CHAPTERS

EUROPEAN COMPANIES AND THE INDIGENOUS TRADING

GROUPS

Conflicts, Co-operation and Co-existence

The involvement of the European Companies in the Indian Ocean

trading system was geared towards competing with Asian traders and European

freemerchants operating in the regions of the Bay of Bengal, the Indonesian

Archipelago, mainland south-east Asia and West Asia, on the one hand and on

the other hand they exported mainly textiles, and other items like spices,

pepper, diamonds, indigo, saltpetre and cotton yarn, to the markets of Europe

and West Africa. 1 In the westward export trade to Europe and West Africa, the

component of Asian traders was absent, the only competition being from some

European private traders. In the eastward sector and to West Asia, the

Europeans built up their operations on the existing links which had been

developed traditionally by the Asian merchants, to markets serviced by the

latter, since before the coming of the Europeans.

One of the major concerns that emerges in the context of the

expansion of the trade of the European Companies during the course of the

seventeenth century, is that whether the European Companies expanded by

displacing the indigenous merchants or whether they were accommodated in

the overseas trade along with the indigenous merchants in an expanding market

1 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce - Southern India 1500-1650, See Chapter 4 'Overseas trade, 1570-1650: expansion and realignment; pp. 144-251

211

in this period. This would give important insights into not only the state of the

economy of the region in this period but also lead to a better understanding of

the factors which resulted in the ultimate displacement of these indigenous

trading groups around the close of the seventeenth century and the beginning of

the eighteenth century.

The trade from Masulipatnam from the 1570s onwards, when the

port started to come into prominence, was primarily to Acheh, Pegu, Arakan

and the Malay peninsula ports of Kedah and Perak, and by way of coastal

navigation, to Pipli in Orissa.2 By the 1590s, the trade from Masulipatnam to

the Red Sea and Persian Gulf had commenced, and apart from the textiles of

the Northern Coromandel, pepper and spices of Acheh were also intended to

the Middle Eastern ports.3 The Red Sea link was initiated by the Sultan and his

Persian nobility as a definite state policy, the Sultan using his political clout to

ensure safe conduct, first through the Portuguese and then later through the

English and the Dutch.

The English and the Dutch Companies in the seventeenth century

began their operations from the Coromandel to the Asian markets which were

already opened up through the initiative of the indigenous merchants of the

region, namely, the Bay of Bengal littoral, the Indonesian Archipelago and

mainland south-east Asia, on the eastward cycle, and the Red Sea and the

Persian Gulf on the western circuit. Here they were competing with various

2 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce -Southern India 1500-1650, p. 151 3 Persians, Pilgrims and Portuguese ... , Sanjay Subrahmanyam.

212

Asian and Portuguese merchants, who were the precedents of the English and

the Dutch in these areas. The beginnings of the Dutch were moderate, and that

of the English were quite meagre in these regions, and throughout the first half

of the seventeenth century, Europeans continued to trade along with the

traditional native participants along these networks.

The second market, that of Europe, and west Africa via the Cape

Route, to which they exported goods such as spices from the east and textiles

of the Coromandel, diamonds, indigo, saltpetre and cotton yam, was devoid of

any Asian participation in the overseas network. A study of the Dutch exports

from the Coromandel in the period 1628-1650 shows that 30% of their total

export orders were for Europe, of which textiles, namely bethiles, moris,

percallaes, sa/ampores, and Guinea linen4, were the most significant

component, the European market for these textiles expanding to the extent of

160% increase in demand in 1642.5

.. In the case of the English, Coromandel exports to Europe picked

up only in the period after 1646.6 Prior to this they had begun exporting small

quantities of longcloth to England from 1621 onwards following the example

of the Dutch, who had already commenced trading in some commodities like

plain calicoes, cotton yam, saltpetre and indigo from Masulipatnam for

Holland. 7 By 1658, Coromandel textiles formed a larger proportion of their

4 This was basically plain cloth. 5 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Political Economy ofCommerce ..... , pp. 171-172 6 See Chapter 1 of this thesis. 7 E.F.I. 1618-21, pp. 342-343; E.F.I. 1622-23, pp. 229,336

213

European exports than did those of Surat.8 However, even though the Dutch

had a larger share of the European market for Coromandel textiles than did the

English, one thing that is evident is that in this sector of Coromandel exports to

Europe and West Africa, the English and the Dutch were not in competition

with the Asian merchants, having only the Portuguese to contend with on this

route.

In this sector, it seems plausible to speculate that they created an

expansiOn in the demand for export goods of the Coromandel, and their

expansion in exports points to an expansion in the economy of the Coromandel,

as the textile industry accommodated this increase in demand. So in the sector

of the European and West African trade, the operations of the Companies were

not encroaching upon the markets serviced by Asian merchants. Rather, by the

opening up of a new market for the Coromandel goods, they were causing an

expansion in the textiles industry of the Coromandel, as well as increasing the

range of activities of the Konlati merchants, who were the traditional contract

merchants involved in the procurement of textiles.

However, the positions ofthe English and the Dutch expansion of

trade with respect to the Asian market are more ambiguous. In the first half of

the seventeenth century it is unclear whether an expansion in their exports from

the Coromandel to South-east Asia and West Asia, was at the expense of the

indigenous trading groups, or whether they participated in a growing market,

which expanded with European participation, so that the new participants did

8 San jay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of Commerce ... , p. 178

214

not significantly displace their Asian counterparts, but rather were

accommodated alongside.

This ambiguity anses from the fact that quantitative data is

unavailable for the volume of goods and the amounts invested by indigenous

merchants in their overseas trade, unlike the case of the European Companies,

which had meticulously maintained records of their business affairs throughout

the period. This is further complicated by the fact that even the number of

indigenous participants in overseas trade is unclear, and references to

indigenous maritime activities can best be gleaned from passing references in

European Companies' records and accounts oftravellers. For instance, in 1671,

Martin noted that several ships from various places had arrived at

Masulipatnam, there being English ships from Europe, Dutch ships from

Batavia, and ships belonging to local merchants. However, references like this

provide a very inadequate picture, as details of tonnage, varieties of goods and

value of cargoes on such ships of local merchants are not specified.

Nevertheless, it is possible to make some speculations regarding the impact of

European overseas trade in the markets serviced by indigenous merchants by

using the data and information available to us.

In the period between 1615 and 1650, the Dutch who were much

better entrenched in the Asian markets than the English, showed a massive

expansion of exports from the Coromandel to south-east Asia, the increase

being about six fold. 9 The markets within south-east Asia and east Asia, that

the Dutch supplied to, were the Moluccas, the Bandas, Macassar, Java, the

9 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy ofCommerce ... p. 172

215

Sumatran west coast and the Malay peninsula, as well as Thailand, Cochin-

China and Japan. The textiles of the Northern Coromandel that they exported

were mainly intended for the Indonesian Archipelago, a market which had been

a traditional stronghold of the indigenous trading groups.

The Dutch had acquired a major share of the spice trade from

here through exclusive contracts negotiated with the local rulers there. In 1643,

the English factors reported that the Dutch chief, Souri, had obtained the

privilege of sole trade at Tiku and Priaman from the Queen of Achin. 10 Though

they could not implement their monopsony in total, this onslaught on the

traditional markets serviced by the indigenous traders of the Northern

Coromandel was bound to have had a negative effect on the operations of the

latter. The Dutch conquest of Malacca in 1641 also had resulted in somewhat

diminishing the trade of the merchants from the Co roman del to that port. 11

. In order to control the textile trade of Coromandel to this region

and derive benefits from the same, they tried to attract these merchants to

Malacca to enhance its entrepot function,· failing which they adopted a policy

of issuing safe-conduct passes to reduce Coromandel shipping to Acheh and

through the Straits, in order to direct the trade to Malacca. The English factors

wrote in 1643, that trade was restricted at Achin owing to the Dutch who

'continually lurke in Malaca Streights and permitt not any to pass, under

pretence of paying custome there, and so enforce them for Mallaca'. They were

reported to have done so for some vessels of Arakan and Macassar bound for

10 E.F.l. 1642-45, p. 130 11 S. Arasaratnam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce ... pp. 117-119

216

Achin. They insinuated that the Dutch intention was to make Malacca 'the mart

of all those parts and enforce all trade thither' .12

This created adverse conditions for Coromandel shipping. For

instance, a ship of Mir Muhammad Sayid, the Mir Jumla of Golconda, was

seized off Perak and tin was unloaded from it as per the terms of the treaty with

the Malay rulers. 13 However, the Mir Jumla threatened reprisals against the

Dutch in Masulipatnam, which ensured him a compensation. From 1650

onwards, Dutch passes were provided at Coromandel ports on the condition

that the ships would call at Malacca first and pay a toll of 20%. The toll

charges were mostly absorbed by the Coromandel trade and often ships

managed to bypass Malacca, through altered routes, calling on other ports like

Johore and Kedah. In 1647, the English factors at Masulipatnam wrote that a

Masulipatnam junk had made a very profitable venture to Johore in 1646,

bypassing the Strait~ of Malacca. 14 Even in 1643, the English found it difficult

to procure a return cargo from Achin, due to the competition of the Bengal,

Masulipatnam and Pegu merchants. Thus, Masulipatnam shipping seems to

have continued to Achin despite the Dutch efforts to control that trade. Infact,

this citation points to the fact that in the competition created in the south-east

Asian markets by the increase in the number of participants in that trade, the

native merchants of Masulipatnam still had an edge over the Europeans. Thus,

the Dutch attempts to monopolize the export of Coromandel textiles could not

sustain and was no more than a brief interruption.

12 E.F.I. 1646-50, p. 131 13 Maritime India in the Seventeenth Century, Arasaratnam, p. 134 14 E.F.I. 1646-50, p. 89

217

In Acheh, the ruling Queen kept the port open to all traders in the

period between 1641-1675, 15 and as such Masulipatnam shipping to the port

continued despite the Dutch stronghold on Malacca, as can be made out by the

recurrent references to Masulipatnam shipping in the European records till as

late as the end of the 1670's. 16 The native ships intended for Achin in the

1680's are reported as mainly sailing from Fort St. George. It seems that the

merchants of the Coromandel had gradually shifted their overseas operations to

Fort St. George. The Dutch and English operations at Acheh would

undoubtedly have been an infringement on the market of the native

Coromandel merchants, who had serviced that market traditionally prior to the

arrival of the Europeans in that sector. In 1647, the English factors at

Masulipatnam resolved to divide the cargo intended for Achin in that year,

sending half of it to Johore for a trial, so that 'the market may not be overlaid'

at Achin. 17 Thus alr~ady the pressure of an increasing amount of participation

of the Europeans was being felt in the markets of Achin. The records of the

English in the succeeding period are replete with references to English shipping

to Achin, of the Company as well as on account of private individuals. The

effect of this, in conjunction with the trade of the Dutch in those areas, would

have created a lot of competition for the native merchants of the Coromandel

trading with Achin.

15 S. Arasaratnam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce ... p. 120 16 E.F.I. and R.F.S.G. D & C have references to Masulipatnam shipping to Acheh till atleast 1684. In the R.F.S.G. 1688, there is a sudden dearth of such references, in the immediate aftermath of the conquest of Golconda by the Mughals. R.F.S.G. 1684, p. 32 - 'A Moors Ship From Acheen arrived ... ';p. 38- 'The Duans (Divan's) Shipp at Acheen .. .', p. 123- A Country Vessel. .. sailed for A chin 17 E.F.I. 1646-50, p. 89

218

Yet the extent to which the Europeans ate into the share of Asian

trade is ambiguous. In the initial years it is clear that the native shipping of

Masulipatnam was unaffected by the growing participation of the Europeans, in

the sense that European participation did not reduce their share of trade. In

1628, the English factors at Masulipatnam wrote that 'the welth and welfare of

the kingdome of Golcondath doth consist in itts inland manyfactures, which

findes most or all his vent by sea transporte, shipped by the most parte by

Moores and the least parte by the Cristians;' .18

In the trade to West Asia too, the Europeans realised that the

native merchants of Golconda had a clear advantage for most of the

seventeenth century. In 1645, the English factors commented that they could

not recommend the trade of Gombroon, 'since no great profit may be expected

whilest so many Moores and other shipping so frequently resort thither, by

which means a commodity can no sooner be in any request but such vast

quantities are sudainly sent that it becomes of no esteem'. They noted that the

:ase with Mokha was also similar. 19 So till this time it appears that the major

part of the trade was still carried on by native merchants.

It may be feasible to assume that in this case, in the first half of

:he seventeenth century, some of the commodities carried by the Europeans to

~outh-east Asia would have been absorbed by a growing market even in these

!\sian ports during this period and inspite of the Dutch and to some extent the

8 E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 281 9 E.F.I. 1642-46, p. 208

219

English trade in these areas, Asian shipping seems to have continued along

with European, though the relative shares of the two are hard to quantify.

This can be inferred from references to the active commercial life

of the port of Masulipatnam in the first three-quarters of the seventeenth

century. In 1622, a great storm occurred at Masulipatnam and its adjoining

ports, and atleast 22 vessels were reported to have been cast away.20 In the

same year, the governor of Masulipatnam, Fatehullah Beg required passes for

his ships from the English which were issued. 21 The Mir Jumla was actively

trading in his various vessels in the 1660's, conveying his own goods as well as

freights of other merchants.22 In 1664, the English factors at Madras were

ordered not to allow any freight or private goods to Jambi or Bantam.23 Thus, it

seems many native merchants sent their goods as freight also on European

ships to South-east Asia. Masulipatnam was an extremely busy port till the late

1670's, which attracted very considerable shipping traffic from diverse regions.

In 1657, Christopher Hatton noted that the trade ofMasulipatnam

was in a very flourishing state with about 20 native ships plying between

various . destinations like Arakan, Pegu, Tenasserim, Junkceylon, Kedah,

Malacca, Johore, Achin, Mokha, Persia and the Maldive islands.24 Even as late

as the 1670s, indigenous shipping continued along with European shipping

from Masulipatnam. At the end ofDecember 1670, several ships were reported

to have anchored at Masulipatnam, which belonged to the English, the Dutch

20 E.F.I. 1661-1664, p. 145 21 E.F.I. 1661-64, p. 175 22 E.F.I. 1661-64, pp. 37, 40 23 E.F.I. 1661-64, p. 370 :

4 Strcynsham Master, II, p. 113

220

and local businessmen, and had arrived from different places. 25 Martin noted

that the merchants of Masulipatnam and the Europeans, excluding the French,

were busily dispatching vessels and carrying a profitable trade in Jan-May

1671.26 From August to October 1671, Martin noted that several ships from

diverse places had arrived, English ships from Europe, Dutch ships from

Batavia and ships belonging to local merchants. In 1673 Fryer reported that

locals had informed the English that the French had burnt 4 Moorish vessels

and captured four more in the Masulipatnam Road. 27 He also saw several

'Moorish' junks anchored under the protection of a poorly built mud bastion at

the entrance to Masulipatnam, which housed some 'great guns'. 28

In August 1676, Master reported that along with two English

ships, there were two Dutch ships, one of Robert Fleetwood, two of the King of

Siam, and five of the merchants of Masulipatnam in the road. So out of the

twelve ships in the Masulipatnam road at that time, only five were on account

of the Europeans, and seven were of the Asians, of which five belonged to the

merchants of Masulipatnam itself.29 In the same year he referred to four ships

in the Masulipatnam road, one belonging to the King of Golconda, one of an

English trader, one belonging to the Danes and a new ship of an Armenian

merchant.30 In August, 1679, he sighted a couple of Dutch vessels, one

belonging to a freeman, and three junks of Masulipatnam, on the Masulipatnam

25 Francois Fran~ois Martin, Vol. I, Part I, p.6 26 Francois Fran~ois Martin, Vol. I, Part I, p. 7 27 Fryer p. 79 28 Fryer p. 80 29 Streynsham Master, I, p. 244 30 Streynsham Master, II, p.94

221

road. 31 In January 1680, there were five Dutch ships, four 'others' and one

English ship on the Masulipatnam road. 32

There are many other such references which show that

indigenous shipping continued profitably despite the increasing participation of

European companies as well as of private European traders. In fact indigenous

shipping seemed to even surpass European shipping in the first half of the

seventeenth century. Further, indigenous traders often sent their goods as

freights on ships ofthe European Companies and European freemerchants, and

indigenous merchants often reciprocated freight services for a charge. In

January 1671, the merchants ofMasulipatnam were willing to allow the French

to charter their ships, or else, to freight goods for them. Martin wrote that

though the trade was flourishing at this time, the French were unable to avail of

the offer, as they were not stocked with money or provisions.33 In 1652, the

English factors at Masulipatnam had sent goods to Gombroon on a freighted

vessel, and owing to problems which occurred on the way back, they resolved

to try and revert to using their own ships· for the same. 34

We have continued reference to the continuance of Asian

shipping alongside that of the Europeans, throughout this period. However, the

problem of quantification of the extent of the displacement caused to the

traditional trading groups in these markets over a period of time, as well as the

extent of the expansion of the market during this period still remains. One can

31 Streynsham Master, II, p.l96 32 Streynsham Master, II, p. 380 33 Fran"ois Martin, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 6-7 34 E. F.!. I 65 I -54, p. 98

222

still get some idea from comparing the amount of Asian shipping that

continued along with European shipping along these routes.

Some sectors remained strongholds of the Asian merchants, like

Pegu and Arakan, which had been frequented by them extensively from

Masulipatnam from the closing decades of the sixteenth century and continued

so throughout the seventeenth century, inspite of the European Companies'

shipping from Masulipatnam to south-east Asia. In 1628, the English factors at

Masulipatnam wrote that "The Moores as yett stand of, thincking that nether

the Dutch nor wee can leave their cuntry; but surely the Dutch will shortly

bring them to what agreements they liste; elce must they loose there Pegue,

Achin &c. trads, which hath ben yerly for greate soms. "35 The trade to the

eastwards had been well established in the region and was, as mentioned in this

report of the English factors, a very profitable trade for the native merchants

and the Moors. The English confessed that they possessed little knowledge of

the Pegu and Arakan coasts, as late as 1674, these areas being still competently

serviced by the traditional native mercharits and Persians. 36

The Dutch and later the English had begun participating in the

coasting trade from Masulipatnam, as well, which had been a traditional

stronghold of the native merchants. In 1633, when the economy of Golconda

had been adversely affected by the famine that had pervaded most of the

subcontinent in the early years of the 1630's, the English considered the

exploration of the coasting trade from Masulipatnam to Orissa and Bengal.

35 E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 341 36 R.F.S.G. D & C 1672-78, p. 30

223

Interestingly, passing references imply that this trade had already been touched

upon by English private traders from Masulipatnam and its subordinate

factories. The President and Council at Surat advised the Coast factors to

consider the more judicious and profitable use of the English ships arriving

there, while waiting for the cargo to be prepared. They felt that the interlude

could be utilised by freighting goods of the native merchants to Tenasserim,

Pegu, etc., or else by sending goods on the Company's account to Bengal and

the Gingelly Coast.37

In all probability, the decrease in the share of the Asian traders in

the closing decades of the seventeenth century, in the overseas sector, would

have been to the Spice Islands etc., and the coasting trade still saw participation

from the native merchants from Masulipatnam. In 1682, the English factors at

Masulipatnam reported the departure of a Moor's ship for Tenasserim, and

shortly afterwards a ship of Mir Abdullah Baqir38 left for the same port.39

Further the English factors referred to the arrival of a ship of an Armenian from

Pegu to Masulipatnam in 1683, as well as the sailing ofMir Fakqruddin's ship

to the same port.40 Mir Fakruddin was described as an eminent merchant of

Masulipatnam who also sent a ship to Tenasserim in 1683, though through the

purchase of an English pass for the same.41 Similarly in 1683, there is reference

to the arrival of ships from Tenasserim ofthe King of Siam, 'Murgee Raja' and

37 E.F.I. 1630-33, pp. 300-301 38 This must have been a different Mir Abdullah Baqir, from the merchant magnate who had built the bridges at Masulipatnam, as the latter had already died by this time. 39 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, p. 7 40 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, p. 27, p. 33, p. 63 41 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, pp. 4, 63

224

the old Nawab.42 A list of the passes given to various ships from Fort St.

George in 1780 indicates that most of the ships plying to Achin, Quedah, Pegu,

Bantam, Manila and Persia seemed to be European ships, as the names of the

ships and their commanders indicate. The ships of the natives seemed to ply

only in the coasting trade, to Gingelly, Bengal and other ports and the

Coromandel Coast, like Masulipatnam and Madapollam from Fort St. George,

with a few of them going to Arakan, Jafmapatam, Yanam etc. The Europeans

also featured in the coasting trade. Only one ship of a native out of the twenty-

two mentioned in this list was mentioned as going to Achin. It was a ship

named Elihu and its nakhuda was Ibrahim Khan.43 The ship was going from

Fort St. George to Achin. Since all these ships obtained passes from the

English for their voyages, it is possible that there were some native vessels

which would have continued to sail without such passes and therefore have not

been mentioned in these records. But that is a matter of speculation.

The native shipping from the Coromandel Coast seemed to have

been reduced to coasting voyages in the Coromandel and the Bay of Bengal

region, touching upon Arakan as well, but the traditional trade to South-east

Asia, especially to Achin, had been taken over by the Europeans, and most of

the names of the ships as well as their commanders or owners indicates that it

were Europeans, whether on account of the Company, or, as was quite often the

case, on private account, who traversed these routes. Some amount of goods

were sent on these as freights of the natives, but the pre-eminence of the native

42 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83 p. 37 43 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, p. 76

225

merchants in this sector of trade had been irreversibly subjugated to the

operations of the English and Dutch Companies operating from their fortified

enclaves at Fort St. George and Pulicat/Negapatnam respectively, as well as by

European private traders.

The more frequent references to the Masulipatnam shipping in

the coasting trade in 1682 indicate that the ambit of the overseas trade from

Masulipatnam was increasingly being reduced to service area within the Bay of

Bengal region, in the coasting trade. Thus we have references to ships of the

King of Golconda, 'Cudjaobnus' (Khwaja Abdus?), Mir Abdullah Baqir, and

another Moor, sailing to Madapollam, Narsapur, and Bengal.44 There is

simultaneous reference to the ships of the English and the Dutch in the coasting

trade, though the ships of the English seem to have been of private traders.45 In

these years Masulipatnam shipping to Achin is not mentioned at all in the

English factory records. The trend continued in 1688, where there is a lack of

reference to Masulipatnam shipping to Achin. However, Masulipatnam

shipping to Mokha, Gombroon etc. seems to have been continuing fairly well at

this time, as the English factors at Masulipatnam complained in November

1682, that the curing of the Company's cloth was greatly delayed as the

washers and beaters had their hands full with the goods of 'severall Merchants'

of Masulipatnam bound for Mokha. 46

44 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, pp. 3, 7 45 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, p. 40 46 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, p. 17

226

The west Asian trade from the Northern Coromandel on the part

of the English began only from the 1630's. The first English ships intended to

Surat and Persia from Masulipatnam in 1632 were laden mostly with the freight

goods of Asian traders based in Masulipatnam and Bandar Abbas, and had

scarcely any cargo that could be attributed to the Company's account.47 It was

in the 1640's only that one could discern a fair cargo on account of the English

Company, when shipping from Masulipatnam and Madras to Surat and the

Persian Gulf continued. Even here, the English Company's cargo of about

20,000 to 25,000 rials was far below that of the Dutch exports to Persia, which

were about 40,000 rials.48 The limited nature of European shipping to Persia at

this time is also attributable to the activities of Persian traders based at

Masulipatnam, who were investing heavily in the voyages to the Persian Gulf.

We have references to Muhammad Sayid and others who were big merchants,

with considerable trading to Persia.49 Throughout the period from the early

1640's to the late 1660's the vessels of Mir Jumla were plying very profitably

to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea region, carrying his own goods as well as

goods and passengers from Golconda. Recurrent references to the

monopolising of all freighted goods and passengers bound for those ports by

the Mir Jumla, to the detriment of the English, who also engaged in the same

activities, clearly indicate this.

Thus, while we observe that the English and Dutch Companies,

on the one hand, had succeeded in developing a European market for

47 E.F.l. 1630-33, p. 236 48 E.F.I. 1642-45, p. 268 49 E.F.l. 1646-50, p. 243

227

Coromandel textiles, building upon the somewhat fragile foundations that had

been created in the early seventeenth century, they had relatively soon and

quite competently also acquired a substantial role in the trade of the

Coromandel textiles with south-east Asia. From the references above, it seems

that the displacement of the indigenous merchants in the trade to South-east

Asia occurred quite considerably in the latter half of the seventeenth century.

The trading circuits that the Golconda merchants continued to service were

those of West Asia as well as in the Bay of Bengal region.

Once again the question of the share of the Asian trading to these

markets comes up. As has been noted, the extensive trading links of

Masulipatnam with the Bay of Bengal, Acheh, Malay peninsular ports, Pegu

and Arakan had emerged in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, which

were extended to the Red Sea in the last decade ofthe same century. The ship­

owners of Masulipatnam operating in the westward cycle in this period were

principally the Persians, who were a commercial as well as political group.

They were not merely ship owners keenly participating in the overseas trade

from Masulipatnam, but they also held important positions in local

administration and court politics. These Persian merchants also partook in the

trade to the eastward cycle, in which other native merchants of Golconda also

participated, who were not Persians.

The Persian merchants were important not merely in the kingdom

of Golconda but also had important diplomatic relations in other partner trading

kingdoms like Arakan, Ayuthya and Persia. Further, there were participants in

228

this trade from the kingdoms that the trade routes serviced. So we have

references to the Sultan of Acheh, and the Kings of Arakan, Pegu and Siam

participating in the trade to Masulipatnam. The Sultan, Muhammad Quli Qutb

Shah of Golconda had his own ships plying in the overseas trade, though often

these ships mainly contained the commodities of his eminent Persian nobles,

trading in the 'King's ship'. The participation ofKings and high ranking nobles

in this trade must have had important implications for the diplomatic relations

between the trading countries.

In March and April 1627, ships of Mir Kasim and Mir

Muhammad Murad, Persian residents of Masulipatnam, arrived from Pegu. Mir

Muhammad Murad's ship carried a cargo of 300,000 Pagodas, or about

1,350,000 Dutch florins at the exchange rate then current. 50 This amount was

approximately equivalent to the entire investment of the Dutch in the

Coromandel at that time. Mir Abdullah Bakir was a prominent ship-owning

merchant magnate, who had been governor of Masulipatnam as well, credited

with the construction of the two bridges of Masulipatnam. He had his own

ships plying in the sea-borne trade. In 1675, the factors at Fort St. George

referred to Mirza Malik Kasim Beg, subedar ofHughly and Balasore, trading to

Gombroon/ Bandar Abbas in Persia, touching upon this coast. 51

Similarly, there were ships of other Asian merchants like Mir

Kamaluddin from Masulipatnam, Haji Baba, a Persian from Masulipatnam,

50 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Political Economy ofCommerce ... , p. 215

51 R.F.S.G. D & C 1672-78, pp. 43-44

229

resident at Mrauk-u in Arakan, of Achyutappa Chetti of Pulicat, of Alivardi

Khan trading to Acheh, and so on, which point to the fact that these Asian

traders were big operators in the overseas trade and were very affluent, and

mostly very influential in political matters as well.

The interactions of the Europeans with these merchants were not

only those of competitors operating in the same sphere, but were more

complex. Conflicting interests went hand in hand with co-operation, in terms of

freighting of goods on each others ships, issue of safe conduct passes and even

indigenous merchants mediating for the Europeans in negotiations etc. in the

political arena. As far as freighting and safe conduct passes were concerned,

these services were to be paid for and as such were business dealings. In 1683,

the English factors at Masulipatnam issued a pass to a Masulipatnam merchant,

Mir Fakruddin, for his ship bound for Tenasserim at the 'accustomary rate' of 3

pagodas.52 In 1675, the factors at Fort St. George referred to Mirza Malik

Kasim Beg, subedar of Hughly and Balasore, trading to Gombroon/ Bandar

Abbas in Persia, working out arrange~ents with the English. 53 The Europeans

fostered connections not only with the political elite of Golconda, but also of

partner trading regions, like Orissa in this case, as they were all inextricably

knit into the trading system ofthe Indian Ocean.

~ile there are many instances of the Europeans freighting goods

of native merchants and Persian merchants, on board their vessels, there are

fewer instances of the Asians freighting European goods. In the latter case it

52 R.F.S.G. Masulipatam Consultation Book of 1682-83, p. 63 53 R.F.S.G. D & C 1672-78, pp. 43-44

230

seems that this was because it were more the European private traders

freighting their goods on native vessels, as the Companies had their own

vessels for their trade.

The Company sent instructions to the Agent and Council at Fort

St. George to endeavour to prevent English ships and merchants 'from carrying

Mores & Gentus to the South Seas etc. which gives them such insight into trade

that in time they will spoyle the English'.54 To this the Agent and Council

replied that the remedy for this did not rest in their power but rather by force of

those in the government as an instance of William Alley upon the ship

Indulgence at Masulipatnam and others at Bantam showed. The factors noted

that at this time apart from the English, the Dutch and the Portuguese, native

merchants as well as merchants from many nationalities, like "Danes,

Spanyiards, ffrench, Armenians, Indostans, Bengalers, Visapores, Mores,

Gentus and, Mallabaris of this Coast, Javas Chineses, Mallayas, Syamers etc .

.. . . . .. as also Tonquiners, Cochinchers etc.", "all drive those trades free and

uncontrolled" as did freemen. They confessed their inability to inhibit the trade

of all these diverse merchants and freemen, as apart from the fact that only the

rulers of the region had the power to do so, most of these had been operating on

the seas before the arrival of the Company. 55

Once again on the issue of freighting, in July 1678, the Agent and

Council at Fort St. George were enquired by the Company about there being

more goods on board the ships than enlisted. They ordered a detailed list to be

54 R.F.S.G. D & Cl672-78, p. 83 55 R.F.S.G. D & Cl672~78, p. 84

231

drawn up of such goods, the names of the laders and to whom the consignment

was due, and an account of what they carried to and from the Bay, to which the

Agent and Council said it was not possible to comply with, as among other

things, such a practice would retard the timely dispatch of ships, and also cause

great heartburn between those on the shore and those on the ships, a thing

never practiced anywhere in India, whether on this Coast or on the Bay, or at

Surat, or Swally, Bombay nor Bantam, either by the English or by the

Princes/Governors of these places, and no concern was taken of goods landed

out of the Company's ships except for what were the Company's goods.

Further they felt that such actions of keeping records of all goods apart from

the Company's on these ships might incur similar actions by the Princes and

governors of these places upon the English as well, implying that the

Company's goods and business would then be open to similar scrutiny. So they

said that it was not possible to implement the Company's order in this respect.

They replied that the freighted goods between the Coast and the

Bay were already taken care of by the Company's directive of July 1677,1hese

rates were fixed as 30 shillings per tonne to the Bay, and£ 3 per tonne on the

way back, for English Company servants; freemen, and "strangers" were to pay

double the rate as was practiced in England, and for their passage 5 pagodas

per head. The Council found out that the Portuguese and Dutch freemen's ships

and others undertook freights at lower rates, and so the Company might lose

out on profits from freighting goods between the Coast and the Bay. It was then

decided to review the rates of freights, changing them from those given by the

232

Company, stated earlier here, to rates which would seem fit by the Agent and

Council or the Chief and Council at other places. 56

Another area of cooperation was in the system of granting passes

for safe conduct to shipping from Northern Coromandel to Persia and the Red

Sea. The English had been given the responsibility of ensuring protection to

indigenous shipping to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea by the Sultan, earlier in

the seventeenth century. And even in 1678, we hear from the factors about a

ship from Masulipatnam to Persia requiring a pass from the English, the Chief

and Council were to grant the pass in accordance with the rules prescribed by

the Agent and Council for the same and to grant a pass if the ship or any other

ship were to touch Fort St. George, within the limits ofthe Company's orders. 57

Likewise, in December 1678, the Agent and Council at Fort St. George

received a letter from Nawab Mahmud Ibrahim at Golconda earnestly desiring

a pilot for a ship bearing the King's name, bound from Masulipatnam to

Persia. 58

In the context of granting ·passes, it was resolved by the Agent

and Council at Fort St. George that the Commanders of all the Company's

ships were to have orders that if they should meet any Englishmen navigating

any vessel or ship of the Moores, Mughals, Armenians, Banyans, Gentues or

other Natives of India that are not Christians, and those that have no passes of

the Company from the President, Agents, Chiefs and Councils, in India,

licensing such navigation, that such personls should be brought out of that

56 R.F.S.G. D & C 1678-79, pp. 87-88 57 R.F.S.G. D & C1678-79 p. 146 58 R.F.S.G. D & C 1678-79 p. 148

233

vessel/ship to Fort St. George to be made to answer to the charge of contempt

of the Royal Charter and the Company's orders. 59

In 1680, an Englishman named Downing was reported to have

taken employment under the King, at Golconda, to pilot his ship from

Masulipatnam to Persia for an annual salary of 500 pagodas. Master informed

Darya Khan, the concerned official that such an employment was undesirable

on two counts. The first was that the King of England forbade any English

citizens from serving in the government of any other country. The second

reason was that such freemen seeking employment with the Kings and

governments of other nations were generally runaways and were untrustworthy.

Master cited the example of an incident, two years ago, in which a freeman ran

away with money taken from a ship of the King of Bantam. The Agent further

warned Darya Khan that if any undesirable consequences resulted from this

employment, that the English Company would not be responsible for the same

to the Nawab or the King. He wanted that Downing should be removed from

the ship and a letter sent to the King or the Nawab informing them of the

position of the English Company in this regard. Darya Khan replied that the

ship was ready to sail with a Portuguese and a French pass, and to take away

the pilot at this stage would be very detrimental to the interests of the King and

the Nawab, and so the ship would sail with the same pilot.60

In January 1679, Hatton gave a pass for a ship belonging to the

King, which was leaving for Gombroon in charge of George Everard, a

59 R.F.S.G. D & C 1678-79, p. 89 60 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, p. 190

234

freeman at Masulipatnam. The latter, in order to avoid trouble with Golconda,

had obtained special permission from the Council to pilot the ship, though this

employment was against the Company's general orders prohibiting English

subjects from service under natives oflndia.61

It were not only the ships of the King or his nobility that obtained

passes or pilots from the Europeans. In a list drawn up of the vessels that were

given passes from Madras in 1678, two vessels from the Northern Coromandel

were mentioned, one named Chindadre Venaiaca, whose Tandell62 was Virapa,

bound from Narsapur, to Bimlipatam or Coanarra, and another was St. Mary,

the Commander, James Horner, bound to Achin and Kedah, from there to

Masulipatnam and back again to Madras. The fees for the passes were 3

pagodas for a ship and 1 Y2 for a vessel, for the safe passage of these ships to

their intended destinations. 63

On the other side of the mutual co-operation between European

Companies and indigenous merchants, the Europeans had many 'friends'

among the influential Persian merchants who helped them in gaining

concessiOns and access to the Sultan and court of Golconda. With such

merchants, the Europeans had dealings of both partnership and conflict at

different times. An instance in this case is Mir Kamaluddin, who was a

merchant magnate in the 1620's and 1630's operating from Masulipatnam. In

1633, the English factors at Gombroon reported the arrival of a ship of Mir

Kamaluddin from Masulipatnam, under Dutch protection, carrying some goods

61 E.F.I. 1678-84, pp. 100-101 62 Tandell was the equivalent of Commander in the native tongue. 63 R.F.S.G. D & C 1678-79.p. 169-170

235

and 'very many passengers'.64 His career graph outlined by Sanjay

Subrahmanyam65 shows the many undulations he had in terms of his relations

with the Europeans. Sometimes in partnership and sometimes in conflict, they

carried on trade simultaneously from Masulipatnam. When he shifted his base

to Persia, the Dutch factors wrote that he had bailed them out many a time

during troubles, and now they had no one they could rely on like him.

In 1630, the English factors at Masulipatnam mentioned that they

had borrowed 1,500 pagodas from 'their good friend Meirquimaldin' (Mir

Kamaluddin).66 They also asked the Surat factors to thank Mir Kamaluddin and

Khwaja Ali Razzaq for their assistance to the English factors at Masulipatnam.

The former had been helping them actively in their endeavour to obtain trading

concessions from the Golconda court. 67 Mir Kamaluddin had written to the

Golconda court when the governor of Masulipatnam overrode the agreement

between the governor of Petapuli (who was his subordinate), and the English,

to tranship goods from Petapuli at half the customs current at Masulipatnam, in

1630. The governor ofMasulipatnam ordered that the English goods should be

brought to Masulipatnam, and forbade their lading at Petapuli. During this

time, Mir Kamaluddin pleaded the case of the English at the Golconda court,

through letters sent through a pattamar, to allow the English to lade their goods

at Petapuli. 68

64 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 286 65 San jay Subrahmanyam, op cit, pp. 314-322 66 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 77 67 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 87 68 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 79

236

Further, in 1631, once again the English factors were facing

problems with the governor of Masulipatnam. This was on account of the

torture leading to the death of a native of Masulipatnam, by Henry Sill, who

was an English factor.at Masulipatnam69. This incident took place in a matter

regarding Sill's own private dealings, but the governor was enraged and the

English feared repercussions and the Company's business, as was generally

practiced. At this time, it were the 'manie well wishers of the English'

especially Mir Kamaluddin, who settled the matter by distributing 200 pagodas,

among 'the petty officers of justice', so that the letter which had been

forwarded to the King of Golconda, by the governor of Masulipatnam, was

recalled and another sent, in which the victim was insinuated as having

poisoned himself. 70 Mir Kamaluddin seems to have engaged in trade from

Masulipatnam to Surat and to the Persian Gulf region, and the English

conveyed their letter~ through him between Surat and Masulipatnam. 71

69 E.F.I. 1630-33, pp. 242-244, p. 321In 1632, in an enquiry of the private trade of Henry Sill, which was estimated to have amounted to about 80,000 rials, glimpses of the nature of dealings of the European private traders and the native merchants come through, which give important insights. Richard Hudson, one of the Masulipatnam factors, admitted to Thomas Colley at Petapuli, that an account existed between him and a merchant named Singarayya. Apparently, Hudson owed him some money on-account of his private trade. Hudson wrote to Colley that if Singarayya had mentioned his debt to anyone, especially to Cartwright, 'hee is a basse stinking slave', for he had not demanded it from Hudson himself. He further asked Colley to tell Singarayya to take in the remaining goods, which Hudson had 'only got on approval to pleasure a friend'. Hudson had found these goods overrated a hundred percent, and said that he would only accept some of them and return the rest. Among the other natives that Hudson had his dealings with, some mentioned here were Ananta, Narayana, and 'Growa Bramen'. The reference to percallaes and allejaes in the deal with Singarayya point to the fact that this private trade had the component of textiles too, which was forbidden by the Company for private trade. It is no wonder that Hudson was peeved with the fact that Singarayya had discussed his dealings with indiscretion. The following communications indicate that this private trade was not limited to Hudson only, and others like Emanuel Altham at Armagon, Richard Fitch and Thomas Woodson at Masulipatnam etc. had similar instructions for Colley at Petapuli, to provide them with some sort of cloth. Cartwright and Colley were also involved in this. The brahman 'Growa' or Guruva, featured in other references to private dealings of the English factors, one of them being in the recovery of money owed by him to Powell. 70 E.F.l. 1630-33, p. 167 71 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 109

237

Mir Kamaluddin was not the only merchant ofcourse, who helped

the English in their trading operations. References to other merchants also

indicates that the co-operation between native merchants and the Europeans

was a general trend and not an anomaly. In 1632, the English factors at Perala

near Vetapalemu, wrote to the Petapuli factors to seek the help of Mir

Hussain72 [Mir Hasan?] when their 'sangaree' had been confiscated by the

'morradores' and their passage over the river at Petapuli had been stopped.

They asked the Petapuli factors to ask Mir Hussain to provide a boat for the

transport of their goods over the bar to Petapuli, the charge for which they

would pay, and if he be unavailable at that time, then an application should be

made to the 'chiffest Moore there'. 73 Thus, the English sought the aid of the

privileged merchants of the region to aid them to overcome obstacles like

impediments to their passage of goods etc., whichever be the case, in the course

of their trading operations in the region.

Another example of such native mediators comes from the

English factors in April 1681. The English factors discussed the advice given to

them by Agha Jalal, the late governor of Masulipatnam, before he left for

Persia, that Hauckt Nuzzur Beague, the jeweller of the King of Golconda, was

a person in high esteem at the court and would be useful for the Company to

conduct their business in Golconda. 74 Thus the co-operation seems to have

worked both ways. If such influential merchants helped the European to gain

72 Later in 1633, the same Mir Hussain made a request for a small amount of 'stammell' from the English factors at Masulipatnam, which was granted to him. E.F .1. 1630-33, p. 281 73 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 234 74 R.F.S.G. D & C 1681, p. 17

238

concessions or favour at court, or else bail them out when in trouble with the

native authorities, the Europeans would extend to them protection for their

shipping to various destinations. The Mir Jumla was constantly remitted

customs and freight charges on goods which he sent on English ships. In 1654,

the English factors realised that if they were to point out to the Mir Jumla how

much the English share of the customs payable on his goods in Persia would

have amounted to in the previous year, had it not been remitted, he would most

likely have retorted by reminding them of how much the English would have to

pay at Masulipatnam, if they were liable to customs there in the same way as

the Dutch were. 75 Thus the concession worked both ways.

Indigenous merchants who operated from Masulipatnam often

acted as mediators between the Europeans and port authorities in times of

conflict. 76 They had their own vested interests to protect as well, as tensions

and conflicts affected all those who operated from the port. There are numerous

instances of the merchants mediating between the Europeans and the

administrators, to effect peace or gain concessions for the former, while

keeping the officials contented as well, as the interests of the merchants lay on

both sides.

One such instance was when Edward Winter had blockaded the

port of Masulipatnam following differences with the Governor, and finally a

conciliation was brought about between them, with the mediation of the

75 E.F.I. 1651-54, p. 154 76 Many more references attesting to this can be observed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of this thesis.

239

principal merchants of Masulipatnam.77 While they needed to be in the good

books of the officials to carry on their trade without hindrance, they also

benefited from the new opportunities created by the European trade which was

constantly expanding. Though they would have faced some amount of

competition from, say, the Dutch participation in the coastal and Southeast

Asian trade, which were their areas of operation, the trend of expanding

commerce would have accommodated the new entrants without causing a

major impact on the traditional participants. This would have applied to the

overseas trade from Masulipatnam in the first half of the seventeenth century

when the continuance of Asian shipping along with that of the Europeans

exemplifies this.

Apart from the co-operation and mediation offered by the

merchants of Golconda on many occasions, there are also references to the

contrary situation. In case the English offended these merchants or injured their

interests, the repercussions of the same on the English could be quite serious,

as most of these merchants were well connected and influential. One such

illustration of this is in 1637, when the Golconda merchants were disappointed

in the provision of an English ship for their freight goods and personal passage

from Masulipatnam to Persia. Some ofthem were oblivious to the explanations

and promises made by the English to pacify them. They were so offended that

they 'vented their mallice in all places of this Kings dominions where it might

most disturb ... ' the English. The result was that the English factors at

77 E.F.I. 1661-64, pp.172-176

240

Virasvaram faced severe consequences from the governors of the area. The

English factors and their native employees were attacked, and many of the

latter were most brutally slain.

The King was also displeased with the English at this time, on

reports that nine Persian horses had been brought by them and sold at Surat

instead ofMasulipatnam, in disregard of the stipulation in the 'Golden Farman'

of 1634. So when the English appealed to the King for redressal against the

damages at Virasvaram, he appointed the same governors who had perpetrated

the violence, to arbitrate in the matter, which was, ofcourse very prejudicial to

the English. 78

On the whole, though, there are more references to the co­

operation of the native merchants with the Europeans in various ways than

otherwise. Certain. implications of the overall positive inclination of the native

merchants towards the Europeans can be inferred through speculation. In this

context, the notion that the Asian markets of supply and demand were

expanding at this time, concomitant with the expansion in the number of

trading participants seems quite logical. It would, otherwise, seem rather

strange that the indigenous merchants of Golconda would actually mediate

conciliations for the Europeans with the native authorities, or else help them to

procure concessions from the King and other political personages, if they felt

that their trade was threatened by them and that the Europeans were displacing

them in their traditional commerce. Obviously, the indigenous merchants

78 E.F.I. 1637-41, PP. 27-30

241

would have derived sufficient advantages from the participation of the

European Companies in the trade of the region, to desire their continuance in

the region.

In 1628, when the English had temporarily abandoned

Masulipatnam due to the excesses of the governors ofMasulipatnam, they were

repeatedly coaxed by the 'great Governour and merchants of this place

(Masulipatnam)', to resettle their factory at Masulipatnam and re-establish their

trade from thence. The English factors attributed the reason for this that the

natives and authorities of Masulipatnam, 'whoe sollicited there retourne, would

have had with dilligence sollicited and procured for their owne good, as

security of their ships and goods at sea and benefit by trade with them on land

... '. 79 Similarly, on many occasions, through out the seventeenth century, upto

the late 1670's atleast, the indigenous merchants mediated between the local

authorities and the Europeans, to gain benefits for the latter, as has already

been observed in the case of Mir Kamaluddin and others. It would be unlikely

that they would continue to aid the Europeans if they perceived a serious threat

from them as to their own commercial operations.

The second factor of 'benefit by trade with them on land' could

also be an indication of the expansion in the market for Masulipatnam goods,

mainly textiles, which the operations of the Europeans would have created.80 It

were not merely the komati merchants who supplied the English with textiles

79 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 78 80 Other benefits of European trade to the native authorities and merchants on land would have been greater revenues generated, greater demand, greater degree of commercial transactions etc. Also see Chapter 6, p. 279-280 of this thesis.

242

and other goods, but the Muslim merchants and officials of Masulipatnam and

its vicinity also supplied to the Company and its private traders. Further, there

were many levels of traders and artisans who would have benefited from the

general expansion in the demand for goods from the region, along with those

catering to overseas trade oriented services like ship building and repairing etc.

The fact that the local authorities and natives 'sollicited' their return to

Masulipatnam, is itself indicative that the trade of the Europeans from there

would have benefited both the authorities and merchants of Masulipatnam, in

terms of revenues generated as well as profits from trade.

The first factor mentioned above, that of procuring safe conduct

passes was only one such factor that would have been an incentive to the native

mercantile communities. The Europeans were far more dependent on the native

authorities and merchants for their sustenance in that trade than the other way

around. So provision of safe conduct passes could have been worked out at the

level of the Europeans and the Court of Golconda itself, without the need for

the mediation of the merchants or local authorities, as it were the Europeans

who first had to seek permission to trade in the Golconda dominions, and not

the other way round that they were first invited to trade in the kingdom, like the

Persian merchants had been. It is true that once they sought such permission to

trade in Golconda, the King put the onus of providing safe passage on them, the

King of Golconda being in a position of strength in requiring them to do so, in

return for being allowed to trade in his domain.

243

Apparently, the merchants and passengers, who in any case paid

for their passage or freight, as the case may have been, did not consider this

service provided to them by the English as a favour. This can be inferred from

the disgruntled English factors at Gombroon in 1633, who., referring to the

'unthankfulness of the passengers', wished that they did not have to be troubled

further with them. However, they could not do so as the discontinuance of this

service of conveying goods and passengers to and from Persia would endanger

their loss of customs at Gombroon, as well as the favour that they had gained

with the people there, in carrying their goods and persons. 81 In 163 7, the

merchants of Golconda had prepared their goods to be freighted on an English

ship for Persia. They were disappointed when there was no ship available for

the same. However, this did not hinder their business as they were reported to

have conveyed their goods overland to Surat. The ill consequences of these

were for the English instead, as apart from losing out on the freight and

customs from these goods, their name was at that time 'odious, not onlie

amongst those of meaner quallitie but alsoe the greate ones, even to the Kinge

himselfe'.82 Further, the grant of safe conduct passes by Europeans did not

guarantee safety for the natives and on many occasions they still faced

depredations from other Europeans at sea, who were prone to disregarding such

passes. In 1647, a Masulipatnam junk returning from Gombroon ·had been

81 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 288 82 E.F.I. 1637-41, p. 27

244

robbed by two Portuguese vessels, inspite of the fact that the pass was

exhibited. 83

In some cases, the English had to forfeit the customs or freight

charges for certain of the esteemed merchants, if they were politically

significant. In 1633, the Gombroon factors reported that a merchant had

brought 500 bales of sugar and 30 bales of cloth, as goods of the ambassador of

the King of Persia in India, and so the English factors resigned themselves to

the fact that they would not get a 'farthinge' from him for customs.84 In 1637,

the English factors at Masulipatnam instructed the Surat factors that the

Sarkhail's sugar was to pass freight free to Gombroon.85 The example of the

Mir Jumla in this regard has already been cited above. Inspite of the freight

services offered by the English to Persia, native shipping from Masulipatnam

continued alongside, as can be made out by references to the same. In 1633, a

couple of English ships left from Gombroon in the Company of a

Masulipatnam ship from there. 86

It were mainly the smaller chieftains, like the Nayaks of Tanjore,

Pondicherry and Madraspattam, who actually invited the Europeans to trade in

their dominions. These Nayaks were not in a strong political position

themselves, with regard to their territories which had been usurped from the

rulers of the region. These smaller chiefs were keen on inviting the Europeans

83 E.F.I. 1646-50, p. 124 84 E.F.I. 1630-33, pp. 288-289. It was apparently the same Persian ambassador, who had taken passage in the English ship to Persia, who advised the English that English cloth of£ I 8 or£ 20 a cloth would sell at the court of Golconda. See page 296 of the same volume ofE.F.I. 8

' E.F.I. 1637-41, P. 30. Mir Muhammad Sayid Ardistani was the Sarkhel in 1637. See History ofthe Qutb Shahi Dynasty, H.K. Sherwani, p. 456 86 E. F. I. 1630-33, p 304

245

to their territories for the settlement of trade there, with fortified enclaves, as

they envisaged benefits accruing to them through fortifications in their

uncertain political atmosphere as well as a stronger economic position from

gains through customs and revenues generated in their territory.87

In the matter of providing safe conduct passes or freighting goods

for the native merchants, the benefits accrued not only to the natives, but also

to the Europeans, as these were paid services. So it was a mutually symbiotic

relationship, which the Europeans perceived as beneficial to themselves too,

and so it would amount to assigning exaggerated importance to the extent of

dependence of the native merchants on the Europeans for the safe passage of

their goods to Persia etc.

In 1632, the English factors at Gombroon wrote that the

'fathering of Moor~' and Banyans' goods' needed to be looked into as it

resulted in the loss of customs due to the English Company at Gombroon. This

also endangered their privileges there, if the Shah of Persia discovered that the

English were colouring the goods of the natives as their own, thus defrauding

him of the customs due to him at that port. They further wrote that the

'Transportt of merchants too and againe from this port is the principall bonnd

of the customes unto us; when wee faile therin, wee may then doubt the

continuance theroff. Base and meane people, that carry little or noe goods, may

bee avoided, as not beneficiall neither to the Chon or our Company. The better

87 E.F.I. 1622-23, pp. 337-338; E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 121; E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 121, p. 133; .F.!. 1624-1629, p. 200, 200n; E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 343; 87 E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 132, p. 347; 87 E.F.I. 1624-1629, p. 41, E. F.!. 1637-41, pp. 183-184. These have been discussed in Chapter I of this thesis.

246

sort of merchants produceth profitt to both, and doth add favor and reputacion

to our nation amoungest these people'. 88 Thus it is clear that freighting of

native passengers and their goods was a beneficial proposition to the Europeans

too.

The Europeans recounted the profits of freighting goods of the

natives to Persia as being a factor important enough to justify the continuance

of their factory there, and added that the freighting of goods of the esteemed

merchants added to their own esteem, apart from the remuneration they

received in the form of customs. This was because the English had gained a

share in the customs at the port of Gombroon, after the aid they had extended to

the Shah of Persia in recapturing Ormuz from the Portuguese in 1622.

In 1632, when the English shipping from Masulipatnam consisted

only of freighte~ goods of Masulipatnam merchants as ·well as native

passengers from thence, Captain Slade gave details of the freight and

passengers, as being 400-500 parcels of goods and about 130 passengers. The

passengers paid 20 rials of eight per head while the fright charges were 16% of

the customs house valuation of the goods. In total 8000 rials had been received

by the English. Captain Slade was of the opinion that this would prove more

beneficial in course of time, especially if the Moors were given sufficient

notice. He also considered it an advantageous proposition for the Company to

send goods from Masulipatnam to Persia on its own account. 89

88 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 2ll 89 E.F.l. 1630-33, pp. 236-237

247

Apart from the freight charges as well as charges paid by the

passengers, the English would have also derived from the customs paid by

these passengers at Gombroon. The English factors at Gombroon wrote in 1632

that the freight and customs together would yield the Company nearly£ 3000,

so that the Masulipatnam trade to Persia would prove better than Surat both for

trade of shipping and return of merchandise. 90 They wrote that the charges for

customs at Surat were much higher, and so the trade from Masulipatnam was a

more profitable proposition. They speculated that through merely freighting

goods and customs due to the English, they could easily gain£ 10,000 a year,

in just two ships, advocating this trade to be very beneficial 'and worthy your

embracement' .91 In 1633, the English factors at Masulipatnam wrote that the

ship Swan, was 'full up with Moors' goods' for Persia92 and a later

communication informed that even before the ship for Persia had reached

Masulipatnam, a freight worth about £ 7000 had been committed for. 93

Considering the small amounts of investments that the English made at

Masulipatnam at this time, this amount was quite an incentive for them.

In the context of the preference to be given to the 'better sort of

merchants' in the freighting of goods94, there are references to many of the

native authorities of Golconda freighting their goods on English ships to Persia.

In 1633, the governor ofPetapuli notified the English that he proposed to send

90 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 239 91 E.F.I. 1630-33, pp 239-240 92 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 306 93 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 279 94 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 211 'The better sort of merchants produceth profitt to both, and doth add favor and reputacion to our nation amoungest these people'

248

30-40 bales along with 15-16 persons to Persia in that year on their shipping,

claiming that his freight would exceed all others.95 Similar examples of the

English freighting goods from Masulipatnam to Persia, of the higher class of

merchants, nobility as well as the King of Golconda, have been cited in the

above discussion.

Thus, as argued earlier, obtaining of safe passage of ships or

freighting of goods was not a sufficient factor for the native merchants or local

authorities to be dependent on the Europeans, if they considered the latter to be

a threat to them in their share of trade, or were adversely affected by the

European trade in the traditional sectors of trade to the extent of their

displacement from their source of livelihood and profit. So the equation

between the Europeans and the native mercantile communities in the initial

decades of the seventeenth century appears to be tilted in favour of the natives

rather than the Europeans, and this general trend seems to have continued at

least till the 1660's and 1670's, as there are recurrent references to the

continued shipping of the Asian merchants along with that of the Europeans

from Masulipatnam. However, as noted in this discussion, the operations of the

indigenous merchants of Masulipatnam in the overseas trade showed a decline

in the latter half of the seventeenth century, particularly in the 1680's when

references to their ships plying in their traditional sector of trade with South­

east Asia are scarce or absent.

95 E.F.I. 1630-33, pp. 266-267

249

I I

•

~~ f • • r : ··.:· ... ·. L l,'l

\ ,\ ' •f ' ,. I "'

I

' . ' ·.· .·· .

·' , -~ f :

; A

T

I . ---------, I - - -

II I

Procurement of textiles through contracts with merchants

The effect of the Europeans on the merchants trading on the

overseas routes has been discussed to some extent. Another aspect of the

interactions of the Europeans with indigenous mercantile communities is with

respect to the merchants who operated between the producing hinterland and

the ports, through whom the Europeans contracted the goods they sought for

their lucrative trade. Such merchants were indispensable to the European

Companies as the latter could never even hope to procure the quantities and

types of textiles needed in time for their shipping schedules, on their own, as it

were these merchants who were well entrenched in the system of procurement

of textiles through advance contracts given out to weavers and smaller

merchants. Hence a discussion of the procurement methods of textiles by the

Europeans deserves mention here, shqwing their various dealings with this

category of indigenous merchants, mainly the Komatis.

The European companies had evolved detailed methods of

procuring textiles from Masulipatnam and its neighbourhood, utilizing the

established indigenous network of commercial operations. The general method

of procurement of textiles by the European companies involved the system of

contracts with a group of merchants, though contracts with individual

merchants were also made. The latter method was mainly intended to augment

the procurement of textiles through the former one.

The Company factors would receive detailed lists of the

quantities and varieties of textiles required from the Court of Committees, or

250

from the headquarters under which the factory fell. The factors would then

proceed to contract with merchants after settling prices on the basis of musters

of the different types of cloth required. Orders were then placed with the

merchants to procure the same, after paying them some amount of the total in

advance. This was usually one-third or half of the total amount contracted for.

These merchants would further distribute the money as advances to smaller

merchant middle-men, who would then give it out to the weavers, or else they

would directly deal with the weavers.

Generally about half the money had to be paid in advance to

ensure the procurement of the entire quantity contracted for. Further, the bigger

Komatis would often contract for more than the specified quantity of textiles to

ensure the delivery of the required quantity, as shortfalls could occur owing to

the high demand for textiles. For instance, the Company's chief merchants at

Fort St. George, Casa Verona, stated that if he had to procure calicoes worth

Pagodas 200,000, he had to arrange to give out contracts for about Pagodas

100,000 more, to leave room for shortfalls, else the Dutch would carry away

the weavers and the cloth, leaving Casa Verona and the English Company high

and dry.96

When the deliveries were made, the cloth was first subject to

thorough inspection in the 'sorting' process, to ensure compliance with the

musters agreed · upon, and after that the rest of the money was paid to the

merchants. In case of any shortfall in the deliveries in terms of quality, length,

96 R.F.S.G. D & C 1672-78, p. 74

251

breadth, quantity etc. deductions were made from the amount due to the

merchants.97 Besides, care had to be taken to place orders with, and advance

money to trustworthy merchants as delays in deliveries as also cases of bad

debts were not uncommon. In 1624, the English factors commented that in

Masulipatnam it was common to trust the Komatis.98

Bad debts were often caused by defaulting weavers and painters

who failed to deliver the goods once the advance had been paid. The English

factors wrote in 1622, that perhaps the merchants were justified in their

demand for better returns since they were responsible for the money advanced

to the artisans, "which oftentymes payes them with a farwell. "99

The companies also sent their own factors and agents m the

interiors to procure cloth directly from the weavers, but the advantages of the

contract system Olftweighed those of direct procurement. The wide dispersion

of the weavers in inland villages, the need for standardization and compliance

with the quantities required and time-schedules of shipping, as well as the

problems of transit duties and stoppage at various points of transit were

considerations which were responsible for the dependence of the Europeans on

brokers and middlemen for the procurement of goods. The English factors

wrote in 1622 that if the English had to deal directly with the weavers and

painters, "att the yeares end, when wee expected to be invested of our goods,

wee should undoubtedlye come short of half our quantitye, besides undergoe a

97 Some examples of these can be seen in references in Streynsham Master, Vol. II, pp. I 01-102, I 07-108. 98 E.F.I. 1624-29, pp. 8-9 99 E.F.I. 1622-23, p. 104

252

hazard of their running away wher ther were no hope for us to fynd them out or

recover our monies."100 In 1622, the English factors wrote that they had

delivered out on contract 3000 pagodas, and the remaining 1000 pagodas were

to be given out to the Komatis of Dhulipaullla, a weaving settlement in the

interior of the Krishna district. 101 They, however, realized that dealings with the

smaller merchants made them better acquainted with the market. 102

In the context of the Company factors directly procuring textiles

from the weaving centres, an aspect which comes to light is that of the private

trade of the English factors. The textiles procurement missions of many of the

English factors resulted in their establishing direct relations with either the

artisans or else smaller komatis in textiles producing centres. Many of the

English factors in places like Petapuli, Madapollam, and other places were

heavily involved in private trade in textiles, as can be inferred from the subtle

hints pointing to the same in their correspondence. The private trade of the

English factors in commodities such as textiles was thought to be detrimental to

the interests of the Company. But an indirect fallout of this was that the English

factors became better acquainted with the textile producing areas, weavers and

merchants, through their private negotiations, which also aided them in the

more profitable procurement of textiles for the Company. This is exemplified

by an episode in 1676, regarding George Chamberlain.

100 E.F.I. 1622-23, p. 104 101 E.F.I. 1622-23, p. 135 102 E.F.l. 1624-29, p. 9

253

George Chamberlain was ordered to take 5000 pagodas for

investment in langeloth and sallempores at Makkapet and its adjacent areas in

August 1676. In November, the same year, George Chamberlain returned 2750

pagodas, on the pretext that the cloth which was prepared for the Company in

those parts was unsatisfactory, and that there was not enough time to contract

afresh for the lading of the Company's ships. He claimed that some merchants

had given him hope of providing him cloth to the amount of 1100 pagodas a

little later. The balance of 2250 pagodas was dispensed by him in a suspicious

manner. He claimed that his charges for the venture were 250 pagodas, and the

remaining 2000 pagodas had been given to a shroff at Makkapet. He was

unable to produce any bills to justify his claims. 103 When he was ordered to

return the Company's money with immediate effect, he gave an assurance that

he would do so, given a little time.

At this time, the English factors at Masulipatnam were anxiously

in need of quantities of ordinary langeloth and sallempores, being 'which sorts

of cloth they have allwayes mett with the greatest difficultyes every Y eare

falling considerably short of the quantities required ... ' .104 At this time, George

Chamberlain, offered to provide ordinary longcloth and sallempores in

accordance with the Company's musters to the value ofthe sum demanded of

him, which he delivered as promised. 105 Thus when the Company's factors

were unable to get any ordinary varieties longcloth and sallempores in time for

103 Metchlepatnam Consultation Booke for England, December 1675 to January 1677, pp. 54-57 104 Metchlepatnam Consultation Booke for England, December 1675 to January 1677, p. 59 105 Metchlepatnam Consultation Booke for England, December 1675 to January 1677, pp. 62, 70

254

their ships, George Chamberlain managed to get the same, through his own

means.

When the English had better experience in the Coromandel, they

preferred to give out contracts to merchants and send their factors in the

interiors to supervise the provision of goods. One such instance is when the

Company had ordered large quantities of langeloth, salempores, etc. from

Masulipatnam for the years 1676 and 1677, Master had dispatched factors to

Madapollam and Nagalavancha to obtain the desired goods. The factors went

up to interior places in the vicinity of Nagalavancha, like Nawabpet, Jujur,

Buyyavarum, Vipparla etc. to procure the said goods form the weavers

directly. 106 However, the chief method of procurement was through merchants,

especially the Komati merchants, dispersed throughout the textile producing

areas.

Master recorded some very detailed accounts of the negotiations

with merchants of important textile procurement towns like Masulipatnam,

Petapuli and Madapollam, in the 1670s. In 1676, the Company ordered large

amounts of textiles from the Coromandel Coast, for that year and the next.

Ordinary langeloth and salempores were the most in demand by the Company

for England, and they were the most difficult to procure, owing to the large

quantities required. 107The merchants of Masulipatnam, in 1676, were reluctant

to contract for ordinary langeloth and salempores, and demanded higher prices

106 Streynsham Master, I, p. 268 and 268n 107 Streynsham Master, I, p. 275

255

than the previous year for the finer varieties, and it was after much consultation

that they 'condescended' to accept some orders.

The goods contracted for amounted to 36,221 pagodas,

compnsmg of fine salempores, fine percallaes, Izarre ginghams, Oringall

bethiles, allejaes and sallos of Golconda. The merchants were to be paid half

the sum in advance and the remaining after the delivery and assortment of the

goods108 The Masulipatnam factors were then compelled to procure a large

quantity of the rest of the required goods from Madapollam and Nagalavancha,

for the cargoes to be provided for 1676 and 1677. The factors contracted for the

goods at Madapollam at a 13% discount. 109 In Nagalavancha, however, the

Dutch hindered their negotiations with the weavers, and the factors then

procured the goods from the neighbouring areas of Nawabpet, Jujur, Gosavidu

[?], Buyyavarum and Vipparla, from their small settlement at Makkapet. 110

Similarly in 1682, when the Masulipatnam factors wanted to increase the

quantity of goods already contracted for and add to the order two other types of

textiles, the merchants were quite non-committal in their attitude, that they

would try to get greater quantities, but would not guarantee the same. 111

In 1679, the Petapuli merchants made a desperate attempt to woo

the English to resume their factory at Petapuli, offering not merely lower rates

than at Masulipatnam, but also willing to take orders without prior cash

advances, which could be paid only after the delivery of goods. They were

108 Streynsham Master, I, pp. 271-272 109 Streynsham Master, I, p. 276 110 Streynsham Master, I, pp. 265-268 111 R.F.S.G. D & Cl682-83, Masulipatnam Consultation Book, p.l

256

called to Masulipatnam with their musters, some of which were, however,

found to be inferior to those of Masulipatnam. They were prepared to adapt to

the Masulipatnam musters, and were willing to take orders amounting to

40,000 or 50,000 pagodas, in salempores, percallaes, lzarees, allejaes,

saderunches, saserguntes, collewaypoos and romalls, at 10% cheaper than at

Masulipatnam, on the condition that a half or a quarter of the money would be

paid in advance, and the goods would be delivered at Petapuli. 112 However,

these efforts of the Petapuli merchants caused concern to their counterparts in

Masulipatnam, and before the contract could be finalized, the Masulipatnam

merchants hastened to the English factors to take the contract to keep the

Petapuli merchants from getting it. The offer of the Petapuli merchants,

however, had the effect of lowering the prices quoted by the Masulipatnam

merchants. 113

Negotiations were effected by the English factors with the

merchants ofMasulipatnam and Madapollam114, which were carried out along

similar lines. The names of the merchants in the contracts indicate that they

were Hindu merchants. Master concluded a joint liability contract with eleven

merchants of Masulipatnam. 115 The investment was divided into 84 shares

distributed among 11 principal merchants who were responsible for smaller

merchants under them. This had the advantage of giving a collective

responsibility to the group which would safeguard the Company against losses

112 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, pp. 86-88; Streynsham Master II, pp. 141-144, Also E.F.I. 1678-84, p. 103 113 E.F.I. 1678-84, pp. I 03-104 114 Streynsham Master, II, pp.l44-151, pp.l62-169, pp.374-378 115 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, pp. 89-90; Streynsham Master II, pp.l44-151

257

on account of delays, deficiencies in quantity or quality of the deliveries, etc.,

which were frequently encountered. In this case the merchants gave a whole lot

of concessions to the Company in order to keep the Petapuli merchants from

dealing with the Company as the latter had proposed to supply the Company at

10% cheaper rates than those at Masulipatnam. The Masulipatnam merchants

even agreed to a discount of 7Y2% on several varieties of textiles viz. fine

salempores, percallaes, Izarees, Oringall bethiles, allejaes, saderunches,

saserguntes, collewaypoos, romalls, dungarees and sail cloth. The Company's

dubash, Kola Venkatadri, further reduced this to 8%. 116 The Madapollam

merchants were also pressed to make similar abatements of 8%, by the English

factors, but, after much debate, they only agreed to do so on the fine calicoes,

adhering to the rates of 1678 for the coarse calicoes like langeloth etc. 117

The eagerness of the Masulipatnam merchants to deal with the

Company here is in contrast to an earlier dealing in 1675-76 when they were

refusing to take orders for coarse goods, and were demanding higher prices for

the finer ones, and had to be coaxed into the contract. 118 Other details of the

contract were its continuance for several years to come which gave the

advantage to the Company of assuring a fixed and regular supply of goods, and

for the merchants, it would balance out the differences in profits in good and

bad years. This contract of 1679 was taken as a reference point in the later

years to come as well, as the group of merchants, referred to as Madala

Cundapa & Co. by the English factors, seem to have become the regular

116 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, pp. 88-89 117 E.F.I. 1678-84, p. 104 118 Streynsham Master, I, p.8, p. 265

258

merchants of the English Company at Masulipatnam. 119 In 1682, these

merchants were averse to the English factors forcing English goods on them to

adjust the payment of the textiles contracted for. They reminded the English

factors that the contract stipulated that on the abatement of 8%, they would be

paid the full amount in cash and no part would be paid in goods. 120

The contract brought out other points such as the preference of

merchants to stick to their own areas of specialization. The Masulipatnam and

Madapollam merchants complained that the assignment of orders of cloth

available in the environs of Madapollam merchants to the Masulipatnam

merchants and vice versa, had led to a rise in prices to their detriment. Hence,

they preferred that the Company should keep in mind this aspect when

allocating orders to merchants. 121 This also applied to weavers specialising in a

particular type of cloth as the English factors at Masulipatnam mentioned in

1676 that weavers producing fme cloth would not take orders for ordinary

langeloth and sallempores as it was considered less advantageous to them. 122

Further, even though the contract sought to penalize non-

compliance with punctuality, quantity and quality of the goods ordered,

through abatements in prices, in times of natural calamities or other disruptive

factors like wars and obstruction by havaldars, governors, etc., beyond the

control of the merchants, allowances were to be made to the merchants.

Therefore, the English factors agreed to write off the abatement of 4% of the

119 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, p. 89 120 Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682-83, p. 10 121 E.F.I. 1678-84, p. 102, R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, pp. 89-92 122 Metchlepatnam Consultation Booke for England, December 1675 to January 1677, p. 59

259

8% that the merchants of Masulipatnam had agreed to, when the tempest of

October 1679 had caused huge losses to them. 123

In June 1675, the Fort St. George Agent and Council complained

along with their chief merchants, of the great losses suffered by the merchants

in the procurement of cloth, due to wars and discord in the countryside, prices

being hard driven, scarcity of cotton and weavers, due to the misgovernment of

the kingdom, being left by the King in the hands of "Brahmanys, a Generation

never to be Satisfyed or relyed upon", given to continuous extortion, whereby

the merchants were reluctant to take big contracts, especially at rates agreed

upon in the previous year, though they finally did so. 124

However, in September, the same year, Edward Herrys

commenting on the inferiority of the cloth in the last few years noted that

regarding the possibility of obtaining quantities of textiles required for

shipping, "which is worse the evill increaseth, for the merchants seem strangely

discouraged in their proceedings, saying that the unusuall and unheard of

irregularitys now permitted and acted in this country makes them dread to

remember the contract ... " with the Company. 125 Even though the merchants

blamed the disruption in the countryside on the inferiority of the cloth

compared to the musters, Edward Herrys noted that the cloth procured by

himself was always of a better quality than that of the merchants, which had

been the case for the past few years. 126 Casa Verona resolved to rectify this and

123 Streynsham Master, II, p.384 124 R.F.S.G. D & CI672-78, p. 70 125 R.F.S.G. D & CI672-78, p. 73 126 R.F.S.G. D & Cl672-78, p. 73

260

send his own servants to supervise the manufacture of the cloth by the weavers

contracted by these merchants, to which the merchants took offence. 127

The Agent and Council noting the customary way of procurement

of textiles in Coromandel as well as in Gujarat and the Bay, observed that the

norm was to make advance payments to the merchants, for the ensured delivery

of the quantities, types and qualities of the textiles needed for timely shipment

on the Company's ships, pointing out that "without which course, it had been

impossible for their Merchants here to have made such suddain and great

investments, as have been yearely made for them in this and the last

Agency." 128 Here the context was that though Casa Verona had had good and

fair dealings with them for long in the past, of late, the poorness of the cloth

being supplied, was prompting them to look to other merchants to contract

with, for which they sought permission from the Company. 129

Thus dealings through local merchants were indispensable to the

companies, and even when they adopted other methods of either sending agents

inland or farming out weaving centres, as the Dutch did in Palakollu, or

inducing weaver settlements within their settlements, they did not abandon the

method of contracts. The local expertise of the native merchants and their

traditional systems of operation gave them advantages that made them

indispensable to the companies' trading operations.

127 R.F.S.G. D & Cl672-78, p. 74 128 R.F.S.G. D & Cl672-78, p. 75 129 R.F.S.G. D & Cl672-78, p. 75

261

The dealings of the Europeans with the komati merchants also

throws light on the impact of the European Companies' trade on the economy

of the region. This is significant keeping in mind that it is hard to get

quantitative data for the same. The English factors at Masulipatnam constantly

complained of the shortage of ordinary varieties of longcloth and sallempores,

particularly in the 1670's and the first half of the 1780's. This was the period

when their demands for Coromandel textiles had reached unprecedented levels.

At the same time, the Dutch Company was also investing great sums in the

Coromandel textiles through the Masulipatnam group of merchants referred to

as 'Ocula acharr & Anum', who were the textiles merchants of the Dutch at

Masulipatnam. 130

In 1678, the comparative costs of goods laden on English ships at

Fort St. George, Masulipatnam and from the Bay factories were 1,87,795

pagodas or£ 84,507; 1,37,293 pagodas or£ 61,781; and 1,96,337 pagodas or£

88, 351 respectively. 131 The stock intended for Masulipatnam in 1679 was

1,00,000 pagodas, especially for long~loth and sallempores. 132 This was later

increased to 1,10,000 pagodas for the same year. 133 In 1680, the goods laden by

the English from Fort St. George were to the amount of 1,54,020 pagodas, and

those from Masulipatnam and Madapollam together were 1, 19, 695 pagodas

(64, 730 pagodas and 54, 964 pagodas respectively). 134 In the years 1682-83,

130 Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682-83, p. 27 131 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, p. 13; The exchange value being taken as I pagoda= 9 shillings 132 R.F.S.G.D & C 1679-80, p. 16 133 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, p. 48

134 R.F.S.G. D & C 1679-80, pp. 74-75

262

their investments at Masulipatnam were even greater. In 1682, the investment

at Masulipatnam in textiles was reported to have been higher than ever before

amounting to 1,29,015 pagodas with Madala Cundapa and his merchants. 135 In

1683, the textiles investments for the three English factories of Masulipatnam,

Petapuli and Madapollam were reported to have been over 1,30,000 pagodas,

and the investment for the next season made in December 1683 was 1, 50,000

pagodas. 136 At this time several interlopers were reported to being in the region

much to the alarm of the English factors. 137 So apart from the cloth they had

already contracted for they were buying whatever cloth they could, to keep the

interlopers from obtaining any textiles. 138

Thus the English and the Dutch were making considerable

investments in textiles of Masulipatnam and its dependencies at this time.

Further there was competition from the interlopers as well. The dealings with

the regular merchants of the English were rendered very troublesome due to the

increased demands of textiles at this time. This was because, given the high

demand of textiles, they would find buyers quite readily. So in March 1683, the

English factors at Masulipatnam found them 'very shie' in contracting for an

investment due in a short time. The English factors warned them that they were

obliged to provide calicoes for the English Company, as and when required,

lest the orders be given to other merchants. The Masulipatnam merchants

135 Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682-83, p. 8 136 Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682-83, pp. 52-53,69 137 Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682-83, pp. 31, 34, 35, 48 138 Masulipatnam Consultation Book, 1682-83, p. 32

263

Masulipatnam), from the Dutch, Danes and Moores'. 140 Thus the practice of

employing washers was quite common among the Europeans as it was among

the Moores too, as exemplified by the communication cited above, which in

tum implies that the Europeans were creating more opportunities for even the

lowest levels of artisans involved in the textile industry, and not merely the

komati merchants, as is obvious from the reference to the shortage of the same

due to the 'great imployment' ofthe same mentioned here.

Europeans and local middle men

Further, European factors required interpreters, called dubash,

being unaccustomed to the language of the place, and unfamiliarity with the

language was another factor which increased their dependence on brokers for

their dealings. One European observer described one of the southern languages

as being next to only Chinese in its level of difficulty, as the latter consisted of

only monosyllabic words. Attempts were made by the Europeans in learning

the native language, to better familiarise them with the social environment

where they conducted their business, and Company factors were encouraged to

do the same. In 1674, the remuneration of a factor, John Thomas, was ordered

to be increased by the Company as he had made good progress in learning the

"Gentu" language, both oral and written. 141

However, their dependence on the dubash for much of their

business correspondence continued throughout the period. In fact, this

dependence led the dubashes to take advantage of the situation, when

140 E.F.I. 1630-33, p. 235 141 R.F.S.G. D & CI672-78, p. 34

265

opportunity allowed them to do so. For instance, in early 1679, when

negotiations were on with the King for settling certain places like Virasvaram,

Petapoli, Madapollam etc. on the Company's account, rent-free or at low rents,

among other things, on the occasion of the King's visit to Masulipatnam and its

environs, the dubash employed by the Company, apparently employed

treachery in his dealings. Though he claimed to have got them a good deal of

having to pay a supposedly abated amount of 3000 pagodas to Agha Jalal, for

the King, he had in fact got for himself a grant of land from the King in return.

The English were quite affronted by this as they had not received any concrete

concessions yet, their matter being deferred for further consideration. 142 Master

chose to confine him for his treachery. In order to obtain his liberty and former

post, the dubash negotiated with the Masulipatnam merchants to give a further

abatement to the Company, which restored his original position back to him. 143

A well established system of transactions through bills of

exchange was also in use. The English factors in Masulipatnam in dire

necessity of money in 1623, wrote to the Surat Council to remit some money

through the native channels or else arrange with the Dutch to do so. Bills of

exchange were indispensable to the commercial dealings especially of the

natives, since they were not organized in a manner comparable to the European

companies, and such a system would be the most convenient and reliable way

to transact business, given the level of development in the seventeenth century.

142 E.F.J. 1678-84, pp. 94-102 143 E.F.J. 1678-84, p. I 04

266

Further, such a system could function only if a there was a high

degree of reliability between the commercial operators in various places. This

seems to have been there as by this time, there was an unwritten code of ethics

existent among the mercantile communities dispersed in various trading

regions of Asia. This was evident from the smooth functioning of transactions

by merchants who did not necessarily accompany their goods to the intended

markets, sending them as freights or with other merchants that they had

reciprocal arrangements with. Observance of the tacit rules of conduct for the

mercantile communities as well as the local authorities of a port was crucial for

the reputation of the port too, which directly affected its popularity as an

. 144 emponum.

On an overall view of the interactions of the Europeans and the

indigenous mercantile communities in the Northern Coromandel during the

seventeenth century, one notices that the impact on different categories was

different, and this effect too was not constant with the passage of time. In the

overseas trade, inspite of the fact that the Europeans opened new markets for

the Northern Coromandel, in terms of their trade to Europe and west Africa, yet

they did compete, and quite successfully too, with the indigenous ship owning

merchants operating in the Asian markets. Inspite of the expansion in the

demand in these markets, the concomitant expansion in trade does not seem to

have been sufficient to encompass all operators, without some losing out to

144 Chaudhuri, K.N., Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean, An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to I750.

267

others. In this case, gradually the indigenous merchants were displaced by the

Europeans.

European trade, however, also had a positive impact on the

categories of merchants like the komatis, who were involved m the

procurement of textiles, as well as on the general economy of the region, in

terms of creating a larger demand. The fact that the credit for the opening of

Europe to the textiles of Northern Coromandel goes to the Europeans, and this

supply of Northern Coromandel textiles being very significant, rather, the

mainstay of the European trading operations in the latter half of the seventeenth

century, it appears logical to deduce that the Europeans did create conditions

for the expansion of the economy in general. Intensified competition among the

Europeans amongst themselves as also with the Asian mercantile community

fostered the principles of a free market economy, giving a boost and briskness

to trade in the region.

268