BRİTANYA İMPARATORLUĞU’NUN İNGİLİZ DOĞU HİNDİSTAN ŞİRKETİ ARACILIĞIYLA MODERN DÜNYA’YI ŞEKİLLENDİRİŞİ: ŞİRKET-DEVLET MODELİ BAĞLAMINDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Şirket-devlet modeli, modern devleti biçimlendiren, egemenlik ve ticari yapıları kaynaştıran bir yönetim anlayışıdır. Bunun somut hali olarak İngiliz Doğu Hindistan Şirketi (EIC-English East India Company) devletin siyasi, askeri ve hukuki gücünü ekonomik yeteneklerle bütünleştirerek yeni bir küresel yönetim anlayışını inşa etmiştir. Bu çalışmada, modellemeye ağırlık verilerek şirket-devletin EIC üzerinden bir değerlendirmesinin yapılması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma şirket-devletlerin, özellikle EIC üzerinden gelişen sömürge ticaretinin ve denizaşırı egemenlik faaliyetlerinin itici gücü olduğunu varsaymaktadır. Araştırmada, şirket-devlet modelinin yerel ve ulusal düzeydeki egemenlik ve hukuki dayanak anlayışında yarattığı dönüşüm sorgulanarak, bu dönüşümün modern devletin temel ilkeleri olan güç, yetki ve yasal geçerlilik gibi kavramların geleneksel tanımlarına etkisi değerlendirilmektedir. Değerlendirme için içerik analizi yöntemine başvurularak konu hakkındaki ikincil veri kaynakları çalışmanın amacına matuf tasnif edilmiş ve anlam bütünlüğü içinde incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda şirketin ekonomik çıkarlarının diplomatik imtiyazlar ve askeri güç gibi unsurlarla birleşimi, modern devlet anlayışını aşan küresel bir şirket-devlet egemenliği biçimi ortaya çıkarmıştır. Böylece EIC yukarıdan aşağıya bir yönetim sistemi kurarak ve devlet mekanizmasının düzenleme, denetleme ve kontrol yetkilerini egemenlik çerçevesinde kullanarak meşruiyetini bu yeteneklerden alan bir şirket-devlet modeli niteliğinde değerlendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Britanya İmparatorluğu
• İngiliz Doğu Hindistan Şirketi
• Şirket-Devlet

THE BRİTİSH EMPİRE'S SHAPİNG OF THE MODERN WORLD THROUGH THE BRİTİSH EAST INDİA COMPANY: AN EVALUATİON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPANY-STATE MODEL

Öz

The company-state model is a management approach that shapes the modern state by merging sovereignty and commercial structures. As a concrete example, the English East India Company (EIC) integrated the political, military and legal power of the state with economic capabilities, thereby establishing a new global management approach. This study aims to evaluate the company-state model, with a focus on the EIC. The research posits that the company-state, particularly through the EIC, was the driving force behind colonial trade and overseas sovereignty activities. The research questions the transformation created by the company-state model in the understanding of sovereignty and legal basis at the local and national levels, and evaluates the impact of this transformation on the traditional definitions of concepts such as power, authority, and legal validity, which are fundamental principles of the modern state. For the evaluation, content analysis was employed, and secondary data sources on the subject were classified according to the study's objectives and examined within a coherent framework. In this context, the combination of the company's economic interests with elements such as diplomatic privileges and military power gave rise to a global form of company-state sovereignty that transcended the modern understanding of the state. Thus, the EIC can be assessed as a company-state model that derives its legitimacy from its ability to establish a top-down management system and exercise the regulatory, supervisory, and control powers of the state mechanism within the framework of sovereignty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• British Empire
• British East India Company
• Company-States

Kaynakça

1. Alanka, D. (2024). Nitel Bir Araştırma Yöntemi Olarak İçerik Analizi: Teorik Bir Çerçeve. Kronotop İletişim Dergisi, 1(1), 64-84.
2. Armaoğlu, F. (1997). 19. Yüzyıl Siyasî Tarihi (1789-1914). Türk Tarih Kurumu.
3. Ayuso-Diaz, A. (2024). ‘Breaking free? The evolution of intra-Asian trade at the dawn of globalization (1795–1839)’. Economic History Review, pp. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13350.
4. Berre, S., and Kosmetatos, P. (2024). ‘Anglo–Dutch financial connections and contrasts in the late eighteenth century: The Amsterdam phase of the 1772–3 credit crisis’, Economic History Review, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13345.
5. Bains T. (2024). The Making and Unmaking of a Presidency: Envisioning Empire in British Bencoolen, 1685–1825. Journal of British Studies. Published online, 1-21. doi:10.1017/jbr.2023.142.
6. Bayly C. A. (1991). Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780–1830 (London: Longman).
7. Bartlett R (1994) The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8. Bhattacharyya, D. (2018). Fluid Histories: Swamps, Law and the Company-State in Colonial Bengal. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 61(5-6), 1036-1073. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685209-12341466.

9. Bellis, M. (2024). Gunpowder History. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/gunpowder-history-1991395.
10. Berman H., J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Bulut, Y. (2003). “Hindistan’da Sömürgecilik, Oryantalizm ve William Jones”, Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3. Dizi, sayı 6.
12. Cavanagh, E. (2011). A Company with sovereignty and subjects of its own? The case of the Hudson’s Bay company, 1670–1763. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26(1): 25–50.
13. Carter, H., B. (1995). The Royal Society and the voyage of HMS Endeavour 1768-71. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 49(2), 245-260.
14. Chatterjee, B. (2023). Famine in a Rice Economy: Natural Calamities, Grain Scarcity and the Company-State in Bengal, 1770–1803. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 46(2), 370–387 https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2023.2178186.
15. Chiocchetti F. (2024). Overseas Trade and War. Reconstructing a Late Eighteenth-Century East India Company Voyage to Asia Between Routine and Unpredictability. Itinerario. 48(1):64-81. doi:10.1017/S0165115324000081.
16. Choudhury R. (2024). Beyond Babel: East India Company Genre and Colonial Romanticism in an Indo-Persian Diary. Modern Intellectual History. Published online, 1-27. doi:10.1017/S1479244323000240.
17. Clulow A. and Mostert T. (2018). The Dutch and English East India Companies: Diplomacy, Trade and Violence in Early Modern Asia. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
18. Dalrymple, W. (2019). The Anarchy: The relentless rise of the East India Company. Bloomsbury Publishing.
19. Erçin, A. (2017). İngiliz Doğu Hindistan Kumpanyası Ve Kumpanyanın Ticari Faaliyetleri (1600-1858). Çeşm-i Cihan: Tarih Kültür ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi E-Dergisi, 4(2), 111-133.
20. Ekren, A. (2022). Antonio Gramsci’nin Hegemonya Kavramının Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplinine Girişi ve Yorumlanması. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 14, Sayı 2.
21. Ferguson N. (2011). Civilization. The Six Killer Apps of Western Power. London: Penguin Books.
22. Ferguson, N. (2011). Uygarlık: Batı ve Ötekiler. (N. Elhüseyni, Çev.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
23. Ferguson, N. (2012). Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World. Penguin UK.
24. Fugetsu, S. (2024). The Impact of Domestic Japanese Politics on the English East India Company in Japan, 1613–1623. Journal of Early Modern History, 28(3), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700658-bja10082.
25. Gaastra, F. (2003). The Dutch East India Company: Expansion and Decline. Amsterdam: Walburg Press.
26. Galbraith, J., S. (1957). The Hudson’s Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821–1869. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27. Güngör, C. (2001). Sömürgeden Ulusa Hint Milliyetçiliğinin Kökenleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
28. Gramsci, A. (2007). Prison Notebooks. Vol. III, Ed. and Trans. by. Joseph A. Buttigieg, New York: Columbia Universty Press.
29. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. ve Graham, W. F. (1989). “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11/3, 255–274.
30. Greene, J. P. (1994) Negotiated Authorities: Essays in Colonial Political and Constitutional History. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
31. Grossi E. (2024). Not Just a Commercial Voyage: A Cultural-Historical Perspective of the East Indiaman Compton’s Voyage to Bombay (1723–26). Itinerario.48(1):42-63. doi:10.1017/S0165115324000093.
32. Heckscher, E. F. (1936). Revisions in Economic History: V. Mercantilism. The Economic History Review, (Vol. 7), 44–54.
33. Heller, H. (2015). “Authoritarian Liberalism?”, European Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, ss. 295-301.
34. Heraclides A. (2019). “Ethics in International Politics: Irrelevant or Indispensable? Revisiting a Persisting Debate". International Journal of Political Science (IJPS), vol5, no.1, pp.721. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.20431/2454-9452.05 01003.
35. Jean Beuve, E. B. (2016). Mercantilism and Bureaucratic Modernization in Early Eighteenth-Century France. Economic History Society, 1–32.
36. Koph, D. (1991). “Oryantalizm ve Hindistan’ın Okumuş Elit Sınıfı”, Sömürgecilik ve Eğitim, (Haz. Phılıp G. Altbach‐ Gaıl P. Kelly), (Çev. Kalın, İ.), İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları.
37. Kozal, Ö. E, (2019), Türkiye'nin 200 Yıllık Sanayileşme Tarihi: Süreklilikler ve Dönüşümler, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
38. Kumagai Y. (2024). Glasgow Merchants in The East India Trade during The 1820s and 1830: The Case of James Finlay & Co. Journal of Scottish Historical Studies, 44:1, 1-22.
39. Kulke H. & Rothermund D. (2001). Hindistan Tarihi, (Çev. Günay, M.), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
40. Külünk, F. (2019). İngiliz Doğu Hindistan Şirketi’nin Yerli Birlikleri: Sepoy Ayaklanması. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 34(1), 139-160.
41. Kleiser, R. G., & Røge, P. (2023). Emulating Empires: Caribbean Free Ports, Economic Dualism, and European Imperial Rivalry, c. 1670s–1760s. Global Intellectual History, 8(6), 700–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/23801883.2023.2280086.
42. Leonard, S. A. (2014). ‘A Theatre of Disputes’: The East India Company Election of 1764 as the Founding of British India. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 42(4), 593–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2014.895134.
43. MacDonald, P., K. (2014). Networks of Domination: The Social Foundations of Peripheral Conquest in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Mann, M. (1994). The Sources of Social Power, Volume 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Menon, M. (2016). Medicine, Money, and the Making of the East India Company State: William Roxburgh in Madras, c. 1790. In: Winterbottom, A., Tesfaye, F. (eds) Histories of Medicine and Healing in the Indian Ocean World. Palgrave Series in Indian Ocean World Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137567574_6.
46. Mishra, R. (2024). Governing Over Distance: Delegating Trust and Dealing with Disorder in the Early East India Company Trade. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2024.2370638.
47. Murteza, G. (2012). John Locke’da Sömürgecilik ve Mülkiyet İlişkisi. Kutadgubilig Fetsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, (21), 371-388.
48. Mushtaq, M. U. (2009). Public health in british India: a brief account of the history of medical services and disease prevention in colonial India. Indian journal of community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 34(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.45369.
49. Niermeier-Dohoney, J. (2022). “Rusticall chymistry”: Alchemy, saltpeter projects, and experimental fertilizers in seventeenth-century English agriculture. History of Science, 60(4), 546-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/00732753211033159.
50. Özcan, A. (2000). “İngiliz Doğu Hindistan Şirketi”, DİA, C. 22. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi.
51. Pettigrew, W., A. (2018). The Changing Place of Fraud in Seventeenth Century Debates about İnternational Trading Corporations. Business History 60(3): 305–320.
52. Poggi, G. (2019). Modern Devletin Gelişimi: Sosyolojik Bir Yaklaşım. (Çev. Kut, G., Toprak, B.). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
53. Phillips, A., & Sharman, J. (2020). Company-states and the creation of the global international system. European Journal of International Relations, 26(4), 1249-1272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120928127.
54. Pritchard, E.H. (1936). The Crucial Years of Early Anglo-Chinese Relations 1750-1800. Octagon Books, New York.
55. Rajakumar, K. (2001). İnfantile Scurvy: A Historical Perspective. Pediatrics, 108 (4): e76. 10.1542/peds.108.4.e76.
56. Rich, E., E. (1960). Hudson’s Bay Company 1670–1870 Volume I: 1670–1763. New York: Macmillan.
57. Roy, K. (2024). Logistics of the First Anglo-Burma War, 1824–1826. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2024.2375871.
58. Sander, O. (2000). Siyasi Tarih (İlk Çağlardan 1918’e) Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
59. Sen, S. (1994). Colonial Frontiers of the Georgian State: East India Company’s Rule in India. Journal of Historical Sociology, 7(4), 368–392. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6443.1994.tb00071.x.
60. Soy, H., B. (2014). Satılık İmparatorluk: Britanya İmparatorluğunun Tasfiyesi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 7-32.
61. Sunar, L. (2007). XIX. Yüzyıl Avrupasında Emperyalizm Algısı. Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3(14), 57-80.
62. Stern, P. J. (2007). Politics and Ideology in the Early East India Company-State: The Case of St Helena, 1673–1709. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 35(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086530601143362.
63. Trichinopoly, T. (1890-1891). Report Of The Leprosy Commıssıon ın Indıa,1.
64. Ültay, E., Akyurt, H., Ültay, N. (2021). Sosyal Bilimlerde Betimsel İçerik Analizi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,10.
65. Vartavarian, M. (2014). Warriors and the Company State in South India, 1799–1801. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 37(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2014.904764.
66. Wallerstein, I. (2005). Modern Dünya-Sistemi, II. Cilt, (Çev. Boyacı, L). İstanbul: Bakış Yayınları.
67. Wallerstein, I. (2012), Modern Dünya Sistemi: Merkantilizm ve Doğu Avrupa Ekonomisinin Güçlendirilmesi, 1600-1750, (Cilt 2), (Çev. Boyacı, L.), İstanbul: Yarın Yayınları.
68. Wallerstein, I. (1998), Jeopolitik ve Jeokültür, (Çev. Özel M.), İstanbul: Kz Yayınları.
69. Weber, M. (2012). Bürokrasi ve otorite (Çev. Akın, H. B.). Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
70. Süreli Yayınlar
71. The Rise Of The East İndia Company, Banner, 7 Temmuz 1854.
72. The İndian Army, Ovens and Murray Advertiser, 26 Ocak 1858, s. 2.