Recent writings on 18th century have considerably
altered our understanding of the period. Elaborate.
INTRODUCTION:
The eighteenth century in Indian history marks it relevance by two crucial developments-the
decline of Mughal Empire and the expansion of British Empire, which changed the
social, economic and political structure. An extensive study of these two phases has
resulted in diverging views. There is the traditional view of a period of ‘Dark Age’
which is of decline and stagnation, and the recent view of economic prosperity.
Moreover, historians stress on the changing and evolutionary pattern and also a
substantial continuity.
Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 marks the beginning of Mughal decline, but his territorial
expansions that put a huge dent on the financial structure of the state are also
contributing.
The break-up of the Mughal State was followed by the emergency of large number of
independent and semi-independent smaller units. These were of three-distinct
types- firstly, the warrior states established by Sikhs, Jats and Marathas in the course
of rebellions against the Mughals, who adopted military fiscalism; secondly,
independent kingdoms where subedars asserted their independence, e.g. Nawabs of
Bengal, Nizams of Hyderabad; and thirdly, local kingdoms whose sovereignty
acquired more substance in the 18th century, e.g. the Rajput states, Mysore etc.,
which resorted to military fiscalism within compact domains, achieving varying
degrees of success in extracting revenues from trade and production.
Initially, the nationalist and colonialist writers focused on the weaknesses of individual
Mughal rulers for the decline of the empire. Marxist and Annaliste historians dominated the
revisionist work about the eighteenth century in the 1980s and 1990s and tried to uncover
the structural transformations that were rooted deep in the Indian society under the
political history of empires. David Washbrook and Prasannan Parthasarthi have made
interesting interventions about the status of labour in South India during the 18 th century.
Meanwhile, British historians like C.A. Bayly and David Washbrook, working on the local and
provincial origins of Indian nationalism in the late nineteenth century, looked back to
explore deep social histories of the Indian elites and middle classes who lead the
later nationalist politics. This contradicted the view that the Mughal Empire
collapsed due to rebellions by resentful and oppressed landlords and peasants.
Muzaffar Alam and Andre Wink, expressed Mughal centralized power’s decline as a
, process in which local elites who under the patronage of Mughal started gaining
more symbols and substance of sovereignty.
Most of the revisionist work questioned the economic decline theory that both imperialist
and nationalist histories posed. They speculated regional variations that showed
significant economic growth and with increased monetization, agricultural and
commercial expansion as evidence. They did not just focus on the decline of the
Mughal imperial centre but on the dynamism of regional and local polities.
Robert Travers talks about how social history was pitted against cultural history as the
eighteenth century revisionists were said to be rivals of the cultural and linguistic
leaning Subaltern studies. This was emphasized upon in South Asian history by
postcolonial theory politics and critics. The disputes started losing their edges as
both the debates settled down and it became clear that both of them had a different
approach, different time periods, different social groups etc. These debates raise
many contests such as collaboration versus resistance, Indian agency versus colonial
intervention, continuity versus change, social history versus cultural history.
Bernard S. Cohn, one of the revisionist historian talks about the existence and interaction of
multiple “levels of power,” from villages and local land controllers to kings, provincial
governors and emperors.
NATIONALIST AND COLONIALIST SCHOOL:
Influential historians of the early-twentieth century like Jadunath Sarkar claimed that the
Maratha, Jat and Sikh resistance was evidence of a strong Hindu opposition against
Aurangzeb’s religiously bigot policies and they were the reason for the ultimate
collapse of the Mughal empire. The nationalists further argue that Hindu rulers such
as the Marathas should have been the legitimate successors of Mughals.
Colonialists, on the other hand, believed that the British East India Company of occidental
origin with its rule of law, governance model and the “gift” of civilization were the
legitimate heir to the decadent Muslims. They wanted to civilize the barbaric,
oriental despots of east.
The British colonialists kept trying to portray India as a timeless and stagnant land in
contrast to their progress and dynamic traits, while the Indian nationalists claimed
the antiquity of their cultural and political ideals.
ALIGARH SCHOOL OF MARXIST HISTORIANS:
The Aligarh School of Marxist historians focused on state-formation process and on the
important role of bankers, merchants and elites who held lands in forming pre-
altered our understanding of the period. Elaborate.
INTRODUCTION:
The eighteenth century in Indian history marks it relevance by two crucial developments-the
decline of Mughal Empire and the expansion of British Empire, which changed the
social, economic and political structure. An extensive study of these two phases has
resulted in diverging views. There is the traditional view of a period of ‘Dark Age’
which is of decline and stagnation, and the recent view of economic prosperity.
Moreover, historians stress on the changing and evolutionary pattern and also a
substantial continuity.
Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 marks the beginning of Mughal decline, but his territorial
expansions that put a huge dent on the financial structure of the state are also
contributing.
The break-up of the Mughal State was followed by the emergency of large number of
independent and semi-independent smaller units. These were of three-distinct
types- firstly, the warrior states established by Sikhs, Jats and Marathas in the course
of rebellions against the Mughals, who adopted military fiscalism; secondly,
independent kingdoms where subedars asserted their independence, e.g. Nawabs of
Bengal, Nizams of Hyderabad; and thirdly, local kingdoms whose sovereignty
acquired more substance in the 18th century, e.g. the Rajput states, Mysore etc.,
which resorted to military fiscalism within compact domains, achieving varying
degrees of success in extracting revenues from trade and production.
Initially, the nationalist and colonialist writers focused on the weaknesses of individual
Mughal rulers for the decline of the empire. Marxist and Annaliste historians dominated the
revisionist work about the eighteenth century in the 1980s and 1990s and tried to uncover
the structural transformations that were rooted deep in the Indian society under the
political history of empires. David Washbrook and Prasannan Parthasarthi have made
interesting interventions about the status of labour in South India during the 18 th century.
Meanwhile, British historians like C.A. Bayly and David Washbrook, working on the local and
provincial origins of Indian nationalism in the late nineteenth century, looked back to
explore deep social histories of the Indian elites and middle classes who lead the
later nationalist politics. This contradicted the view that the Mughal Empire
collapsed due to rebellions by resentful and oppressed landlords and peasants.
Muzaffar Alam and Andre Wink, expressed Mughal centralized power’s decline as a
, process in which local elites who under the patronage of Mughal started gaining
more symbols and substance of sovereignty.
Most of the revisionist work questioned the economic decline theory that both imperialist
and nationalist histories posed. They speculated regional variations that showed
significant economic growth and with increased monetization, agricultural and
commercial expansion as evidence. They did not just focus on the decline of the
Mughal imperial centre but on the dynamism of regional and local polities.
Robert Travers talks about how social history was pitted against cultural history as the
eighteenth century revisionists were said to be rivals of the cultural and linguistic
leaning Subaltern studies. This was emphasized upon in South Asian history by
postcolonial theory politics and critics. The disputes started losing their edges as
both the debates settled down and it became clear that both of them had a different
approach, different time periods, different social groups etc. These debates raise
many contests such as collaboration versus resistance, Indian agency versus colonial
intervention, continuity versus change, social history versus cultural history.
Bernard S. Cohn, one of the revisionist historian talks about the existence and interaction of
multiple “levels of power,” from villages and local land controllers to kings, provincial
governors and emperors.
NATIONALIST AND COLONIALIST SCHOOL:
Influential historians of the early-twentieth century like Jadunath Sarkar claimed that the
Maratha, Jat and Sikh resistance was evidence of a strong Hindu opposition against
Aurangzeb’s religiously bigot policies and they were the reason for the ultimate
collapse of the Mughal empire. The nationalists further argue that Hindu rulers such
as the Marathas should have been the legitimate successors of Mughals.
Colonialists, on the other hand, believed that the British East India Company of occidental
origin with its rule of law, governance model and the “gift” of civilization were the
legitimate heir to the decadent Muslims. They wanted to civilize the barbaric,
oriental despots of east.
The British colonialists kept trying to portray India as a timeless and stagnant land in
contrast to their progress and dynamic traits, while the Indian nationalists claimed
the antiquity of their cultural and political ideals.
ALIGARH SCHOOL OF MARXIST HISTORIANS:
The Aligarh School of Marxist historians focused on state-formation process and on the
important role of bankers, merchants and elites who held lands in forming pre-
