A comprehensive debate on eighteenth century in India

As we take an insight into the eighteenth century we must address issues

connected with both pre colonial (pre 1750s) and colonial trends (post 1750
era).
To be clear, we must delve into two major debates in the eighteenth
century- one of them being somewhat concluded on- on whether the
eighteenth century is fit to be referred to as a 'dark age'. Most colonial writers
including the likes of James Mill and that of Indian aristocrats and historians
like Jadunath Sarkar, Iswari Prasad and Tara Chand point out that this was in
fact a twilight period that characterized by a decline in most areas of life- be
it political, economic or cultural. However, more recently there has been a
thorough revision of this view. KN Panikkar, CA Bayly, Muzaffar Alam, Chetan
Singh point out further that this century was an extremely vibrant age with
new trends and whims in cultural and commercial sectors of life.
The next debate revolves around whether one must see eighteenth century
on continuum, or whether there is a break in structure and trends in the
1750s. This topic of debate is active and historians like Irfan Habib, Athar Ali,
Sushil Chaudhuri, Om Prakash suggest that the acquiring of political control
by the British in the mid eighteenth century had far reaching consequences
and effects which moulded and changed the structure of the Indian economy.
However, CA Bayly and Rajat Dutta beg to differ. They suggest that there
were no structural changes and that there was in fact a continuity from the
first half of the eighteenth century into the second. This line of argument is
referred to as the 'continuity thesis'.
Historians don't only record events but also ensure that they
comprehensively interpret the same. Thus, we will come across historians
taking into consideration two important events concerning the history of
eighteenth century. The years 1707 and 1757 are held in high significance
and much is interpreted from both in the light of varied perspectives. 1707
signifies the death of Aurangzeb after which the steady decline of the Mughal
Empire took place. 1757 signifies the victory in the battle of plassey after
which the Britishers founded colonial raj in India.
The Eighteenth century has always held great significance in the study of
Indian history. In general, it is seen under the light of a transitional period in
which the land based Mughal empire gave way to the colonial rule of the sea
based British colonials. The conception about the same scheme of events till
the 1980s was that the redundant Mughal empire had met its downfall only
due to its own contradictions and the English East India company had taken
advantage of this, and subjugated India into a colony.
However, we must take notice that the transition was not that of a simply

political nature- one regime replacing that of another, but also deeply
economic. The premodern economy of India was forcibly linked to world
capitalist markets simply to India's detriment. Indian historians look at the
beginning of the eighteenth century as the beginning of a new historical era
of pillage and colonial rule. Seema Alavi suggests that new writing on the
eighteenth century have however created a divide. Those studying the
decline of the Mughals- often apply their ideas to the scope of the entire
century. For instance, the historians suggest that with the collapse of the
Mughal state structurethe important political, economic and social institutions
tiedwith the state also crumbled bringing havoc to the century. Historians of a
newer crop, studying the later period paint a less shady picture. They
suggest that their perspectives which studies from the peripheries and not
the centre showcases altogether an entirely different scenario. According to
them the entire process was that of decentralization and an assertion of
regional powers rather than outright decline of the same. According to them
these trends were noticeable early on and left an impact on the rest of the
century. Hence, there is little interpretation of the two views and we must
thus examine this clash to present a more hollistic picture of the eighteenth
century.
For Mughal, Imperialist and Nationalist historians, Eighteenth century was
infact a 'Dark Age' owing to the chaos, decline and anarchy encircling it. For
imperialist historians it served the legitimacy of imperialist nation. For Mughal
Historians , it helped signify the era as a stabiliing political system. For
Nationalist historians the notion testifies the causes for the success of the
colonial power in India. Revisionist historians however hold radically different
views. There are, in acordance, three events and issues that concern the
Eighteenth century:
a) The decline of Mughal empire.
b) The Economic status of early eighteenth century.
c) The establishment of the British raj in India in the later part of the
eighteenth century.
Based on these three issues the revisionist historians reinterpret and modify
the perception of the eighteenth century.
The decline of the Mughal empire is a topic that has already been
extensively discussed and understood in the light of influential arguments of
Historians from the 'Aligarh School'-Satish Chandra, Athar Ali and Irfan Habib.
Satish Chandra in his book on politics in the Mughal Court suggests that it
was really the crisis in Mughal instituions- the Mansab and Jagir that brought
out a financial crisis in the empire thus leading to its eventual downfall. Athar
Ali further adds how the crisis was led by Be-Jagiri i.e lack of Jagirs. Both

historians argue that such state of affairs was led by burden of expansionist
wars and rebellions and the attamept of the Mughal state to accomodate
newer elements in the administration e.g within the mansabdari system. The
crisis was an outcome of too many people awaiting the patronage of the state
and not enough land to be distributed as jagirs. This further led to
dissatsfaction amongst the people and an eventual weakening and downfall
of the centre.
Irfan Habib shifts focus to the agrarian economy. He argued that revenue
demand on the peasentry was high and that with the transferability of the
Jagirs the tendency of mandsabdars to trouble the peasentry grew. To resist
this exploitation, most took to rebeliion, some shifted to other parts and
some abandoned lands. Rebellions by Jats, Satnamis, Marathas and Sikhs
were hence, essentially peasent rebellions led by Zamindars.
Hence, we understand that according to Aligarh historians the Mughal empire
was a highly centralized, revenue extracting structure which was unable to
gain support of its nobility and its peasentry.
Despite this very convincing picture of the eighteenth century- the
interpretation was again challeneged. John F Richards displayed how in
Mughal Deccan there was absolutely no shortage of Jagirs- so accoriding to
him, earlier arguments regarding the same were imperatively revised.
Muzaffar Alam studied in detail, provinces like Punjab and Awadh and
demonstrated that peasant rebellions by Zamindars were in areas of relative
agrarian prosperity. This was a serious challenge to high revenue which
further led to exploitation, leading to poverty, leading to a rebellion. Peasant
rebellions occurred because they were growing prosperous and were
unwilling to alienate their prosperity to the Mughal state. Chetan Singh
further demonstrates how in the frail borders of the empire the Mughal
state's relations with communities as often very informal in nature. Hence, for
the most part, when the Mughal empire did collapse it left no impact on these
regions.
The decline of revenue resources led to the instability of the Mughal state
which couldn't mantain law and order, military and the overall function of the
state mechanism. Irfan Habib adds to this idea by saying that the Indian
economy in the early part of the eighteenth century collapsed and the
collapse of the empire in control was an inevitable phenomenon.
Hence, the argument is that the decline was caused by the decline in the
cultural, economic and institutional elements of the society. The revisionist
historians howevere refute these perceptions and suggest that expansion of
the economy led to the decline of the Mughal empire. They add that the
expansion of economy led to the mergence of new social classes and in

particular the emergence of homogenous merchant community and

tuonomous rural gentry. These classes eventually wanted to turn their wealth
into resources thereby sharing political power.For the debate of the nature of
the 18th century this had two implications: decline of the Mughal state did
not indicate an overall economic decline. Political and social forms also
survived in areas where the Mughal reach had been limited. The decline of
the empire is hence best understood with the reason that the Mughals were
unable to include these newly emerging social classes into the shackles of
their political stencil. Crucial to this is also the thesis that the eighteenth
century was a period of economic expansion. There are three elements
related to this thesis: one being an argument centred on the agrarian
economy, two on non-agrarian economy particularly trade and commerce
and third on the emergence of newly formed social classes. However, in order
to examine their evidence and the critiques to their evidence one must
understand the historiography of the same, in depth. There are arguments
that economic expansion and political decline are not in any given way
related processes. Also, the decline of an empire may or may not lead to the
decline of an economy. One has to hence understand the process of social
change in isolation from the structure of the state. Also, the processes of
state formation in India aren't related to processes of economic expansion.
Indian economy fucntions independently and is bereft of any influence from
political developments.
In the context of the eighteenth century, the historiography rests both
on Mughal state and colonial state. However, the attempt remains to see the
social, economic and political changes occuring in the eighteenth century in
isolation from Mughal, regional and colonial state. Contemporary persian
historical sources rarely talk about the expansion of economy and rather hint
at decline of agricultural operation and state mechanism. With contexts like
these, Irfan Habib argues furthermore that the period was infact an period of
decline, chaos and anarchy.
Revisionists argue that most of the Persian chronicles are biased and
represent the interests and likes of the interested state groups and emerge
entirely from state archives representing the interests of the Mughal ruling
class. They further argue that divergence of resources away from Mughal
ruling class to other social groups, to conventional historians seemed to be
representing the decline of the economy.
It is claimed that two processes were happening in the eighteenth century.
One , was the divergence of resources away from feudal aristocracy to newly
emergent social groups particularly merchants, rural gentry and other
marshal communities such as the Sikhs, Jats and Marathas. Two being the
Spatial divergence of resources from Delhi- Agra to Bengal-Awadh and
Hyderabad regional areas. The Revisionists argue that this was a period of

economic expansion and that the emergence was followed by the emergence
of new social groups who were taking charge. They further added that the
economic expansion happened independent of political developments and
that the establishment of the colonial state should not be seen as a part of
colonial competence of just the British but as a part of larger social
processes. Muzaffar Alam has put up the most prominent arguments of
revisionists relating to the agrarian economy of Awadh and Punjab. He
suggests that the eighteenth century saw the incorporation of waste land into
cultivable land with an increased awareness of technological innovation.