Fluidity of Identity in Polier’s Case

Article by EIH Researcher and Writer

Anupam Tripathi

Identity of people, across time and space, has been one of the widely contested issues among the contemporaries and the historians. People, time and again, have tried to fit these identities in a container, but they tend to forget that these identities are claustrophobic; these cannot fit the mould. Ijaz-i Arsalani is one such text that not only enlightens us with the information on company, its officials, Nawabs and Mughal Emperor, but talks about the local population. It is a text written by an official whose stand in the company is very fluid. He constantly played with identities. This text helps us to construct a narrative of social, political and cultural history of the second half of 18^th century. Polier’s text helps us unravel the impact of the Company’s accession to power on the Indian society. It is not a text that only talks about Company and their motives, plans, problems. It helps the readers to witness the changes Indian society was facing with the arrival of company and shift in the power towards English side. It is a narrative, which traces the conflicts emerging within the society due to the presence of a new political power and the initiatives or policies carried out by the English East India Company.

One of the first things that triggered my mind while reading Antoine-Louis Henri Polier’s Ijaz-i Arsalani was that, the nature of identities during this period is quite fluid.  Identities even in the medieval period were not rigid; they were very ambiguous. It was with the Paper Raj that these identities were formed and nourished. There are places where we find the identities come into play at the forefront and then, there are places where they take a backseat and other things become important and play the lead role. There is a sense of individuality in his work, even though he is a company’s servant liaising between the company and the local powers, he takes an altogether a different path. Later half of the 18^th century saw company setting its feet on the ground, working on policies, setting up new institutions, missionaries doing their work, etc. but Polier did not pay much attention to company’s policies, if I may say so! He had his own way of dealing with people and texts. He was least bothered with what evangelists or orientalists were stressing on.  18^th century was the time when company was stressing more on implementation of English and western sciences, but Polier did not follow the same path. It was not just Polier, there were others as well, like Rueben Burrow, who did not conform to these policies adopted by the company, orientalists and evangelists. Polier and Reuben Burrow offered a forum for an interaction with the local people.  Burrow said that the Indian texts were not just good for good governance but had a vast knowledge that would help modern thinkers. He believed that Hindus not only wrote about sciences but also about the process that had gone into making. Burrow was one of the few people who had a quest for cultural experience and not administrative concerns. He was on an intellectual hunt. This hunt had commercial dimensions as well.  Translated books were sold in Europe in good numbers. For Burrow, knowledge of the Hindus would help them to know about the world in detail. Monsieur Gentil, another official, helped Burrow in his quest. He provided burrows with astronomical tables of Hindus. Unlike Burrow, Polier was more interested in Islamic intellectual legacy. He had a soft corner for Mughal cultural practice. He patronised Mughal painters. Unlike English, he did not pay much attention to the caste and category of people. Paintings commissioned by him only had name of the person written at the back, no caste and category. He was a man of fine aesthetic sense; this is quite evident from his letters to his artisans, engraver, etc.

Another thing that I found interesting was Edmund Burk’s hostitility towards Polier, question that comes to my mind is ‘Was this hostility just because he was French?’ or it had some other reasons? What I understand from the text is that his close association with Warren Hastings became a reason for this staunch criticism. Identity, in this case, took a back seat and his relation with a company official took the main role. His identity acted as a cherry on the top.  It is from this incident we find that Company was not undergoing smooth transition. It, like any other new state, was facing conflicts from within. There were constant contestations within the company between its officials. One thing needs to be addressed while reading the text is his previous encounter with a state. Because of Protestant attitude, he was asked to leave Switzerland. Therefore, when he came to India, we witness a constant struggle of maintaining alliances. He constantly tried not to upset the company on one hand and, even after constant attacks from the nobles of Shuja ud Daula and Asaf ud Daula’s courtiers, he praised them with his kind words in his letters. This is one of the reasons why he focussed on the importance of work relationships. We can witness an attempt of not repeating the same mistake. He made negotiations and alliances, from his letters it becomes quite clear that he is constantly trying to please officials and at the same time he knows how to get his works done. He is aware of the fact that he is a company official and simultaneously he has tried to project himself as someone who is in support of local rulers, for example when he assured Chait Singh that he will work for Singh’s benefits only and Singh should not doubt his intentions². This shows that he was actually building a web of network that would help him in the time of need. It was not just the company using him; it was a mutual exploitation. He too was making profits, gains in the name of company. He had huge economic stakes in India.

There were people looking after his business in different places, like Karani Lat Sahib in Faizabad looking after his situation of purchase and sales of goods. Ijaz-i Arslani shatters the company’s monopoly argument. Public domain is of the opinion that company had a monopoly over the trade activities, but it is people like Polier because of whom this argument needs to be revaluated. They are the loopholes in the company raj. We cannot deny that company did not have some sort of monopoly over trade, but then there were other people engaged in the private trade activities and company could not do much about them. Presence of Najaf Khan, a Persian adventurer, noble at Shah Alam’s court, shows that English were not the sole power. People, like Najaf khan show that there were various small groups who were contesting with others for power and English were not the only stake holders in the subcontinent, for example his tussle with Polier over a Jagir.

Polier’s self-image is quite interesting. He, at one point, has projected himself as someone who was friends with local Indian powers and then there are instances where he showed that he was, in a way, superior to these  powers, for instance in a letter to Shuja ud Daula, he talks about the poor condition of a place he was supposed to stay in.  Later, he says that it is not appropriate to approach him repeatedly for the same issue³. This shows that he has a sense of superiority because of his association with the company. He was a person who knew how to float his boat.

What makes this text stand away from other available texts for this period is the fact that Polier did not go along the grain by mentioning and attributing people with their new identities, he used the vocational identities. Time and again, Seema Alavi and Muzaffar Alam have tried to show the similarities between Polier and Mughals, for example both of them carried out Persian translations of Indian classics. Nevertheless, at the same time, his influence should not be undermined, for example in a letter to Najaf Khan, he advices him how and where to place canons so that they could prevent the wastage of the cannon balls. This shows that company was trying to professionalise the army; this was an approach to form a new military culture. Polier was carrying forward a legacy, already in practice, established by Mughals. He is writing in a period where company is trying to project Muslim rule as static, degenerating and blaming it for the decadence of India and its civilisation, but Polier gives a different picture altogether. He portrayed Mughals as benevolent and sensitive.

While reading this text or any other medieval text, we need to keep in mind that identities in this period were fluid. Basis for the formation of these identities were laid in the late 18^th century. It can be said that subcontinent, in 18^th century, was a boiling pot where the identities were in formation, where English were not the sole power bidders; there were other small groups as well who were carving out their future by engaging in private trade activities and other works.

1. Muzaffar Alam and Seema Alavi, ‘A European Experience of the Mughal orient’, Oxford University Press (2001)
2. Ijaz-i Arsalani, Antoine Polier