Surat

Every statement above that rests on a checked claim carries a small number; the numbers lead here. Each entry gives what is claimed, how far the record supports it, and where it comes from.

1. The Surat entry is a working complex of three linked things which the archive keeps separate: the walled commercial city on the left bank of the Tapti in southern Gujarat, about 24 kilometres from the sea by water and about 16 by land; the bandar of Surat, meaning the port and customs jurisdiction of the castle on the river bank, the customs house, the mint and the governor's establishment; and the anchorage at Swally, an open roadstead on the coast, because seagoing ships could not reach the city at all, the channel carrying about three fathoms at spring tide with river craft of about fifty tons the practical limit, so that cargo went up to the city by lighter and by bullock cart and a Company letter of the 1690s saying that a ship arrived at Surat means that she anchored in Swally road. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. Secondary scholarship: Sagufta Parveen, "Surat: As a Major Port-Town of Gujarat and its Trade History", IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 19, issue 5, May 2014, for the distance upriver, the inability of seagoing ships to reach the city, the channel of about three fathoms at spring tide and the fifty-ton river craft (Probable); Shinsaku Kato, "The Formation of Surat Port City in the Seventeenth Century", Minamiajiakenkyu no. 29, 2017, for Swally's role as the harbour serving Surat (Probable). The anchorage relationship is Confirmed and the distances and channel figures are Probable, so the whole is stated here as Probable
2. Surat was a Mughal imperial port administered by imperial officers and not a European colony: it was the head of a sarkar of thirty-one mahals under a governor styled hakim with a mutasaddi as revenue and port officer, within the subah of Gujarat, its annual customs revenue in Akbar's reign recorded at about four lakh rupees; and the European companies were tenants within that order, the English East India Company placing its first Indian factory here in 1612, the Dutch following in 1618 and the French in 1668. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. Secondary scholarship: Sagufta Parveen, "Surat: As a Major Port-Town of Gujarat and its Trade History", for the sarkar of thirty-one mahals, the hakim and the mutasaddi from Akbar's time, the customs revenue of about four lakh rupees, and the factory dates 1612, 1618 and 1668 (Probable)
3. Surat was never a pirate base and no pirate of this archive careened, wintered or recruited there; the city enters the record in three roles only, as the home port and owner of the ships that were taken, as the place where the consequences of those takings were visited on resident Europeans, and as the political engine that turned piracy from a colonial irritant into an imperial crisis, the careening grounds for the Red Sea trade lying instead in the Madagascar ports. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. Conclusions drawn from the assembled evidence: That Surat was never a pirate base, and the three roles in which the city enters the record, are conclusions drawn from the assembled evidence (Probable). No evidence has been found for pirate careening or watering at Surat or Swally; that is an absence of evidence and not a proven negative, and it is stated here in those terms
4. Surat was the Mughal empire's principal port for the Hajj, its annual fleet to Mocha and Jeddah carrying pilgrims and high-value trade in the same hulls. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Scholarly article: Sagufta Parveen, "Surat: As a Major Port-Town of Gujarat and its Trade History", for Surat as the port of the Hajj and the annual Red Sea fleet (Confirmed)
5. President Samuel Annesley and the East India Company's factory staff at Surat were first held under house arrest with soldiers posted and then reportedly moved into confinement in irons, and a single popular secondary account gives their release as 27 June 1696, which would make the confinement a little over nine months rather than the round year that circulates in general retellings; the same account has Annesley entering into a bond on 6 January 1696 undertaking to provide convoy for the coming pilgrim fleets in the Red Sea, negotiated through the wazir Asad Khan alongside a promise to compensate the losses, and all of it is no stronger than Possible until the Company's own Surat correspondence has been read. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Secondary narrative (popular): "The Mughals, The Pirates and the Plunder of the Ganj-i-Sawai", Enroute Indian History, is the only source consulted that gives dates for the confinement, supplying the house arrest, the transfer to prison in irons, the bond of 6 January 1696 negotiated through Asad Khan and the release of 27 June 1696 (Possible); "Samuel Annesley of Surat" for Annesley's presidency from 1694 and the protective custody (Probable, a low-authority wiki used only as a lead). The confinement is given as of the order of nine to ten months and no more strongly than Possible; the round formula of about a year is an approximation and not a finding, and neither date is printed here as fact
6. Every was never taken, though six of his men were tried in London in October 1696; the imprisonment of the Company's people at Surat by the governor is confirmed from Gayer's Bombay letter of 12 October 1695 and the Company's petition on the Archive's record of Every, but the reports circulating in the later literature of an imperial order for that imprisonment and of a near-order for an armed attack on Bombay to expel the English from India are not supported by the sources behind this page. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Period trial print on the archive's record: The count of six men and the October sitting come from the archive's entry on the trials of Every's crew, where six of Every's men at the Admiralty sessions and a first sitting on Monday 19 October 1696 are Confirmed on the 1696 trial print
7. Wright's history places the English factory at Surat by the waterside overlooking the estuary of the Tapti, and the Company's establishment at Swally a few miles down the river, overlooking the deep pool or Hole at which the Company's shipping anchored. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (1918), pp. 100 and 105
8. Wright's history states that Surat was already famous as a commercial centre when the East India Company's first representatives reached it in 1608, and that through its gates passed a great trade conducted with every part of the East. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 101 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3196-3200)
9. Wright's history states that at the period of his narrative the city held 200,000 inhabitants of many races and creeds and brought a handsome annual revenue to the imperial funds. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 102 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3227-3231)
10. Wright's history states that Surat was governed through the seventeenth century by a succession of Governors appointed by the Mogul Emperors, usually Court favourites who had temporarily won the capricious favour of the Mogul. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 106 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3358-3363)
11. Wright's history describes the English factory at Surat as not a single structure but a congeries of buildings, warehouses in one part and the apartments of the Company's factors and writers in another. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 102 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3233-3238)
12. Wright's history states that the factory was enclosed by a wall and that admission to it from outside was through massive gates at which a guard was constantly posted. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 102 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3240-3243)
13. Wright's history places a branch of the English factory at Swally, the point a few miles down the river overlooking the deep pool or Hole at which the Company's shipping swung at anchorage, and describes this Swally Marine as the headquarters of the Company's captains when ashore and a neutral ground for conferences with the local authorities. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 105 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3343-3347); Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 106 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3348-3351)
14. Wright's history states that the largest shipowner at Surat was Abdul Guffore, leader of the Borah community, who in a few years built up a great fortune by successful ventures in shipping. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Surat and the English Factory, printed p. 110 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 3480-3484)
15. Wright's history states that the first ship Every took was one of Abdul Guffore's, on her return voyage from the Red Sea with a cargo said to have been worth Rs. 3,25,000, and that a young Mohammedan lady of good family returning from the pilgrimage to Mecca was carried off from her as a captive. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 160 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5013-5017); Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 160 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5016-5021)
16. The first indictment of 1696 lays the taking of the Gunsway upon the high seas ten leagues from the Cape St. Johns near Surat. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Trial print: The Tryals of Joseph Dawson, Edward Forseith, William May, William Bishop, James Lewis, and John Sparkes for several piracies and robberies by them committed in the company of Every the grand pirate (London, 1696), the first indictment (library file every_tryals_1696.txt, lines 126-128)
17. The 1696 indictment for the Moorish ship taken on 28 September 1695 lays that taking in a place forty leagues distant from Surat. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Trial print: The Tryals of Joseph Dawson and others (London, 1696), the reading of the two indictments before Dr Newton's address to the jury (library file every_tryals_1696.txt, lines 2335-2337)
18. Wright's history states that Annesley promptly caused the gates of the factory to be closed, knowing the capabilities of the place for defence. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 161 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5037-5041)
19. Wright's history states that Ushoor Beg, the Military Commander, rode into the space in front of the factory with a troop of horse at his heels and demanded admission on the plea that he had an important message from the Governor. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 161 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5048-5053)
20. Wright's history states that the deputation that went to the palace demanded the execution of Annesley and his leading colleagues, the Mufti supporting the plea by quoting passages from the Koran. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 162 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5075-5080)
21. Wright's history states that the Governor knew very well that Annesley and his fellows were no pirates, flatly declined to take any violent action, and would promise no more than to submit the facts to Aurangzeb. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 162 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5081-5085)
22. Wright's history states that the Governor decided popular feeling must be conciliated by energetic action, and that his first step was to sweep into the common prison the factory had become every Englishman his soldiers could lay their hands upon. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 163 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5115-5120)
23. Wright's history states that some fifty Englishmen were brought under the factory roof, all heavily ironed by the Governor's orders, with a guard of between two and three hundred men placed over them. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 164 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5132-5137)
24. Annesley wrote to Sir John Gayer that their guard was no more than necessary to defend them from the rabble, the whole Mobile being raised against them and demanding satisfaction of them even to their lives. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 164 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5143-5148)
25. Annesley wrote that on the sixteenth, which was Council day, the rabble banded together to complain, bringing those that were wounded and maimed and women that had been abused on the Gunsway and Abdull Guffore's ships, open mouthed to lay it upon the English. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 164 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5154-5160)
26. Annesley protested to the Governor that there were a great many thieves on the sea, that the English never engaged to clear it of them, and that if the Company's servants had done piracy they would for one rupee pay two. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 166 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5208-5212)
27. The Governor answered that the ship was affirmed to be plundered near Bombay, that several were ready to swear that those who did it had been in actual service on the island, and that the Nocquedah said so publicly. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter Annesley in Chains, printed p. 166 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5218-5223)
28. Wright's history states that Aurangzeb, hearing the story at his camp, gave way to the most violent paroxysm of rage and swore by the Prophet's beard that the English should pay dearly for their sacrilegious acts. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Emperor Aurungzebe and the Pirates, printed p. 174 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5420-5425)
29. Wright's history states that Aurangzeb ordered that the Sidhi should be instructed to invade Bombay, that a great army should be sent to attack Fort St. George, and that the Company's officials and goods should be seized in all parts of his dominions. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Emperor Aurungzebe and the Pirates, printed p. 174 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5424-5428)
30. The Mogul admiral wrote to the Emperor that the English were great merchants who drove a vast trade in his country. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Emperor Aurungzebe and the Pirates, printed p. 176 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5482-5484)
31. The Mogul admiral wrote that there were a great many hat men thieves in these seas but that such business was not from the English cast, nor ever would be. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Emperor Aurungzebe and the Pirates, printed p. 176 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5488-5491)
32. Wright's history states that the certificate of character clinched the matter and that Aurangzeb withdrew his orders. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Emperor Aurungzebe and the Pirates, printed p. 176 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 5491-5494)
33. News that the Court had ordered the reopening of the port reached the factory on 27 June, and the same day the Governor had the irons removed from the prisoners and the guard withdrawn. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (1918), p. 187
34. Wright's history states that a ship belonging to a Surat merchant named Hassan Ahmedan was taken, that indignation was again directed at Annesley and his colleagues, and that mobs besieged the factory. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 230 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7107-7114)
35. The second crisis broke on New Year's Day 1699, new style, when Annesley received a message from the Governor that he had received instructions from the Emperor. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 232 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7185-7191)
36. Wright's history states that Ushoor Beg came to the factory with a force of some five or six hundred soldiers and an ultimatum that the English were to yield to the Emperor's demands or to leave the country forthwith. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 233 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7199-7204)
37. Wright's history states that on 5 January the Governor had Venwallidas and two other of the Company's brokers seized, brought before him with their hands tied behind them, and barbarously whipped by his soldiers when they protested that they could not assent. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 234 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7236-7242)
38. The factory's own resolution recorded that they were not able to withstand the Governor, being but 13 Europeans in a wide open house upon which a descent could be made in three several places more than twenty men abreast. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 236 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7293-7297)
39. Wright's history states that on 25 January, the factory being surrounded by troops whose orders were to break in upon them in case of further resistance, the English surrendered. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 238 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7353-7358)
40. Wright's history states that the Governor remarked that had the English held out longer he had resolved to secure their persons and convey them to the castle, to be publicly executed there as pyrates convicted by Indians and Christians. Possible Consistent with the evidence, not established. Modern scholarship: Arnold Wright, Annesley of Surat and His Times (London, 1918), the chapter The Old Company Deposed, printed p. 238 (library file wright_annesley.txt, lines 7361-7366)