The East India Company can’t be wished away
More than one hundred years after its demise, the ghosts of the East India Company – the pioneering corporation that morphed into an instrument of imperial rule in India – are itching to be resurrected from collective oblivion. This is what Nick Robins, a historian by training and the head of socially responsible investment funds in Britain, has done in his new book The Corporation that Changed The World that looks at the history of the company from the “21st century eyes” and its impact on globalisation and multi-nationals in today’s world.
Robins is acutely conscious of the “uneasiness” this re-appraisal can stir among both the British and Indians, but he is clear that forgetting is not the way out of this shared history between Britain and India.
In a conversation with Manish Chand during a promotional tour of his book in New Delhi, Robins speaks about the compelling need to remember the company in all its myriad facets – “the good, the bad, the ugly, the funny and the tragic” – and draw right lessons on corporate governance and accountability in a globalised world dominated by trans-national corporate leviathans.
“It’s not about finger pointing; it’s about how we recognise shared history. The East India Company is a huge part of modern history. It is a fact of Indian history. It can’t be wished away,” says the 42-year-old author in this interview.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q) There are scores of books on the East India Company. What inspired you to write yet another book on this subject?
A) I am looking at the East India Company with the 21st century eyes. The book includes accounts of how British contemporaries like Edmund Burke, Karl Marx and Adam Smith looked at the East India Company and its role in fostering imperialist oppression and other ethical issues raised by the company’s functioning. They were quite critical and sceptical of the company.
I thought looking at it through corporate window can shed some light on the way the company functioned in India and its continuing significance for the times we live in.
Q) Your book is subtitled “How the East India Company shaped the Modern Multinational.” What lessons does the company’s modus operandi has for contemporary corporations?
A) The company mutated and evolved over the centuries so much so that it was never the same body. There are clear links between the East India Company and contemporary companies. There was a state charter allowing the company control over overseas trade with Asia. The state was involved in the company. In comparison, the Dutch East India Company had a much lesser role. The state had some backstage presence in the company even later on.
Q) What do you make out of the role of Robert Clive and others of his ilk in shaping the character and perception of the company?
A) What Robert Clive was trying to do was to promote the interests of the company and himself. The company was a form of public-private partnership. He was a company employee and looking at the interests of the company and himself. From 1773 to 1858, the company progressively became less and less autonomous. It did become an imperial instrument. Over the years, the company became less and less in corporate character and it became predominantly imperial in its thrust and complexion. By 1858, it was no longer a company.
Q) Does the company’s modus operandi has any bearing on the practice of globalisation in today’s world?
A) There is an erroneous impression that globalisation started with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. When we try to understand corporate responsibility in globalised age, we have to go back to history.
Burke was critical of monopolies that made markets less efficient. As a result, the company also became less responsive. It became more important politically. We have to be careful if there is concentration of wealth and power in a few companies or bodies. Smith was also concerned about speculation in joint stock companies. The point is companies should have duty of care. You have duty to ensure that you do no harm to others.
Q) What has been the impact of your book on the way the company is being perceived today. Has it sparked a debate in Britain and elsewhere?
A) My book has revived interest in the history of the company. It has evoked mixed reactions among the British. It might just be uneasiness. The history of the company is not something we want to trumpet. There is a certain blankness, emptiness about it. One can contrast it with how the slave trade is seen today. There is an active lobby of the blacks that has ensured that the slave trade is not forgotten. From the Asian countries, there is not a similar demand for remembering the history of the company. If you are going to have a memorial, there has to be some demand.
There are going to be triple anniversaries of defining historical events next year – it will be 250 years of the Battle of Plassey; 150 years of the 1857 event, called variously as “uprising” and “first war of independence” and 60 years of India’s independence. There is going to be a lot of discussion and debate. There is a plan to organise a big conference to reappraise the role of the East India Company on June 23 next year. Murad Qureishi, a Briton of Bangladeshi origin, and a member of the Greater London Assembly is the prime force behind this exercise.
Q) The East India Company is seen by many as the world’s first multinational. How can one link modern MNCs with the company?
A) There is a big crisis about multi-nationals in Britain. If multinationals want to survive in the long run, they need to follow ethical conduct. Companies in Britain needs to demonstrate that they are behaving. Ethical responsibility must come not only from within, but it also must come from without. The place where you would find most respect for diversity is a multi-national. They have a multi-cultural work force. MNC is the place where multiculturalism becomes real. Globalisation is not just economic; we are laying too much emphasis on the economic aspect, and not so much on its legal and institutional aspect.
Q) How about Indian MNCs?
A) The globalisation project has been driven so far by the US and the UK. The situation now plays to the strengths of India and China with the boom in outsourcing. The US, the UK and the European Union (EU) just can’t get their way in the WTO. India, China, Brazil and South Africa are big economies and big markets and will play an increasingly critical role in shaping these negotiations. British consumers have benefited from Indian and British textiles. We need to reinvest these benefits in domestic industries.
Q) For Indians, the East India Company is a symbol of imperial oppression and injustice. What is the idea behind remembering the company and memorialising it?
A) It’s not about finger-pointing; it’s about how we recognise shared history. The East India Company is a huge part of modern history. It is a fact of India history. It can’t be wished away. Out of 250 years the British spent in India, 100 years were dominated by the company. But we have to be careful to look at the company as a company. It wasn’t inevitable that it will become a ruler.
Q) What is the idea behind building a museum to commemorate the corporation?
A) The Museum of the Corporation is an idea from an NGO called Platform. It hasn’t taken off yet. You have museums for folklore, art and military. Yet we have no arena where people can engage in a debate about the company – the good, the bad, the ugly, the funny and the tragic, in short just about every aspect of the company. The museum would provide a focal point for public reflection on this most powerful institution of our time.
There is certainly a huge love affair from the British towards India. There is no need for confrontation. Relations between the two countries are very strong. There is a romantic aspect of the relationship and there are also painful aspects of it that need to be looked at it in the face.>
Q) Do you believe the East India Company was the corporation that changed the world, as your title says?
A) Not too long ago, the twin economies of India and China were most prosperous parts of the international community. The reason for this bold title was that the company was first the agent in Bengal, and then in China that reversed the flow of wealth from Europe to Asia. The resurgence of India and China is just a balancing exercise. The Tatas’ acquisition of Corus is a very positive example of the new model of globalisation.
Q) What’s you next book about?
A) I am writing a biography of Philip Francis, the enemy of Warring Hastings who duelled with him in Kolkata. There is a lot of focus on the premium league – Clive, Curzon etc. Francis is an interesting but neglected figure. Francis saw it as his mission to bring accountability to India.
Author Profile
- Manish Chand is Founder-CEO and Editor-in-Chief of India Writes Network (www.indiawrites.org) and India and World, a pioneering magazine focused on international affairs. He is CEO/Director of TGII Media Private Limited, an India-based media, publishing, research and consultancy company.
Latest entries
DiplomacyOctober 20, 2024Ahead of Modi’s visit, Putin invokes Bollywood bonding, lauds India’s Ukraine diplomacy- India and the WorldOctober 20, 2024Global South in focus, PM Modi heads for BRICS Summit
- In ConversationOctober 18, 2024India a global leader, partner in creative economy: Uzbekistan’s culture impresario
- India and the WorldOctober 12, 2024India-ASEAN summit: Modi unveils 10-point plan, says 21st Century Belongs to Asia
