Turkish Sultans as late as 1920. It was the age of empire building and no shame or stigma was then attached to these endeavours. The stronger or the more capable or as in the case of the East Indian company in India, the cunning, ruled over relatively weaker or less cunning peoples. Therefore, the founding and flourishment of the British empire in India, starting from Nawab Sirajdoullah's debacle at Palassey, was nothing unique in the history or the ascendant values and culture of that time.
A country or people can collapse from within as Palassey so painfully proved. Are such factors of weaknesses present in Bangladesh today ? A close and honest observer of the Bangladeshi scene may not be blamed for answering positively to such a question. Freedom, independence, love for country, making sacrifices for country, etc., are all matters of the mind. But these qualities of the people which lend indestructibility or vitality to a country, are seen to be in short supply in Bangladesh . Too many Bangladeshis seem to have stopped believing in their own country, its future and durability. Most of them are gripped by an awful inferiority complex. They find other countries, cultures or ways of life as more appealing and satisfactory than their very own. Some of them are found to be very adept at selling the vital interests of their country to foreigners when they remain in powerful governmental positions. Patriotism is scoffed at or has become a laughable thing for many Bangladeshis who live off the fattest fruits of the land but would not hesitate even for a moment to engage in activities grossly undermining the interests of the country if their own selfish interests are somehow advanced by such misdeeds. In all appearances, a pre-Palassey type of setting prevails in Bangladesh and this ought to be one of the greatest concerns of those Bangladeshis who still have honorable feelings left for their country.
Story of Palassey is not simply black and white
Enayet Rasul | Published: June 28, 2008 00:00:00 | Updated: February 01, 2018 00:00:00
Share if you like