CHAPTER 3
INDO-ARMENIAN ECONOMIC
RELATIONS
Armenians
and English East India Company
The Europeans tried to limit the activities of the Armenians in India. In the
initial stage the European merchants were in no position to oust the Armenians
by force. The British saw that the only superiority that they had over the Armenians
in India was their shipping. There remained one way open – to win over the Armenian
merchants to their side and gradually take control of their activities.
With this aim in view, on June 22, 1688 and Agreement was concluded between
Khojah Panoos Kalantar, the leader of the Armenian merchants in India and the
Company of London merchants trading to the East Indies (Appendix 1). The
original copy is preserved in the archives of India House in London.
According to this Agreement the Armenians were entitled to the rights of British
subjects and to large privileges. The Agreement says that: 1) the Armenians
have the same rights as the British merchants, 2) the Armenians were free to
travel from India to other countries and from other countries to India in the
Company’s ships and in the same conditions which free people have, 3) they were
free to reside in any city, settlement or fort under possession of the Company;
they could buy and sell property, be elected for civil offices and jobs equally
with the British.
Further, as per the Agreement, if any Governor of the Company would try to hinder
these privileges and rights, he should be called off from his post. The Armenians
should give taxes equal to the British. It is mentioned in detail how much tax
should be paid by the Armenians and for which goods, as well as how much for
transportation. Those mentioned goods were the following: bullion, diamonds,
coral, amber, silver, sword blades, fire arms of all sorts, iron paper, looking
glasses, drinking glasses, leather etc. This large list of goods shows how diverse
were the trade activities of the Armenians in India, Indian Archipelago and
China.
The Armenian merchants could take passengers on the ships, both to and from
India. These passengers could carry with them their clothes, furniture and provisions
(not more than 250 kg per person) free of cost. The Armenians were also
allowed to exercise their own religion. The cunning Britishers stipulated
to give the Armenians even ground for a church, to be first built at the expense
of the Company wherever forty or more of the Armenian nationals became inhabitants
of any of the Company’s towns or garrisons.
The Company was supposed to build wooden churches for Armenians giving
them the right to build churches from stone instead of the wooden ones
in future if they wanted. Even the Company agreed to give 50 pounds annually
in seven years to a priest who would be chosen by Armenians to serve in their
church (Appendix 2).
This Agreement sounded the “death knell” to the Armenian commerce in India.
Later events proved conclusively the truth of the German Emperor’s pithy remark
that a treaty was nothing but simply a “scrap of paper”.
In gratitude to Khojah Panos Kalantar’s efforts in concluding such important
negotiations which resulted in signing of the above mentioned Agreement, the
British granted to him the sole monopoly of the garnet trade in India (Appendix
3). However, in this Agreement the British mentioned that it was only Kalantar's
request that they were doing him such a favour.
The British also wanted
to get Armenian soldiers through Khojah Panoos Kalantar. The documents from
the Court of Directors in London to their Deputy and Council of Bombay, dated
January 26, 1692 (Appendix 4), state that Armenian soldiers would be given the
same pay as English soldiers. Even they promised to pay the transport expenses
to those Armenians who would like to come from Armenia and Iran. But the British
failed in this case. No Armenian wanted to fight under the British flag.
The rights and privileges mentioned in the Agreement show how important were
the Armenians for the British at that time. In correspondence of the Company
they admitted that the major part of the trade in India and the East was in
the hands of the Armenians. Hence emanating from interests of both the East
India Company and England, it was desirable that Armenian merchants transported
their goods in English ships, changed their trade routes and had relations directly
with England, thus bringing to the country’s treasury taxes paid by them. So,
the Company bought these benefits on the cost of privileges and freedom given
to the Armenians.
English politics in this case had only one goal. They understood very well that
sooner or later the rival Armenians in the British factories would be
deprived of their independence and cut off their previous independent communities.
This is how the Armenians bound their destiny with the British. On the
one hand the Armenians were very proud to enjoy all the privileges and rights
of free British citizens in far corners of Asia, to have protection, to be able
to conduct large-scale activities and at the same time to have all the rights
to preserve and develop their own national identity, language, literature, religious
independence. But on the other hand, a handful of nationals could not survive
for a long time and preserve their national identity. This small nation was
going to be engulfed by the big waves of British culture. And after some time
only churches and tomb-stones would tell about once flourishing Armenian community
in India.
Although the Armenians in India not only began to co-exist with the British
and often became their direct agents to strengthen and enlarge the British possessions
in the country, there were some representatives of the Armenian commerce capital
who, not willing to follow Khojah Kalantar, continued to conduct their own policy
and thus became evident rivals of the East India Company. These people were
trading on the territory which was under possession of the French. Other merchants
were trading with native population under the patronage of Moghul kings. In
some cases Armenian merchants left their jobs and acquired even the title
of Raja. They had such a big influence on the local authorities that they could
dictate their wills.82
One of such people was the famous Gorgin Khan – the Armenian merchant Grigor,
who was the Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of Mir Qasim,
ruler of Bengal.
The good attitude of the British towards the Armenians existed only in the initial
period. When the Europeans settled in India, a big competition began, first
among the Europeans themselves, and then between the European and Armenian merchants.
During this competition the Armenian merchants received a heavy setback and
began to be ousted from trade markets. The Armenians who were trading either
alone or in small companies, despite being skillful and flexible in their work,
naturally could not seriously oppose the East India Company, which used its
huge army and fleet to achieve its goals.
The Armenian colonies were mostly constituted from artisans, workers, service
people, daily workers. And the Indians knew the Armenians through these people.
Among the merchants, wealthy Indo-Armenians, there was some part, which was
linked with the Europeans through their interests and were very close to them.
But the working sector of Indo-Armenians, which was living together with Indian
people in the same political and economic conditions and sharing with them the
difficulties and hardships created by the colonizers, was with the Indians.
In a short period of time those Armenian colonies which were small and weak,
began to decrease and in some places they were deserted. The Armenians, in big
or small groups left the regions, which were under the possession of the British
or other Europeans and began to settle in the places, which were free from colonization.
Indo-Armenian colonies were also suffering because of the struggle of the Europeans
among themselves. When the hostilities broke out between the British and the
French in India, the situation of Armenian traders in India sharply deteriorated.
Many of them sustained heavy losses and became bankrupt, their vessels were
seized, goods confiscated. A letter of an Armenian merchant addressed
to the Armenian Archbishop of Julfa dated April 1783, says:
“We are having
troublous times nowadays, as the English are engaged in war with the French
and Hyder Ali, and at present they are fighting the Dutch, so that there is
war on land and at sea. Our [Armenian] merchants lost two lakhs of rupees over
a ship from China that was captured at sea, and lately the Maharattas captured
a ship bound for Surat from Bengal whereby we lost two and a half lakhs of rupees."
Another letter of an Armenian merchant dated February 1797, says:
“… All these, our present
misfortunes, are manly due to the wars that are being waged between the Europeans
and the French and other European nations, for which we, as well as merchants
of other nationalities, have suffered heavily during these few years. I may
add that, in the present year alone, the merchants in the Fort here have lost
15 lakhs of rupees. It is the same all over India."
The condition of almost all the sections of the Armenian population in India
sharply declined following the penetration into, and the subsequent conquest
of India by the Europeans. At first by peaceful competition but later by force
they were ousted from the Indian markets over a short period. The Armenian merchants,
artisans and other related sections of the Armenian population succumbed to
a harsh economic plight. Individual Armenian merchants, artisans or small companies
of Armenians could not, naturally, stand the power of the East India Company.
The Company’s commercial and economic operations would often result in bloody
expeditions and onslaughts. In the meantime the British had already got a firm
footing in India and were in no need of their Armenian “allies”.
The British not only started to oust the Armenians from the trade markets, create
obstacles for the development of artisanship, but also began evident persecutions.
They raised up illegal cases against the Armenians, put them to jails, seized
their goods and so on. In these conditions the Armenian colonies economically
began to depend on the Britishers. Soon the British started to consider the
Armenians as their enemies.
All these developments resulted in adoption of political orientation of the
Indo-Armenian population. All the sectors of the Armenian colony basically had
anticolonial mood, of course, having their own interests. Joining with the Indians
for the freedom struggle against the British, the Indo-Armenians were not only
defending their second homeland, but also their personal interests.
Each sector of the Armenian colony participated in the freedom movement in their
own way. Armenian merchants, who were under the patronage and protection of
the Indian authorities, were helping financially; Armenian armourers were helping
in casting guns and artillery and Armenian warriors joined the Indian army,
fought against the Britishers and shed their blood for the freedom of India.
We have already mentioned that after each battle Armenian flag was also hoisted
together with the Indian flag.
The British have ever since not only ousted the Armenians as their rivals in
trade but they took to outright persecution consequently: the Armenians were
sentenced, thrown into prison, their goods taken away and merchant vessels confiscated.
The British took steps to take everything in their hands. In 1765 the Select
Committee was appointed in Calcutta by the London Court of Directors on the
recommendation of Governor Clive. This Committee decided to introduce
a universal monopoly in salt, betel-nut and tobacco and divide the profits amongst
its members and those members of the Company whom they preferred to favour.
In 1767 during the governorship of Harry Verelst the Select Committee grew steadily
more autocratic. The result was crucial. Independent merchants including
Armenians suffered heavy losses and were ruined.
The Armenian merchants in Bengal traded mainly in raw silk and cotton piece
goods but they carried their cargo in Danish, French, Dutch or English ships.
Their destination were not only Surat and Basra. They were also doing trade
with Indonesia and Philippines. Nawab Alivardi Khan in his letter regarding
the seizure of Armenian ships by Commodore Griffin, has the following sentence
about Armenians: “These men are the kingdom’s benefactors, their exports and
imports are an advantage to all men”.83
The English found it indispensable necessity to take the help of the Indian
and Armenian agents since they were new in the trade activities in India. A
large group of indigenous traders, like the Armenians, started to collaborate
with the English traders as junior partners, seeing that it is unreasonable
to carry on inland trade in the face of the free traders’ offensive. The Armenian
merchants who had a large share in the inland trade and held important posts
in the state, started to discuss more openly against the free traders. They
had already expressed their disregard towards the English monopoly on salt trade
in Bihar.
The activities of the free traders affected various indigenous groups: farmers,
merchants, basic producers, landholders. The result often was serious conflicts
and breakdown of law and order. In this situations the British took law into
their own hands.
One of the Armenian merchants closed his warehouses realising that the price
of salt would rise due to the monopolistic policy of the Company. He had almost
140,000 pounds of salt which refused to sell. However, those warehouses
were forcibly opened and salt was sold. This merchant appealed to the Mayor’s
Court in Calcutta. When the Mayor was about to deliver a judgment in favour
of the merchant, the former was given a letter after which he immediately terminated
the proceedings.
Oudh was not like Bengal. Private trade was growing there as the private traders
from Bengal turned to Oudh because of the above mentioned developments in Bengal.
In the local trade groups the most important were the Armenians who always have
been middlemen for the private traders. Bolts (the author of Considerations)
employed 150 Armenian agents.
The Nawab of Oudh, seeing the increase of private traders wrote to the
English Government in Bengal to “free his country from the Armenians and Bengalis”.
To get the monopoly of trade the British needed only this statement. In
March, 1768, Captain Harper observed that the permission to the Armenians, a
‘designing and intriguing set of people’, to settle in the Nawab’s dominions
would inevitably result in clashes with the Nawab. As a result the Select Committee
passed a set of regulations forbidding Company’s servants and other Europeans
to trade in Oudh. Thus, the Armenian merchants were also excluded from
Oudh.
The Select Committee extended its monopolies, it started to control raw silk
and piece-goods as well. These were the articles, in which Armenian merchants
had traded for ages. Silk workers of Saidabad, working in Armenian factories,
were removed and made to work in European silk factories and the piece-goods
of merchants, meant for export, were intercepted in transit and sent to European
warehouses. These goods were then loaded onto ships as decided by the
Company and dispatched in destinations not intended by the owners of the goods,
or to unknown ports or lost at sea without any reparations or recourse
to redress.
The East India Company continued its policy of ousting successful independent
merchants from the trade markets of India. Armenian merchants were forcibly
imprisoned for months without any charge against them. By the time when they
were set free their businesses were ruined. In order to find justice these merchants
even applied in to the Court of Directors in London. But they did not get any
reasonable answer.
Since the East India Company was new in India, it was establishing its positions
in the country. But when it grew stronger and its commercial interests expanded
including the territorial conquest, which required vast financial resources,
the British performed unjust treatment to their Armenian allies, despite the
Agreement of 1688. Afterwards they were arguing that the Agreement was signed
by the old Company. The new Company had no intention to follow and implement
the agreements achieved by previous authorities.
| <<< previous page | next page >>> |