Question map
In the first quarter of seventeenth century, in which of the following was/were the factory/factories of the English East India Company located? 1. Broach 2. Chicacole 3. Trichinopoly Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 1 (1 only).
During the first quarter of the seventeenth century (1601–1625), the English East India Company focused on establishing trading posts along the western coast of India. Following the success of Thomas Roe’s mission to the Mughal court, factories were established at Surat, Broach (Bharuch), Ahmedabad, Agra, and Burhanpur by 1619. Broach was a vital center for the export of calicoes and cotton textiles.
- Chicacole (Srikakulam): Located in the Northern Circars, English influence here developed much later, primarily in the late 17th and 18th centuries as they expanded along the Coromandel Coast.
- Trichinopoly (Tiruchirappalli): This region was under the internal rule of the Nayaks and later the Carnatic Nawabs; it did not host an English factory during the initial 1600-1625 period.
Since only Broach aligns with the early 17th-century timeline of English expansion, Statement 1 is the only correct choice.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Positive List' question. You are not expected to know the history of Chicacole or Trichinopoly; you are expected to possess the definitive list of the first 5-6 EIC factories (Surat, Broach, Ahmedabad, Agra, Masulipatam). If a location isn't on your 'Master List' for 1600–1625, mark it wrong and move on.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Was there an English East India Company factory at Broach (Bharuch) during the first quarter of the seventeenth century (c.1601–1625)?
- Statement 2: Was there an English East India Company factory at Chicacole (Srikakulam) during the first quarter of the seventeenth century (c.1601–1625)?
- Statement 3: Was there an English East India Company factory at Trichinopoly (Tiruchirappalli) during the first quarter of the seventeenth century (c.1601–1625)?
- Explicitly states that by 1623 the Company had established factories at Surat, Broach, Ahmedabad, Agra and Masulipatam.
- Places the establishment of a factory at Broach well within c.1601–1625.
- Records that Sir Thomas Roe secured permission from Jahangir to establish factories at Agra, Ahmedabad and Broach.
- Links diplomatic permission in the early 17th century to the setting up of a Broach factory.
- Timeline notes a permanent English factory at Surat (1613) and Sir Thomas Roe's arrival (1615), establishing the contemporaneous diplomatic and commercial context for other factories like Broach.
- Helps fix the relevant events within the first quarter of the 17th century.
Gives a dated list (by 1623) of English factories — Surat, Broach, Ahmedabad, Agra and Masulipatam — showing which eastern ports the Company had established by that time.
A student could compare this list to a map to see whether Chicacole appears among known early factories or is omitted, suggesting its absence by 1623.
Provides the early chronology: Company formed in 1600 and established a first factory at Surat (1613) and later secured other factories via diplomacy (e.g., Sir Thomas Roe).
Use this pattern (initial focus on major port-centres and royal permission) to judge whether a smaller port like Chicacole was likely to have an early factory before 1625.
Notes the 'Golden Farman' (1632) and lists expansion eastward including Masulipatnam and later Hariharpur and Balasore (1633), indicating key east-coast sites and that some eastern expansion occurred after c.1625.
A student could infer that significant English penetration of smaller east-coast ports occurred mainly in the 1630s, making an earlier (1601–1625) factory at Chicacole less probable.
States the Company opened its first factories in Orissa in 1633, highlighting the timing of east-coast expansion beyond initial settlements.
Compare Chicacole's geographic relation to Orissa and Masulipatnam and use the 1633 date to assess whether Chicacole likely had an official factory before 1625.
Summarises major English settlements (Surat 1612, Madras 1639, Bombay 1668, Calcutta 1690) and notes Masulipatnam as an early east-coast site, indicating where the English concentrated early on the east coast.
A student could map these named settlements relative to Chicacole (Srikakulam) to see that Chicacole is not listed among principal early factories, suggesting it was not a known early post.
- Explicitly names the location where the Company established a factory in the early 1600s (Surat, 1608).
- Lists the early inland/port trading permissions granted (Surat, Ahmadabad, Combay, Goga) and does not mention Trichinopoly among them, implying early factories were at these ports rather than Trichinopoly.
- Gives the Company’s early timeline (first ship 1601) and the arrival of William Hawkins to the Mughal court in 1608, tying early Company activity to the period and persons associated with establishment at Surat.
- Supports the timeline that the Company’s earliest recorded footholds (around 1608) were at Mughal-era ports rather than at inland sites like Trichinopoly.
Gives a list of factories established by 1623 (Surat, Broach, Ahmedabad, Agra, Masulipatam), showing which EIC sites existed in the early period.
A student could compare this list with a map showing Trichinopoly to see if Trichinopoly appears among early EIC coastal/riverine factory locations.
States the Madras fortified factory (Fort St. George) was only founded in 1639 and notes EIC expansion on the east coast in the 1630s, indicating south Indian coastal factories came slightly later.
Use chronology + map to judge whether an inland town like Trichinopoly was likely to have an EIC factory before 1625 compared with coastal settlements.
Summarises early EIC settlements and dates (first factory at Surat 1613; Roe secured factories at Agra, Ahmedabad, Broach) — reinforces which towns were priorities in the first decades.
A student can treat this as a pattern of early EIC priorities (major ports and Mughal court towns) and check whether Trichinopoly fits that pattern.
Notes the Danish founded a factory at Tranquebar (near Tanjore) in 1620, showing that smaller European powers established east-coast factories in south India in the 1620s.
Compare the Danish coastal presence (Tranquebar) with the absence of Trichinopoly in EIC lists to assess likelihood of English presence there by 1625.
Defines a 'factory' as usually a fortified area with warehouses and offices — typically located where maritime trade could be conducted and defended.
A student could use this functional definition plus geography (coastal/river access) to judge whether inland Trichinopoly fits the usual factory-site criteria for 1601–1625.
- [THE VERDICT]: Solvable Sitter. Option 1 (Broach) is explicitly in Spectrum (Ch: Advent of Europeans) and Old NCERT (Bipin Chandra, p. 52). Options 2 & 3 are eliminatable via timeline logic.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Commercial Phase' of British Expansion (1600–1650). Specifically, the geography of the Mughal-Company interface during Jahangir's reign.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'First Phase' Network (1600–1625): Surat (1613), Masulipatam (1616), Ahmedabad, Broach, Agra. Contrast with 'Second Phase' (1625–1650): Armagon (1626), Golden Farman (1632), Balasore/Hariharpur (1633), Madras (1639).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not memorize random towns. Map the factories to the political power: Early factories were either Major Ports (Surat/Broach) or Imperial Capitals (Agra). They avoided inland regional towns (like Trichy) where they had no naval escape route.
The English set up a cluster of trading factories on the west and east coasts, explicitly including Broach by 1623.
High-yield for questions on early Company expansion: explains where and when the Company established trading posts, links commercial geography with political influence, and helps answer chronology and cause-effect questions about imperial entry into India.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Growth of the East India Company's Trade and Influence, 1600-1744 > p. 52
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Beginnings of European Settlements > p. 51
Roe's mission obtained imperial permission to establish factories at Agra, Ahmedabad and Broach, enabling English expansion.
Important for understanding the mix of diplomacy and commerce in Company expansion; connects Mughal-European relations to trade privileges and helps answer questions on mechanisms of colonial establishment.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Why the English Succeeded against Other European Powers > p. 57
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Farrukhsiyar's Farmans > p. 41
Surat functioned as the Company's primary trading centre from the earliest permanent factory and provides chronological context for nearby posts like Broach.
Surat’s primacy explains patterns of regional trade networks and logistics; useful for comparative questions about regional headquarters, shifts in Company strategy, and cause of later relocations (e.g., to Bombay).
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Beginnings of European Settlements > p. 51
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Farrukhsiyar's Farmans > p. 41
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Growth of the East India Company's Trade and Influence, 1600-1744 > p. 52
The Company's initial factories were at specific towns such as Surat and Masulipatam rather than every east-coast port; knowing these locations helps test whether Chicacole was among them.
High-yield for questions on early English footholds: maps to coastal vs inland strategy, trade networks and later colonial centres. Mastering this helps eliminate unlikely sites and supports source-based location questions.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Growth of the East India Company's Trade and Influence, 1600-1744 > p. 52
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Why the English Succeeded against Other European Powers > p. 57
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 14: The Mughal Empire > European Factories/Settlements during Mughal Rule > p. 209
By 1623 the Company had established factories at Surat, Broach, Ahmedabad, Agra and Masulipatam, providing a timeline benchmark for 1601–1625 queries.
Dates are frequently tested in UPSC history: this timeline aids in answering 'which place by when' questions, links to diplomatic missions (Hawkins, Roe) and helps infer presence or absence at given dates.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Growth of the East India Company's Trade and Influence, 1600-1744 > p. 52
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Why the English Succeeded against Other European Powers > p. 57
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Farrukhsiyar's Farmans > p. 41
Founding and fortifying factories depended on permissions and farmans (e.g., Roe's negotiations; Golden Farman 1632), so any legitimate factory at Chicacole would require such grants.
High-yield for understanding institutional and diplomatic aspects of early Company expansion; connects to Mughal/Golconda polity, trade privileges and legal bases for settlements — useful for essay and source-evidence questions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Charter of Queen Elizabeth I > p. 39
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Why the English Succeeded against Other European Powers > p. 57
Establishes when and where the English East India Company set up its earliest factories in India, which is essential for judging presence at Trichinopoly in 1601–1625.
Chronology of initial English settlements is high-yield for UPSC because it anchors questions on colonial expansion, Mughal-era trade relations, and the shift of company headquarters; mastering this enables precise timeline and comparison questions (e.g., which factories existed by a given year).
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 3: Advent of the Europeans in India > Why the English Succeeded against Other European Powers > p. 57
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Beginnings of European Settlements > p. 51
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 3: The Beginnings of European Settlements > The Growth of the East India Company's Trade and Influence, 1600-1744 > p. 52
The 'Golden Farman' of 1632 by the Sultan of Golconda. This is the immediate next milestone after the 1625 cutoff in this question. Also, look out for 'Armagon' (1626)—the first fortified English factory on the Coromandel coast, which predates Madras.
Use the 'Naval Umbilical Cord' logic. In 1600–1625, the EIC was weak and relied entirely on ships for safety. They could not establish factories in deep inland towns like Trichinopoly (Tiruchirappalli) without being slaughtered by local Nayaks. If it's not on the coast or the Emperor's capital (Agra), it's wrong.
Mains GS1 (Economic Geography): Contrast the 'Factory Towns' (Surat, Masulipatam) which were mere depots, with 'Production Centers' (Chicacole for muslin, Trichy for textiles). The colonial economy eventually killed the inland production centers to feed the port depots.