Q.Examine any two sources presented in the chapter, choosing one visual and one text, and discuss how these represent the point of view of the victor and the vanquished.
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →The chapter uses visual and textual sources to show how the same event—the Battle of Plassey—was remembered very differently by the British victors and the Indian vanquished, revealing how power shapes historical narrative.
When we study history, we are not just looking at a list of dates and battles. We are looking at stories—stories told by people who won and people who lost. The NCERT chapter on the eighteenth century in India, particularly the section on the rise of the British East India Company, does something very clever: it presents two kinds of sources, one visual and one text, that let us see the Battle of Plassey (1757) from opposite sides. One is a painting of Robert Clive receiving the diwani from Mir Jafar; the other is a Persian text, the Seir-ul-Mutaqherin, written by Ghulam Husain Tabatabai. Together, they show us how the victor and the vanquished each constructed their own version of what happened.
Let us begin with the visual source. The painting, often reproduced in textbooks, shows a grand ceremony. Robert Clive, the British commander, is seated on a raised platform, receiving the grant of the diwani—the right to collect revenue in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa—from the Nawab Mir Jafar. The scene is orderly, dignified, almost like a coronation. The British are shown as calm, generous, and in control. Mir Jafar is depicted as a subordinate, bowing or presenting the document. The message is clear: this transfer of power was legitimate, peaceful, and welcomed by the Indians themselves. The painting is a piece of propaganda. It erases the violence, the betrayal, and the fact that Mir Jafar was a puppet placed on the throne by Clive after the Battle of Plassey. The victor’s point of view here is one of triumph dressed up as legality. The British wanted to show that they had not conquered India by force but had been invited to rule. The painting is a carefully staged image of consent.
The painting is not a photograph of the actual event. It was commissioned years later, in Britain, to shape public opinion back home. The artist had never been to India. The clothes, the setting, even the gestures were chosen to convey British superiority and Indian submission.
Now, contrast this with the textual source from the Seir-ul-Mutaqherin. This is a Persian history written by Ghulam Husain Tabatabai, an Indian nobleman who lived through the events. His account is bitter, angry, and full of sorrow. He describes how the British, after Plassey, began to interfere in every aspect of governance. He writes about the greed of the Company officials, the humiliation of the old Mughal nobility, and the breakdown of trust. For him, the Battle of Plassey was not a glorious transfer of power but a catastrophe. He calls the British “a set of merchants” who had no right to rule. His text is filled with the voice of the vanquished—the people who lost their positions, their wealth, and their dignity. He does not see Clive as a hero but as a cunning manipulator who used betrayal to win. …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.