John Shore
Contents
John Shore (1751-1834): Governor-General of Bengal (1793-1798)
Background and Career
Sir John Shore was an accomplished administrator and expert in Bengal’s revenue system who served as Governor-General of Bengal from 1793 to 1798. He arrived in Calcutta in 1768 as a writer (apprentice clerk) of the East India Company and gradually rose through the ranks due to his exceptional expertise in land revenue administration and judicial systems. Before his appointment as Governor-General, Shore served as the principal revenue advisor to Warren Hastings from 1772 to 1785 and was selected for the Governor General’s Council in 1787. He earned widespread respect for his industry, candor, and talent, eventually gaining the attention of Prime Minister Mr. Pitt, who recommended him to the King as the ideal successor to Lord Cornwallis.
Policy of Non-Intervention
The defining characteristic of John Shore’s tenure was his Policy of Non-Intervention, which marked a significant departure from the expansionist strategies of his predecessors. This policy emphasized maintaining peace and stability without engaging in unnecessary military conflicts or territorial annexations.
Key Principles of the Policy:
Shore believed that the British East India Company could consolidate its power more effectively through diplomatic restraint and administrative efficiency rather than through costly wars and military entanglements. His approach was characterized by a deliberate reluctance to interfere in the internal affairs, disputes, and successions of independent Indian states. This policy was partly necessitated by financial constraints—the Company was still recovering from the expensive Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-1792) under Lord Cornwallis, and London’s Court of Directors had issued instructions to avoid further costly military engagements.
Rationale:
Shore persuaded his superiors that British dominance over India during the subsequent twenty years could best be achieved through a just and stable settlement of land revenue rather than through military expansion. He believed that consolidating British control through strong internal administration was more sustainable than pursuing constant military campaigns. His cautious approach aimed to strengthen the colonial state without taking unnecessary risks abroad.
Limitations of the Policy:
Despite its intention to preserve resources, Shore’s non-interventionist approach drew significant criticism for being overly passive. His refusal to intervene in internal conflicts, particularly in Awadh, left regions vulnerable to political instability without British support. This policy would eventually be abandoned by his successor, Lord Wellesley (1798-1805), who pursued an aggressive policy of Subsidiary Alliances and territorial expansion.
Charter Act of 1793
The Charter Act of 1793, also known as the East India Company Act of 1793, was a crucial piece of legislation passed during John Shore’s tenure that extended the Company’s administrative and commercial authority.
Key Provisions:
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Duration | Renewed the East India Company’s charter for another 20 years (until 1813) |
| Political Privileges | Extended the Company’s political authority and control over its territories |
| Governor-General’s Powers | Significantly strengthened the Governor-General’s authority, allowing him to issue directives to presidencies even during his absence from Bengal without consulting his council |
| Royal Appointments | Made the appointments of Governor-General, governors, and Commander-in-Chief subject to royal approval, introducing greater transparency and accountability |
| Judicial Improvements | Promoted separation of revenue administration from the judicial system, leading to more efficient court functioning and addressing their overburdened status |
| Trade Rights | Extended trading privileges to both individual Company personnel and outsiders under the Company’s license, granting the Company a monopoly over Indian trade |
| Financial Obligations | Required the East India Company to remit an annual sum of five lakh pounds to the British government after covering essential expenses |
| Opium Trade | Expanded the scope of trade licenses, particularly for the opium trade with China |
| Centralized Authority | Clarified that the British Crown’s authority was now supreme over Indian territories, curbing the extensive freedoms previously enjoyed by Company officials |
Significance:
The Charter Act of 1793 was not merely a commercial renewal but a fundamental assertion of British sovereignty over Indian territories and Company operations. It reflected the periodic review process wherein the British Parliament monitored the Company’s functioning every 20 years, ensuring alignment with British political and economic interests. The act solidified the Company’s dominance in India while reinforcing Crown control and setting the stage for more organized colonial administration.
Second Rohilla War (1794)
The Second Rohilla War occurred in 1794 as a succession dispute within the Rohilla state of Rampur, which had been created following the First Rohilla War (1774).
Background:
After the First Rohilla War, the British-backed Nawab Faizullah Khan ruled Rampur and proved to be a competent administrator. Upon his death in 1793, his son Muhammad Ali Khan inherited the throne but was characterized as overbearing and bad-tempered. This led to instability within the state and created an opportunity for internal conflict.
The Succession Crisis:
In September 1794, a palace coup saw Muhammad Ali Khan deposed and exiled to Dungarpur, where he was subsequently killed in his sleep. His younger brother, Ghulam Muhammad Khan Bahadur, seized the throne, prompting intervention from the Nawab of Awadh and the British East India Company to restore legitimate succession.
The Conflict:
British forces under Sir Robert Abercrombie were dispatched to assist the Nawab Wazir of Awadh in restoring order. The decisive engagement occurred at the Battle of Bhitaura on October 26, 1794, where British and Awadh forces confronted the Rohillas led by Ghulam Muhammad Khan. Initially, the British faced a serious setback when Captain Ramsay inexplicably led two cavalry regiments through Company sepoy battalions, causing 2,500 casualties and creating confusion. However, the British ultimately prevailed in this battle.
Outcome and Succession:
Following the conflict, Muhammad Ali Khan’s infant son, Ahmad Ali Khan, was proclaimed Nawab and confirmed in possession of Rampur with lands yielding 10 lakh rupees annually. The remainder of the state was appropriated by the Nawab of Awadh. The Second Rohilla War represented the last significant Rohilla resistance to British and Awadhi dominance in the region.
Battle of Kharda (March 11, 1795)
The Battle of Kharda, also known as the Battle of Khurla, fought on March 11, 1795, was one of the most significant military encounters of the period and had profound implications for Indian political history.
Contending Forces:
The battle occurred between the Nizam of Hyderabad (Mir Nizam Ali Khan, Asaf Jah II) and the unified Maratha Confederacy. This represented the last occasion when all Maratha chiefs united under single leadership.
| Force | Commander(s) | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Nizam’s Forces | Assud Ally and French commander Michel Raymond | 17,000 infantry and cavalry (later accounts suggest 45,000 infantry, 45,000 cavalry) |
| Maratha Forces | Sawai Madhavrao Peshwa II, Nana Phadnavis, Parshuram Bhau Patwardhan, Scindia, Holkar | Approximately 100,000 troops consisting of 83,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, and 192 cannons |
Causes of the Conflict:
The dispute between the Marathas and the Nizam had festered since the end of the Third Anglo-Mysore War. The Marathas pressed their long-standing claims for Chauth and Sardeshmukhi (taxes collected by the Maratha Empire) from the Nizam’s territories. In 1791, Maratha envoys Govindrao Pingle and Govindrao Kale were stationed at the Nizam’s court to negotiate these demands. After the conclusion of the war with Tipu Sultan, the Nizam reversed his earlier promises and demanded that the Marathas owed him 2.5 crore rupees, even arranging for British arbitration. Realizing the futility of negotiations by 1794, both sides prepared for armed conflict.
The Battle:
The Nizam’s army marched from Bidar in January 1795. The clash near the Fort of Kharda was devastating for the Nizam:
In the initial phase, the Nizam’s commander Lal Khan (a Pathan) managed to injure Maratha leader Parshuram Bhau but was subsequently killed by Hari Pant.
The Nizam’s infantry under French commander Michel Raymond launched an attack on Maratha forces but was decisively countered by Jivabadada Kerkar, who led Scindia’s cavalry, forcing Hyderabad troops to retreat to the Kharda Fort.
The Marathas laid siege to the fort for 17 to 22 days, cutting off supply lines and creating severe hardship within the Nizam’s camp. Conditions were dire, with water reportedly selling for one rupee per cup, and soldiers resorting to eating tamarind leaves.
Outcome and Terms:
The Nizam sought negotiations, which concluded in April 1795. The treaty imposed severe penalties on Hyderabad:
The Nizam was forced to dismiss his chief minister, Azeem-ul-Omrah, who had insulted the Peshwa
He ceded significant territories including Daulatabad, Aurangabad, and Sholapur to the Maratha Empire
He paid a substantial indemnity of 30 million rupees to the Marathas
The treaty also banned cow slaughter in the Deccan
Impact of John Shore’s Non-Intervention Policy:
Critically, despite the Nizam being under British protection through existing treaties, Governor-General John Shore refused to provide any military assistance to the Nizam, adhering strictly to his non-interventionist policy. This decision had momentous consequences:
It severely strained the relationship between the Nizam and the British, undermining the Nizam’s confidence in British protection
Other princely states reconsidered their arrangements with the British, recognizing that protection agreements might not guarantee support
It demonstrated the weakening position of both the Nizam and the Marathas relative to the British, though the implications were not immediately apparent
Paradoxically, Shore’s refusal to intervene ultimately benefited British interests: while the Nizam suffered defeat and the Marathas gained temporary triumph, neither emerged stronger in relative terms to British power
Historical Significance:
The Battle of Kharda represented a watershed moment in Indian history. It was the last great unified victory of the Maratha Confederacy. Within seven years of this battle, the last Peshwa (Bajirao II) was forced into a Subsidiary Alliance with the British and subsequently lost the Maratha kingdom by 1818. The battle demonstrated that Indian powers, despite their military capabilities, were unable to present a united challenge to British expansion. The political dynamics set in motion by this battle ultimately accelerated the consolidation of British rule in India.
Administrative Legacy and Evaluation
Contributions to Administration:
During his tenure as Governor-General, Shore made several lasting contributions to British Indian administration:
He implemented and refined the Permanent Settlement of Bengal, which was initially planned under Cornwallis but completed during Shore’s period, creating a stable revenue system through fixed land revenue payments.
He improved the internal governance of the British East India Company, ensuring efficient administration with minimal corruption.
He was notably known for his unflinching honesty in an era when Company officials were frequently dishonest.
Assessment of His Tenure:
Shore’s five-year tenure was marked by relative peace and stability, qualities highly valued after the costly wars of the Cornwallis era. His strategy strengthened and effectively ran the colonial state without taking unnecessary military risks. He maintained the Company’s territorial integrity while consolidating administrative systems.
However, his approach has been criticized as overly passive and lacking the decisiveness required in some situations. His refusal to intervene in Awadh’s internal instability and his failure to support the Nizam at Kharda were seen by some as abandoning British responsibilities and regional allies.
Conclusion:
Sir John Shore was created Baron Teignmouth in the peerage of Ireland as a reward for his services on March 3, 1798. He left India in March 1798, receiving thanks from the Court of Directors for his “distinguished merit and attention in the administration of every branch of the company’s service during the period in which he held the office of governor-general.” Though his non-interventionist policies were superseded by Lord Wellesley’s aggressive expansionism, Shore’s tenure represented an important consolidative phase in British Indian history, laying administrative foundations that would support future British dominance while avoiding the military overstretch that might have weakened the Company’s position.
