This article is an excerpt from the Shortform book guide to "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple. Shortform has the world's best summaries and analyses of books you should be reading.
Like this article? Sign up for a free trial here.
Who was Shah Alam? How did he come to power? Was his rule legitimate?
Shah Alam, a prince of the Mughal Empire, aided the British East India Company’s (EIC) takeover of Bengal. However, after playing a messy chess game with the company and Mughal rivals, Alam ended up becoming a figurehead ruler controlled by the EIC.
Continue reading to learn the history of Shah Alam—specifically, his complicated political journey from a young Mughal royal, to a facilitator of British rule, to a titular leader stripped of his autonomy.
A Natural Ally of the East India Company
In The Anarchy, William Dalrymple tells the history of Shah Alam in the context of the East India Company (EIC). Though the EIC had carried out two successful coups, it still faced a significant gap in legitimacy. Fortunately for the company, a potential ally had made his way to Bengal and was interested in talks. Shah Alam was a young Mughal prince who had been heir to the throne in Delhi before being ousted by his cousin in a succession dispute. After Alam narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, a romantic legend sprang up around the exiled young prince, and he attracted thousands of followers who considered him the true heir to the Mughal throne. While the EIC had power without legitimacy, Shah Alam had legitimacy without power. Their complementary needs suggested a natural alliance.
The EIC and Shah Alam reached an agreement: The EIC and Mir Qasim would pledge their allegiance to Alam as the true heir of the Mughal empire. Alam would formally recognize Qasim as the legitimate ruler of Bengal, legitimizing both coups. Then, the EIC would use its military forces to help the young prince march on Delhi and take back his throne. However, after Alam legitimized the coups, the EIC dragged its feet on its end of the bargain. Frustrated with his new “allies,” Shah Alam left Bengal to join forces with Shuja ud-Daula, a Mughal prince ruling a neighboring kingdom.
| Where Does Legitimacy Come From? Max Weber’s theory of political legitimacy can clarify how Shah Alam was able to legitimize Qasim’s rule and the EIC’s coup. Weber defines political legitimacy as the citizens’ belief in the authority and prestige of their government. Weber identifies three primary sources of legitimacy: tradition, charisma, and legality. The exiled prince Shah Alam fulfilled all three criteria: Tradition: The Mughals had ruled Bengal for over a century. As a Mughal prince, Alam’s authority provided continuity with previous Mughal rule. Charisma: A romantic legend had sprung up around Alam, and his many followers considered him the true heir to the Mughal throne. Alam was also a renowned poet. These traits made him charismatic to the Bengali people. Legality: By formally swearing allegiance to Alam, the EIC and Qasim consecrated their rule within the legal framework inherited from the Mughals. |
An Ally (and a Betrayer) of Two Princes
According to Dalrymple, the EIC would face one more challenge to establishing complete rule in Bengal: an alliance among three Mughal princes. After his defeat, Qasim fled Bengal with his remaining forces and, like Shah Alam, sought refuge with Shuja ud-Daula. He then proposed an alliance among himself, Shuja, and Shah Alam to drive out the English.
The three princes assembled an enormous force and marched toward Bengal. However, the EIC managed to repel their attack, largely due to a crack in the princes’ alliance. Dalrymple explains that Shah Alam wasn’t fully committed to the alliance. Since Qasim and the EIC had both declared allegiance to him, the young prince saw this as merely a dispute between his subjects—and secretly remained in communication with the EIC. Thus, while Shuja’s troops charged into battle, Shah Alam’s held back, and Shuja’s army failed to defeat the EIC on its own. With the alliance fragmented, the EIC launched a successful counteroffensive and defeated Shuja’s army, cementing its rule in Bengal.
(Shortform note: Dalrymple characterizes Shah Alam’s betrayal as born out of a naive, romantic worldview: The young emperor took the EIC’s declaration of loyalty seriously because he still viewed himself as a ruler, even though he didn’t have a real empire to rule. However, other commentators looking back on this period have characterized his betrayal of Shuja and Qasim as a calculated decision born out of self-preservation. They argue that Alam saw the EIC as a rising power and believed that it was in his best interest to stay on the company’s good side.)
A Puppet of the British
A private corporation, initially created for trade, now controlled half a million square miles and ruled over millions of subjects. Dalrymple explains that, in 1803, the EIC consolidated its power by once again installing a puppet ruler who could lend a veneer of legitimacy to its regime. To do so, the company turned once more to Shah Alam, the exiled Mughal prince who had played a similar role in legitimizing the company’s rule in Bengal and by now was an old man. The EIC tried to publicly frame its rule as a “reinstatement” of Shah Alam and a restoration of Mughal power—though, in reality, the old Mughal state was now firmly under British command.
———End of Preview———
Like what you just read? Read the rest of the world's best book summary and analysis of William Dalrymple's "The Anarchy" at Shortform.
Here's what you'll find in our full The Anarchy summary:
- The rise of the English East India Company during the 17th and 18th centuries
- How a trading company came to rule most of the Indian subcontinent
- The background, historical context, and fallout from the events in the book
