10 - Chapter 1 PDF
10 - Chapter 1 PDF
10 - Chapter 1 PDF
Chapter I
Masulipatnam: From Consolidation to Decline 1630-1724
Introducing the The Subject' of Indian ocean, M.N.Pearson
stated that "politically all the(se) port cities had a large, or at least
the necessary degree of autonomy. Some were completely
independent though the port city ruler could govern an inland area
as well. Others which were included in large land empires
(meaning the Mughal empire), yet had autonomy enough not to be
unduly harassed by their inland masters".1 Apart from merely
reiterating the notion of urban autonomy which is grounded in the
European historiography, the statement also gives an important
indication of pre-modern Indian historiography as far as the
relationship between the state and external commerce is concerned.
That the Indian trading communities operated in a context of state
apathy and acted as merely 'objects of interest primarily for
revenue' has been the dominant historiographical trend. It is not
surprising then, that traders and merchants are seen as 'aberrations'
who participated in trade at the expense of earning the 'odium of
being a 'baniya'.2 This theory neglects the large sub-structure
which existed outside the purview of state such as villages
inhabited by a highly differentiated rural population, including
peasants growing cash crops for domestic markets which in turn
transformed into long distance trade, the complex crisscrossing of
networks of small and large urban centres bustling with rural and
1
See the Introduction: The Subject, in Ashin Das Gupta and M.N. Pearson, ed,
India and the Indian Ocean, Calcutta, 1987, pp. 13-14.
- See the Chapters on "Foreign Trade' and Indian Merchants in the Indian Ocean'
in Tapan Ray chaudhuri and Irfan Habib, ed., The Cambridge Economic History of
India, Vol. I, Hyderabad, 1984, pp. 382-434.
39
6
See, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce: Southern India
1500-1650, Cambridge, 1990. pp.147-149.
7
Ibid. p. 149
41
8
H.K. Sherwani, 'Qutbu'l- Mulk's Military Campaigns', Journal of Indian History
(JIH,) xxxiv, April, 1956, pp.1-31. and by the same author, Tilangana under
Ibrahim Qutb Shah: Diplomacy and Military Campaigns, Part I , 1550-1565, and
JIH, xxxv, 1957, pp. 247-69 and 1958,pp.73-100.
42
12
Joseph J.Brennig, 'Textile Producers and production in late Seventeenth
Century Coromandel' (IESHR), xxiii, 1986, Table 3, p.339.
13
Peter Floris was referring to the calicoes and not the finer ones like the
muslins. The most important muslin variety was bethelles found in the
Nagulwanche area, 100 miles from Masulipatnam. See, F. C. Danver's, ed, Letters
received, Vol. II, 1613-1615, p.59. William Methwold, the Chief factor at
Masulipatnam too commented in 1620's that " Calicoes of all sorts are in this
place as cheap and plentifull as in any other parts of the country, but different in
making and easily distinguishable from any other place" See, Methwold Relations,
in W.H, Moreland ed, Relations of Golconda in the Early Seventeenth century,
Hakluyt society, 1930, p.35 (Relations).
45
14
Joseph J Brennig, the Textile Trade of the seventeenth century- Northern
Coromandel: A Study of Pre-modern Export Industry in the late Seventeenth century,
Ph.D Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1975 p.240.
46
15
Tuni as a major marketing centre for cloth for both the English and the dutch.
Adjoining Tuni were two villages of Gollapalem and Gondavaram. Gollapalem
for instance, had 34 weaving households out of total 61 houses while
Gondavaram had 14 weaving households. Gondavaram however had 74
washermen houses who were involved in washing and bleaching of cloth. See S.
Arasaratnam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce on the Coromandel coast 1650-
1740, New Delhi, 1986, p.51 and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, 'Rural Industry and
Commercial Manufacture,' P&P, pp.102-103.
16
Joseph Brennig, The Textile Trade, p.293.
17
S. Arasaratnam,Merchants, Companies and Commerce, p.52.
47
18
William foster ed, The English Factories in India, 13 Vols, ( EFI).,£F/,1634-36 P.
296 and EF1. 1655-60 p. 39.
19
Joseph Brennig has suggested that the decline of Viravasaram from about
1670's to the deliberate policy of the English company in abandoning the factory.
In his own analysis of Dutch documentation, Viravasaram was mentioned as a
town with as many as 40 weaving households. The relative decline of
Viravasaram from the English documentation can be attributed to the rise of
Madapollem as an independent factory which reduced Viravasaram to a mere
supply centre which did not necessarily mean any reduction in its weaving
capacity. Joseph Brennig, The Textile Industry p.293
21
See, Memorial of Stryensham Master, Records of Fort St. George, Diary and
Consultation Book, 1679-1680 (RFSG), p.95 and S. Master, Vol.. I, p. 88.
48
22
Ibid. Vol. I, p. 86., RFSG, Diary and Consultation Book, 1679-1680, pp. 99-100.
and S. Arasaratanam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce, p. 53
23
EFI 1630-33 p. 230.
24
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce, p. 75.
49
25
S. Master, Vol. I, p. 267, 268fn.
26
William Crooke and V. Ball ed, Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, 2
Vol.s, Vol. II, P. 239,251 and also See, Thomas Bowrey, the Geographical Account,
p. 102.
50
27
Van Dan Broeke started from Surat in October, 1617 with 103 Dutchmen and
21 native guides and reached Masulipatnam alter one and half months. See, F.C.
Danver's, Letters Received, Vol. VI, 1617, p. xxvii. Other merchants who travelled
overland from surat to Masulipatnam in the seventeenth century were
Reyenstyen, Andrew Cogan, Jean E3aptiste Tavernier and Thevenot. See for
details, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce, p. 79. For a
typical itinerary between Golconda and Masulipatnam see, Diogo do Couto, Da
Asia, Decada Decima, (reprint), Lisbon, 1973, Part 1, p.14-15, 74-83 and Arquivo
Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Lisbon, Mamiscritos da Livraraiia, No. 1104, fl. 104-
105. cited in Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The port of Masulipatnam 1550-1750' in
Narayani Gupta, ed., Craftsmen and Merchants: Studies in South Indian urbanism,
New Delhi, 1992. p. 54. Thevenot's route was different from those mentioned in
the Portuguese documentation. From Golconda he travelled to Amberpet,
Chalkapalli, Pangal, Amangal, surchelaquintla, Gurgaluru, Anantagiri, Pendyala,
Madduru, Krishna, Vuyyuru, Nilapalli, Madduru, Guduru and Masulipatnam.
See, S.N. Sen, ed., Indian Travels of Thevenot and Carreri, New Delhi, 1949 pp 146-
147 and 334 fn. and Santanavuru Kaifiyat, Prakasam Zilla, A.P.State Archives,
Hyderabad 1994.
51
movement of goods and men, traders of all kinds ~ from small time
peddlers to seasonal merchants like the banjaras who carried bulk
commodities such as cotton and grain, to great continental
merchants such as the Persians and Hindus and finally the state
itself. The relationship between Masulipatnam and Golconda was
so important that the Sultanate of Golconda was able to develop a
vast hinterland and one might even be tempted to characterize the
Sultanate of Golconda as a state with strong leanings towards
mercantilism.
The direct route between Golconda and Masulipatnam was
clustered with marketing centres such as Pangal, Nandigama,
Kondapalli, Bezawada and Vuyyuru. Though the European
documentation is silent on the character of these small and big
towns, most of them seem to have been centres of consumption as
well as marketing for the local Zamindars and even to a substantial
number of Sar-samtu officials of Qutb Shahi kingdom. Nandigama
for instance, emerged as a main marketing town for grain to be
transported not only to the coast for overseas and coastal trade but
also to various Zamindari areas within the region. Kondapalli, the
most important politico-administrative centre in Krishna district
was perhaps the main centre of marketing and as well as
consumption for the goods coming from and to Masulipatnam. The
Santanavuru Kaifiyat mentions that during the reign of Abdullah
Qutb Shah, two Sar- samutu officials ,Aziz khan and Asad Khan
arranged samutubandis at Ravuru, thus bringing several villages like
Motupalli, Chinna Ganjam, Mattigunta, Karampeta, Palakurti,
Pamarru, Ananthavaram, Ganapavaram and Ramayampatnam
52
28
Santanvuru Kaifiyat, Prakasam Zilla Kaifiyattulu, A.P.State Archives, Hyderabad,
1992.
53
29
Tavernier, Travels in India, Vol. II, p. 348-351.
30
The mines of Kolluru in Krshna district and Manimadugu of Jammulamadugu
Taluq in Cuddapah district were regularly farmed by Mir Jumla since 1650's.
Like wise among the Europeans, the Dutch farmed a segment of Kolluru mines
with the help of a Telugu merchant and in fact established a mill at
Masulipatnam for trimming of diamonds. See, jammulamadugu Kaifiyat, Roll No
9, AP State Archives, Hyderabad, and EFI 1622-23 p.221.
31
Om Prakash, ed., The Dutch Factories in India, New Delhi, 1984, p.209,111 &
248.
32
Soren Mentz, British country trade ' pp.155-56.
54
33
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Portuguese Empire in Asia: A Political and Economic
History, Longman, p. 149.
34
Ibid.
35
EFI 1622-23 p. viii,x.
57
36
Sanjay Subrahmanyam has argued that revenue farming in Golconda was
predominantly a product of response to crisis' to various external and internal
pressures. While accepting that Golconda was piquently placed in the
seventeenth century between the Mughals and its own internal contradictions,
58
revenue farming may also be seen within the context of the states desire to
centralise its apparatus, no matter how much it succeeded in the process. Sanjay
Subrahmanyam, 'Aspects of State formation in south India and south east Asia'
pp.368-372
37
The diamond mines for example, were exclusively farmed by the king, though
he may have occasionally farmed them to private entrepreneurs as well. In the
case of farming of the mines, the King demanded diamonds with 10 carats of
weight and above as his monopoly. More important however, was the tight
59
Bay of Bengal. See Neils Steensgard, Carracks, Caravans, And Companies: The
Structural Crisis in the European -Asian Trade in the Early Seventeenth Century,
Copenhagen, 1972. cited in Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Portuguese Empire in Asia,
p. 156
39
Most of the Persian trade was centered in six ports of Iran: Harmuz, Banten,
Jasque, Bandar Abbas Behrain and Rashell.
40
The first freight ship from Masulipatnam sailed to Bandar Abbas in 1632 with
400 bales of cloth and 130 passengers, this ship sailed under the English flag but
with varied merchandise belonging for most part to the Asian merchants. EFI
1630-33 p 236-37.
61
41
Tapan Raychaudhury, Jan Company in Coromandel, S Gravenhague, 1969, p.87.
42
For Mirkamaludin's career, see, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy
of Commerce, p. 314-322 and EFI 1630-33 p. 296.
62
43
Most of the information on Mirjumla is taken from the works of Sanjay
Subrahmanyam, Joseph Brennig and J.N Sarkar. The analysis of Sanjay
Subrahmanyam is of particular importance to us because he is perhaps the only
historian to study Mirjumla as a merchant with a Portfolio interests such as
trade and politics, the former obviously taking primacy over the latter. For that
particular freighting voyage See, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of
Commerce, p.323 and Dagh Register, 1637, p.94 and EF1 1642-45. Andrew Cogan,
the Chief of Masulipatnam wrote to the Company " to accept the freight to Persia,
as they cannot expect any of it at Masulipatnam where the Serkhail will
monopolise all that is available", p. 65-67.
44
ibid p. 322-327. and Joseph Brennig, The Textile Trade, Chapter I.
45
EFI 1642-45, p.207 and EFI 1651-54, p. 12-13.
63
east Asian voyages, Mir Jumla dominated the Persian gulf trade
which allowed him to have a regular contact with his Persian
counterparts at Bandar Abbas and Hormuz. The main success of his
Persian trade came when he gained preferential rights from
Golconda to trade in the Coromandel overseas commerce. For
instance, in 1640's Mir Jumla attempted at breaking the Dutch
monopoly in cloves and pepper by gaining preferential rights in its
import trade to the Coromandel46 Through his intervention in
production process and a near monopoly position in overseas
trade, Mir Jumla held the double advantage of operating very
competitively with the Europeans in the high sea commerce ~ a
typical character of a portfolio management in the seventeenth
century south India. He often collaborated with his Asian
competitors as he did with the English in freighting goods to Persia
and never hesitated to confront them whenever necessary for his
trading operations. As a Mir Jumla' he frequently flouted his
official position by manipulating the royal firmans which gave
concessions to the European companies, a process which vindicated
the European trade. The English factors wrote in 1644:
46
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce , p. 326.
64
47
EFI 1642-45 p.207.
65
48
Ibid.
66
thought, was the only way out from the financial losses and to
balance the loss of Bantam factory. 49 The fist three voyages of the
English company fetched substantial profits.
49
For the history of the English East India Company for the years between 1620
and 1640 see, K.N Chaudhuri, The English East India Company: A Study of the Early
Joint Stock Company, London, 1964, Chapter III.
50
ETI 1624-29 pp. 339,346.
67
51
There are two version of Golden Firman preserved in the India Office Library
and Records, London. It is interesting to note that the contemporary version of
the Golden Firman elaboratly mentions about the preferences extended to
Persian merchants in the company's ships. The latter version of 1679 has no
mention to Persian component in the firman. Obviously the companies who had
to renegotiate time and again with the Indian rulers conciously avoided such
'native' preferences which which were perceived as detrimental to their future.
For the Golden Farman See, Original Correspondence, (henceforth O.C), Vol. xiv,
No 1471. and Appendix I.
69
52
EF1, Feb 1634,1634-36 p.14.
53
Ibid.
70
54
See, Ashin Das Gupta, Indian Merchants in the Indian Ocean Trade, in Tapan
Raichaudhuri and Irfan Habib, ed., 77K? Cambridge Economic History of India p.417
71
55
Apart from those based in Masulipatnam, many merchants of Bandar Abbas
frequented Masulipatnam carrying specific orders of Abdullah. We come across
Mir Taj al din Qummi, Shah Hasan Riyas, Mriza Muhammad Mashadi, Kwaja
Abd al Ali Ardestani and Muhammad Sabir of Bandar Abbas in Masulipatnam
invoices. See, Shakleeb, 'Aspects of Goconda-Iran Commercial contacts', Islamic
Culture, Vol. xix, No 2,1 April 1995, p.27.
56
S. Master, Vol. I, p. 181,184,198.
72
57
See, Joseph Brennig, The Textile Trade, p. 49
73
58
We can count as many as twenty farmans and a host of other grants and
privileges given by the rulers of Golconda. While the initial farmans allowed the
companies to establish factories at ports, while the later grants such as the
Golden Farman and A Grant from the King given to the Dutch in 1647 permitted
them to establish inland factories in the Kingdom of Golconda.
75
59
RFSG Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682, p. 2 & 83.
60
Arasaratnam for instance, argues for the introduction of the Company Joint
stocks though increased the indigenous merchant capital to some extent, were
reduced to mere company servants in the long run as a major precussor of
company dominance in the northern Coromandel.
76
61
The Dutch were more effective in having a say in the matter of procurement of
textiles. They expelled English from Nagulwanche which forced the latter to bu;y
piece cloth at neighbouring villages. See, fn, no. 11. Likewise the English were
confident that the Dutch has no place at Viravasaram as 'wea hath bin well
established here', See, EFI 1655-60.
77
62
Joseph Brennig, The Textile Trade, p. 88.
78
legal bindings imposed by the Europeans on them. However, the very fact that
albies were most often used to trade with more than one company it definitely
reflects on the growing effectiveness of the Joint stocks as well. It must be
stressed that the very fact that the merchant sought a rather 'back door entry' in
his operations by way of legislating his family members is an indication of the
growing strength of the company trade. See RFSG, Public Department, Letters to
Fort St, George, 1682 p.30-31, 1699-1700, p.285 and Joseph Brennig, The Textile
Trade, Chapter III, passim. See, P Sudhir and P. Swarnalatha, 'Textile Traders and
Territorial Imperatives: Masulipatnam 1750-1850', IESHR, Vol xxix, 2, 1992, pp.
149-150.
66
Original Correspondence, No 595, 1617-21, in Calender of State Papers, Colonial
Series,, p. 106 and Holden Furber, Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient,
Minneapolis, 1975, p.7.
80
based and mainly operated in port towns and in the areas where
the state penetration was more or less successful. Persians were the
single most important urban community in the port of
Masulipatnam. The Bandar Kaifiyat of the late eighteenth century
gives graphic information on the nature of Muslim settlements at
Masulipatnam. Out of 22 pettah's in the town of Masulipatnam as
many as 12 pettas were named after Muslim merchants and other
67
Muslim notables. The Persian merchants were present in the
port towns such as Masulipatnam, Narsapurpeta, Madapollem,
Nizampatgnam and in the provincial administrative centres of
Kondapalli, Nizampatnam, Nagulwanche etc. dominated the trade
and politics. It was precisely in these areas that the European
commerce failed to make any impact as far as direct procuring of
the merchandise was concerned. In these areas then, European
companies had to depend on a complex hierarchy of brokers and
other intermediaries which in turn escalated the prices of textiles. In
the port towns of Masulipatnam and Nizampatnam, the European
commerce had to contend with their competition as well as the
extortion's by Muslim administrators which the companies thought
'arbitrary' and 'rapacious'.
The hinterland, on the other hand, was more diverse in
terms of varied categories of professional merchants, offered the
companies to establish relations in the areas dominated by the
67
The pettas which were named muslim notables were Aneesupeta, Mustapha
Khan peta (probably the Mughal faujdar), Mallikapatnam (named after Ibrahim
Qutb Shah), Fakirullahpeta (Fakirullah Khan was the Mughal faujdar between
1700-1715), Kalekhan peta, Rustom Dil peta (Mughal faujdar of coastal Andhra,
164-96), Jawarpeta, Sukurabadpeta, Farusupeta, and MirHale peta. See, Bandaru
Kaifiyat, in, Krishna Zilla Kaifiyat, A.P.State Archives, 1990.
81
68
See, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, 'Rural Industry, P&P, p. 97.
69
We often encounter in the European documentation of the areas being directly
under the king. These are not to be taken as Khalisa (crown lands) but might
actually suggest Zamindari areas which were directly supervised by the King. In
1655, the English factors wrote on the preference of Viravasaram to
Masulipatnam as the latter being under the nabob and the former under the king
directly. EFI 1655-60 p. 39.
70
The Kaifiyats were collected by Col. Colin Mackenzie in the nineteenth century
when he was appointed as Surveyor General of the Madras Presidency. The
Kaifiyats, which were for most part the Karanam records, are to be interpreted
very cautiously. They deal with myths, legends, histories and personalities of a
particular place or village which are yet to be corroborated by other historical
evidence. They also seem to fall into a particular pattern of starting with a myths
attached to the place or personality, suddenly jumps to Kakatiyas, Reddi
Kingdoms and specifically to Vijayanagara, then there is a long silence with only
sporadic references to Qutb Shahis and finally culminates into the histories of
Zamindaris of the eighteenth century. See, Guntur Zilla kaifiyat, 4 Vol.s, Prakasam
Zilla Kaifiyat, and Nellore Zilla Kaifiyat for the history of Zamindars in the coastal
Andhra. These are recently published by A.P. State Archives.
71
RFSG, Public Department, Letters to Fort St. George, 1712, p.48 and Diary and
Consultation Book, 1714, p. 109-110
82
72
The Muniwars or the tributary rajas who paid tribute and held only nominal
allegiance to the state. The Naikwarins, on the other hand, were members of
warrior/peasant castes involved in central administration as holders of
hereditary garrison and actively involved in the political system as long as their
autonomy was recognised. See, T. Sridhar Murthy and N. Sarveshwara Rao ed.,
Dupati Kaifiyat, Government Oriental and Manuscripts Library Bulletin, Madras,
Vol xiii, No.2 pp.67-87.
83
73
Methwold Relations, p. 16.
74
To cite only one example of the diversity of their activities, In Madapollem we
come across about seven merchants who formed the Joint stocks for the English
company on procuring textiles, washermen, painters, and dyeing etc. They are
Wordinneh Guruvappa, Punde Caudama Bandu, Gobba Lingappa, Conda
Sambu, Conda jaganna, Angedi Jogee and Collapilla Narasu. The paddy
merchants included Biruda Gangappa, Bugganna, Narasaraju, Casua
Narasimham. See, RFSG, Public Department, Letters to Fort St George, 1682, p.30-31
and 1684-85, p.83
84
75
RFSG, Public Department, Letters to Fort St George, 1712, p. 48
85
76
In 1676, the English factors wrote of Divi island as a place "rich in chay root
and because of its convenience in settling the weavers there from the moors" See.
EF1 (New Series), 1676, 1670-77, p.227. And on other related aspects of the island
see, Factory Records, Miscellaneous, 1717, G/40/26 IOLR.
77
William Norris embassy to the Mughal court especially requested for the
cessesion of Diu to the English. It is surprising that non of the companies were
successful in acquiring the port till the second half of the seventeenth century.
See, Harihardas ed, William Norris Embassy to Aurangazeb, and RFSG, Diary and
Consultation Book, 1709, p.6.
86
which the faujdar promptly agreed and even demanded rent from
the company for the first three years. Appa Rao coming to know of
the English interest in the island immediately farmed the place for
20,000 pagodas and moved weavers from adjacent parts. Zoode
Khan who had 'considerable influence' on Appa Rao failed to
convince the renter to move out and in a rather desperate situation
asked the English company to forcefully take the island from Appa
Row. The English realising the futility of such a step for 'it was
known 'through our intelligence that Zoode Khan was behind
Appa Row' approached Bairagamma, the Zamindar who had
considerable clout in the imperial court and had 'a particular
grievance against Zoode Khan and Appa Rao'. Through her, the
English company negotiated for the grant of privileges for the
English company. 78 Though the company failed to acquire the
island till 1740's, the above mentioned events, nevertheless, showed
how important the local elite prevailed even over the imperial
officialdom and how the English were forging alliances with the
local Zamindars, during this period. However, it must be stressed
that the collaboration between Zamindars and the companies were
by no means steady for one finds numerous instances in which
Zamindars involving in bitter conflicts with the English in the late
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
78
See, RFSG, Diary and Consultation Book, 1709, p.6,1717, p.137 and Letters to Fort,
1710. p.37-38,1712,61,133.
87
79
See, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, 'The Port of Masulipatnam 1550-1750: A Bird's
Eye View', p. 61 and Sanjay Subrahmanyam and C.A. Bayly ' Portfolio
Capitalists and Political Economy of Early Modern India', in his Volume,
Merchants, Markets and the State in Early Modern India, New Delhi, 1990 p. 253-254.
80
By far the best work on the English Private Trade is by Bruce Watson,
Foundation for Empire: English Private Trade 1660-1760, Delhi 1982. He identifies
five categories of persons who can be called the private merchants. First were the
company merchants who augmented their salaries by trading through their
employment in the company, second, were the commanders and seamen on the
ships in the Indo-european routes, third, the free merchants who resided in
company settlements and carried on trade without encroaching into the company
88
since the English company was involved in trade with India, the
factors and servants used it to augment their private fortunes in
spite of the fact that the company declared it illegal in all sectors of
trade. The power of private trade was such that the company was
forced to liberalise its policy on private trade by allowing trade in
certain commodities which were secondary to company invoices.
Private traders were not allowed to trade in indigo, spices and
textiles which were the main components of company dominion of
trade. However, from time to time the company was forced to give
' restricted liberty' to its servants to carry on their private trade.
Private trade can be understood as the inability of the
company to effectively curtail the private aspirations of its servants
working in Asia. Though the company rather grandly prohibited
private trade in the initial years, the inner logic of the company and
its servants forced it to reconcile to what was called a 'permissive
trade' and justified it as a mere 'deviance' of the servants operating
in the east. Despite many legislation's and strictures against private
operations both at Home and in Asia, private trade continued to
thriv in all parts where the company had established settlements.81
The problem was most acute in the 'free ports' such as
Masulipatnam, Nizampatnam, Hugli, Balasore, etc. where the
English was one among other trading nations.
trade, fourth, were the interlopers or who came nearest to pirates who played a
decisive role in the early decades of the eighteenth century and lastly were the
Indian brokers and merchants, Ibid p.61-62.
81
For various legislations, strictures, punishments, petitions of pardon etc See,
Ibid, and for the relationship between the country trade and private trade, See,
Holden Furber, Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, pp. 217-219.
89
Coming to the Coromandel coast there are very few studies
which deal with the private activities of company servants for the
period under study. 82 Masulipatnam, being the main re-distributive
centre for intra-Asian trade, offered many prospects for private
traders to operate freely at the port. Private trade on the
Coromandel reached its high point when Robert Freemen regularly
freighted goods between Masulipatnam and Persian Gulf.83
Country trade was particularly profitable to the private traders
because of two reasons. Firstly, the profitability was high with less
investments and secondly, it meant considerable freedom from
structures impose on them at London. Recently, Soren Mentz has
argued, basing on the wealth/debts of the private traders of the
Coromandel that the country trade was not as profitable as it
thought to be unless supplemented by direct financial flow from
London. He further categorized private traders into 'middle class'
and elite operators, the former being Robert Fleetwood,
Christopher Hatton, Mathew Mainwaring, Richard Mohun and
Robert Freeman, while in the latter group were William Langhorn,
82
Even the most comprehensive work on Coromandel coast by Arasaratnam has
totally neglected the activities of private traders and referred to them only in
passing. Notable exceptions to this neglect are Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Joseph
Brennig and Soren Mentz.
83
In 1682 the English private shipping was substantial at Masulipatnam. Robert
Freeman owned many as 14 vessels used for country trade. In fact according to
Joseph Brennig, the ships of Robert Freeman virtually supplied thee existing
demand in the Persian Gulf. Robert Freeman started his career as an English
factor in 1668 and worked at Masulipatnam till 1675. He later became a free
merchant and was readmitted into the company at the capacity of Chief of
Masulipatnam factory. He went on to become a leading shipowner on the coast.
Robert freeman developed links with other notable private merchants such as S.
Master and Chomley, the notorious interloper. See, RFSG, Diary and Consultation
Book, 1681, p.32, Public Department, Letter to Fort St George, 1682, p 30-31, Soren
Mentz, ' Diamonds and Country Trade', p. 171, and Joseph Brennig, The Textile
Trade, p. 48-49
90
84
Soren Mentz, 'Diamonds and Country Trade' pp. 161-163
85
Abbe Caree, Travels, Vol. II p.382
91
long as complaints were not lodged, both the English factors and
their Indian counterparts protected each other in private trade.
Legally, of course, even Indian merchants who participated in
trade in their private capacity were also categorized as private
traders, especially if the said merchant was part of the company
joint stock. In 1682, for instance, Sunca Rama, the chief merchant
and Dubas of Narsapurpeta factory anchored a vessel carrying
grain at the bank shall, apparently under the company 'colours' and
ordered the boatmen and other small time peddlers to carry grain
to mainland at the payment of five pagodas per boat while the
actual customs to be paid to the Diwan was twenty pagodas.86
Surely, the vessel belonged to both Sunca Rama and the chief of the
Narsapurpeta factory. Narsula Beig, the havaldar confiscated the
vessel and on investigation found that "it belonged to chief
merchant "and reported "when it was informed to the chief he said
that they belong to him (meaning the English company), for there is
no reason to believe that if it was his ship would (for it
would)anchor in the company's bank shall87 Muhammad Ali Beig,
the Governor of Narsapurpeta lodged a strong complaint to
Madrasapatnam on the incident and wrote " you please let me
know whether you keep your chief to do your trade and
merchandise or to share the Divans revenue betwixt himself and
Dubas".88
Though the history of Masulipatnam centered private trade
goes back to as early as William Meth wold in 1620's, it became
86
RFSG, Public Department, Letters to Fort St George, 1682 p.101-102
87
Ibid, p. 30-31.
88
Ibid, p.39.
92
89
William Jearsey started his career as an accountant at Pegu in 1650. He was
later sent to Burma as Chief of Syriam factory where he remained against the
company orders and was dismissed from the service. His first activities as a
private trader dates back to 1660's from Syriam factory. On a special appeal he
was reinstated into the company in 1660 and came as the chief of Masulipatnam,
factory in 1662. At Masulipatnam, he was actively involved in the private trade.
it became so severe that he was dismissed in 1669. He later on stayed in India as
an independent trader and died in 1690. On his career See, Robert Young, The
British East India Company's Pepper Trade at Sumatra, 7 730-7760, Ph.D Thesis,
University of Perm, 1969, pp.55-98 cited in Holden Furber, Rival Empires of Trade
in the Orient, p. 270.
90
Edward Winter bought a ship of 800 tonne capacity from Mir Jumla in
1662and named it Great George. In 1661, the factors wrote that the goods "aboard
Marigold, which the factors had described as provisions and other necessities for
Edward Winter and his family, had proved to be largely private trade" See, EFI
7662-64,1661, p. 36, 42.
93
91
On Richard Mohun's career See, EFI (New Series), p. xix.
92
RFSG, Diary and Consultation Book, 1675,1672-78, p 45-46.
94
93
Ibid p. 48, 65,67.
94
RFSG, Diary and Consultation Book, 1677, 1678-79, p.29-30.
95
95
EFI ( New Series), 1675, 1670-77 p. 294. On Mainwaring's career, See, Court
Minutes, Vol. xxvi, fol. 48, Vol. xxxiv. fol. 95, 114 and 5. Master, Vol. 1, 283 and
284fn. Mathew Mainwaring came to India as a factor in 1667. From 1669 to 1671
he was a second at Balasore. In 1672 he came to Masuliptanam and was in
variance with Richard Mohun. Mainwaring was suspended in 1678 on the charge
of Murder of Robert Crawley. Later on he went to England and returned back as
an interloper by associating himself with Captain Alley.
96
RFSG, Diary and Consultation Book, 1672-78, pp. 29-35.
96
97
S. Master, Vol. II, p. 284fn.
98
For the intervention of private traders in the political arena and for the
development of "sub-imperialisms" See, Sushil Chaudhari, 'Trade, Bullion and
Conquest: Bengal in the eighteenth century', Presidential Address, Proceedings of
Indian History Congress, Gorakhpur, December, 1989 (mimeograph), For the
97
history of Private Trade in the eighteenth century, See, Peter. J. Marshall, East
Indian Fortunes, Oxford, 1976. and his more recent monograph, The Bengal
Bridgehead, The New Cambridge History of India, Cambridge, 1994.
99
See, Soren Mentz,' Diamonds and Country Trade' p. 171.
98
100
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Port of Masulipatnam', p.61, The Political
Economy of Commerce, pp. 217-218, and 'Persians, Pilgrims and Protuguese:
Travails of Masulipatnam Shipping in the Western Indian Ocean 1590-1665',
MAS, Vol XXII, 3,1988.
101
Joseph Brennig, The Textile Trade, pp. 36-38.
99
102
Ibid., pp. 186-188.
103
It may be noted that the postions of havaldari in the kingdom of Golconda is
given for a short period of time and was totally unsupervised by the central
administration. Often the tenure was held for a period of three years and was
100
Total 9780
publicly auctioned and ranged between 20,000 to 30,000 pagodas. For details see,
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, "Aspects of State Formation", pp.368-69.
104
On the Persian finance to the company and to Private traders see,RFSG, Diary
and Consultation Book, 1679,1684. S.Master, Vol I, p. 58 and Vol II, pp.100-101.
101
was the fact that it led to a large scale restructuring of the nature of
the character of state itself. The proposed streamlining of
administration into a more bureaucratic system by Madanna left
little space for Persian 'portfolio' interests.
Mad anna's career in trade bears a remarkable similarity to
Mir Jumla. By streamlining the bureaucracy, Madanna eliminated
competition in trade and claimed monopoly in grain and freight
trade. However, unlike Mirjumla whose participation in trade was
outright aggrandizement in the sea borne commerce, Madanna's
activities were more localised and indirect and never achieved the
eminence of his predecessor. For some unknown reasons, Madanna
used his brother Accanna and other Brahmin officials to manage his
shipping. In 1682 the English reported: " Worshipfull already hath
heard of a ship belonging to Accanna which is already built and
105
goods providing for her". In 1684, John Coates, the chief of
Madapollem seized two ships of Madanna which led to reprisals on
the English company. The English were sceptical about their
position in Madapollem. On the merchandise in the ship the
English chief recorded
105
RFSC,Public Department, Letters to Fort St. George, 1682, p. 57.
106
RFSG,Pub)ic Department, Letters to Fort St. George, 1684, p. 365.
102
107
Ibid. p. 379.
108
On the role of Persians in the eighteenth and nineteenth century see, Reports
on the Disturbances in Purlakimcdxj, Vizagpatnam and Gomsoor, 1832-36, and P.
Sudhir and P. Swarna Latha, " Textile Traders and Territorial Imperatives:
Masulipatnam 1750-1850, IESHR, Vol xxix, 2,1992, pp. 149-69.
103
109
Joseph Brennig, The Textile Trade, pp. 36-38.
110
For details of Christopher Hatton's report, See, S. Master, Vol II, p. 113.
105
the former rents, oppressing the people, have now reduced this
place to low condition --for the present the whole trade and
support of this depends on EIC and VOC-"113 . These statements
apart from being a mere stereotype on the nature of Indian
administration also reflects the growing authority of local officials
in matters of trade.
Secondly, Joseph Brennig is not clear on how the decline of
Asian shipping per se became a cause for the decline of
Masulipatnam. According to the shipping estimates cited by Joseph
Brennig for the year 1682, one stills finds Asinas at a very
competitive stage when compared to the first half of the
seventeenth century. In the period between 1624-34 an average of
10 to 15 Asian vessels departed from Masulipatnam while the 1682
statistics which the historian records, had as many as 12 Asian
ships . 1 1 4
However, one sees a major change in the shipping lists of
1682 when compared to the earlier period. As many as 14 ships
belonged to European private traders which exceeded the Asian
shipping. Thus, if we argue that the Asian shipping was
supplanted by the European private traders in tonnage and volume
of trade carried from the port, it then becomes difficult to directly
link between Asian shipping and the decline of the port.
113
Daniel Havart, De op-en Ondergang, Vol. I, pp. 226-28, cited in Sanjay
Subrahmanyam, The port of Masulipatnam 1550-1750', p. 60. and S. Master, Vol. II.,
p. 113.
114
Compare the statistics of Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Joseph Brennig for the
first half and the second half of the seventeenth century, See, Sanjay
Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce, p. 214,334 and Joseph
Brennig, The Textile Trade, p. 46.
107
115
S. Arasaratnam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce, pp. 189-191.
116
See, K. N. Chaudhauri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East Company
1660-1760, Cambridge 1972, Appendix and Marcus P. M. Vink, The Merchant
Warrior Pacified: The VOC and The Political Economy of India, New Delhi, 1991.
Appendix.
108
117
See, RFSG, Despatches to England, Vol IV, 1714.
118
RFSG, Public Department, Letters to Fort St. George, 1712 ,p. 133
111
of east Godavari to the smaller ports in the same delta. The notion
of 'Port complexes, Port concentration and Port diffusion' in which
the competition or traffic in trade in their common hinterland affect
the fortunes of other ports (even if they were of Metropolitan
nature) holds ground for the port of Masulipatnam at the beginning
119
of the seventeenth century. The consolidation of these smaller
ports was a by product of Mughal invasion and the consequent
processes of consolidation of territorial jurisdiction by the tributary
and other Zamindars of the region. In Vizagpatnam for example, the
local chief Pusapati Ananda Raju encouraged English trade by
allowing the company to fortify the town and with additional
concessions of farming the villages around the port. At Ingeram the
factors wrote,
119
See, B. Ogundana, 'Patterns and Problems of Seaports Evolution in Nigeria'
in B.S.Hoyle, ed., Sea ports and Development in Tropical Africa, London, 1970 ,
cited in Atiya Habeeb Kidwai, 'Conceptual and Methodological Issues: Pots, Port
Cities and Port-Hinterlands' in Indu Banga, ed., Ports and their Hinterlands in
India, 1700-1950, New Delhi, 1992 pp. 23-25.
120
RFSG, Public Department, Despatches from England, 1712, p.61
112