43

Because it didn't have a choice: it had neither the will to defy the British Government, nor the ability to do so. Remember corporations are not people; its shareholders and directors were. In this case, most of them were British, owning properties and with aspirations in Britain. That alone made resisting a duly constituted Act of Parliament by force ...


38

There are a good number of reasons why the British were able to do so, and in fact rule over India effectively for over a century. Disunity among Indian princely states. India was more a collection of warring princely states, at loggerheads with each other. The British sucessfully used this to play off one state against another. Add to it there was no ...


36

Recognition of independence is different from de facto independence. While the Dutch Republic was officially recognised as independent only in 1648, it was actually founded 80 years earlier by the Union of Utrecht of 1579. The Dutch provinces were largely autonomous even before they entered into open revolt, but the treaty laid down a constitutional ...


25

The British East India Company did not set out to conquer and rule India, nor did that situation manifest itself overnight, nor by any single battle or treaty. The British built ties with stable commercial interests in India, leaving the freedom to act opportunistically in Indian politics as the Mughal Empire crumbled outmaneuvered European rivals in ...


16

The British East India Company raised three forces between 1740-1757. These became known as the Presidency Armies, named after the three Presidencies in India under Company rule. They were the: Bengal Army Bombay Army Madras Army The size of these armies underwent tremendous growth as the Company expanded in India and acquired ever more security ...


13

To fill out JK's answer: the VOC directly controlled very little except the shipping routes to Amsterdam (and a few other Dutch ports, but the majority of goods arrived at Amsterdam). Indirectly, through deals and influence at the local courts of the rulers of the islands, they controlled far more. By supplying those rulers with weapons, advisors, European ...


12

Well, as a matter of fact yes. It seems a little odd today, but during the period of European supremacy (aka: The colonial era), it was quite common for companies to band together to exploit European military superiority for financial gain when, for whatever reason, the country they were operating in had scruples against doing so itself. In fact, Wikipedia ...


11

Te VOC was not interested in control of people or land, but trade. For example nutmeg; the dutch burned every bit of it except on an island of 1 square km so they could control all of it. IIRC the value would go from 1 in Indonesia to 50000 in Amsterdam. The VOC was the single most profitable company in history (according to my prof.). A journey would take a ...


11

It was basically a business decision. The Dutch West India Company had a large financial stake in the success of the colony, and ensuring that new settlers were treated with "moderation" was seen as necessary. The official response of The Dutch West India Company was the following letter signed by Abraham Wilmandone and David Von Baerle on April 16th, 1663:...


10

This is a tricky question to answer definitively given the complexity of the 250+ years of history of the East India Company in its various forms (referred to here, for simplicity, as the HEIC). While I think it would be impossible to prove that no single HEIC ship ever visited any part of the West Indies, I think it is safe to say that they didn't 'operate' ...


9

The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, or VoC) was actually founded by the States General of the Netherlands. The States General themselves date back to the 15th century. The right of the States General to convene on their own initiative had been recognised in 1477 by Mary of Burgundy. In the early stages of the Dutch Revolt, the ...


9

Not only is the quote not true, it's not even close to being true in 1814. At the time not only was the War of 1812 going on but also the Napoleonic Wars in Europe meant that European fleet strengths were at their highest (in purely numeric terms) levels in history. According to Jean Sutton's Lords of the East, between 1791 and 1832 the East India Company ...


8

Before railways the most efficient mode of land transportation was by river - and the Ganges River system runs nearly three quarters of the way from the opium fields (in what is modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) to Calcutta. The only comparable port facility would likely have been Bombay (modern Mumbai), but without the advantage either of large scale river ...


8

The answer is no. The first paragraph of the Government of India Act, 1858 simply stated that: THE Government of the territories now in the possession or under the Government of the East India Company, and all powers in relation to Government vested in or exercised by the said Company in trust for Her Majesty, shall cease to be vested in or exercised by ...


6

You'll essentially find a book-length answer to this question in Dutch Ships in Tropical Waters by Robert Parthesius (2010, Amsterdam University Press). Here's a key table (p. 90), showing that the VOC had 328 ships in use c. 1650-1660, and had steadily brought over 1000 into service since the end of the sixteenth century.


5

Calcutta had two functions. One, it was an assembly point for opium gathered from other parts of India because many rivers flowed in that direction from near the opium fields as Pieter mentioned. Second, it was a port in the part of India (east) "nearest" to China and under British control. That was until Britain conquered Burma (Myanmar) after 1824, which ...


5

Disunity at the Federal level is not a good answer because every Indian State encountered by the British had a much larger population and resource base than could be fielded by the Company. In any case, even had India been united, so long as it remained a land based military power, for logistical reasons, it could never secure its own littoral and would have ...


5

De jure? No. The Republic of the United Netherlands became officially independent in 1648 at the Peace of Munster. De facto? Yes. The VOC was formed just before the 12 Year Truce, in which Spain acknowledged informal independence but not formal. One of the reasons for this 12 year truce was precisely the VOC. Both parties realized the revolt was ...


5

No. And the reason was that the founding of the Dutch East Indies Company was part of the fight for independence. In 1580, Portugal had become subject to the Spanish king in a so-called "personal union." (That is, Portugal and Spain were rule separately by the same ruler.) What had been a rivalry in modern Indonesia between Portuguese and Dutch became part ...


5

The English (later British) East India Company did act politically in London: it had more political power when it was rich and paying or lending money to the government in London than when the situation was reversed. Its lobby was for a trade monopoly with India and freedom to take commercial and territorial decisions; its opponents wanted trade competition,...


4

Opium can be grown in almost any climate and the British used the Bengal region (modern day states of West Bengal and Assam in India and Bangladesh) as they were directly controlling these regions. It would have been practically impossible to gain control over trade from Afghanistan/the Indus river region in those days as the British East India company had ...


4

In the first half of the 19th century various fur companies trapped and traded with Indians in the US west. I am not familiar with with the various companies but the companies were probably chartered, if at all, in various states of the United States instead of being chartered by the federal government. For example, the partnership of Bent, St Vrain & ...


3

The reason it was possible for "Britain" to conquer India was because it was so fragmented. There was a multi-way struggle between the British, French, and various Indian factions. For instance, after a small British force under Robert Clive "stood off" a larger French force at Arcot, the two European powers agreed to "live and let live." This enabled Clive ...


2

East India company came into India with an Charter to trade given to them by Queen Elizabeth. One can say from their early efforts they dint have a plan as such to Rule over India. It started with Battle of Bauxer(1764) and Plassey(1757) after which prime victim Shah Alam II signed Treaty of Allahabad, which gave Diwani rights(to collect and manage ...


1

Calcutta was very close to Ghazipur City (in present day Bihar). Ghazipur has an excellent climate for growing poppy and also had the Ganga River nearby which provided an optimum amount of water for its cultivation. The website of Ghazipur City says- .In 1764 AD Britishers won Buxar and Ghazipur which was therafter ruled by East India Company . Company ...


1

I hope, On 2nd August 1858 the Parliament passed a bill to take over the administration of India from the East Indian Company by the British Crown. The title of Viceroy was introduced for the supreme representation of the British Government in India. The provision of this bill called for the dissolution of the British East India Company that was ruling ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible