Question- How do various theoretical frameworks have explained the nature of the 18th century in
Indian History? Describe with a detail of historiographical trends.
Introduction
India of the eighteenth century has often been characterised as the Dark Age" where no significant
developments took place. It has been put in the bracket of decline and weakening of central authority,
i.e. the Mughal Empire. However, Indian subcontinent witnessed two major transitions in the
eighteenth century that reshaped its political and socio-economic landscape. The first among these
was the shift from the Mughal political economy tothe rise of regional political powers, i.e.
decentralisation of power. The second transition was the one that followed the battles of Plassey
(1757) and Buxar (1764), since these paved the way for ascension of political dominance of English
East India Companyin north India, which impacted the region's polity, society, and economy. These
two phases have been widely examined by historians, who debate the nature of the changes during
this period and their significance for the establishment of early colonial rule in India.
The controversy regarding the political decline of the Mughals has triggered a debate on the nature of
economic and social change in the wake of imperial collapse. Opinions are sharply divided between
those who view the decline as a consequence of ec onomic crisis and exploitation by the ruling classes,
and those who regard the political turmoil in terms ofregional assertiveness triggered by economic
prosperity. These two divergent positions form the "Dark Ages versus economic prosperity" debate on
the eighteenth century.
The Company's transition from a commercial to a political entity has been variously explained.
Earlier explanations stressed the primacy of trade as the driving force behind political power, while
later works emphasized the political imperative that pushed trading interests. Second, the theme of
the Company state and the economy has generated conflicting viewpoints ranging from the emergence
ofregional economies; European trade and bullion imports into India; the position of labor,
merchants, and weavers; revenue settlements; and the introduction of agrarian capitalism. The third
important theme deals with the state and governance. Finally, in view of the vast number of detailed
regional histories of the peiod now available and the opening up of the non-economic dimensions of
Company nuleto historical scrutiny, the ideological underpinnings of early colonial power have been
considerably revised. Here historians also join issue with historiography influenced by Edward Said's
notion of "orientalism'.
The First Half of the Eiehteenth Century: Dark Ages versus Economic Prosperity
The early historians of Mughal India viewed the events of the eighteenth century as being integral to
political developments in the Mughal Empire. The early historiography of imperial decline focused on
the administrative and religious policies of individual rulers and their nobles.
, In the works of Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the spotlight remained on Aurangzeb, the emperor who
oversaw the imperial downfall. His religious policy, in particular, and later his Deccan campaigns
were identified as the reasons of subsequent decline of Mughal economy, institutions, and society.
Sarkar characterized the peasant rebellionsthat ultimately destroyed Mughal political stability as a
Hindu reaction' to Aurangzeb's Muslim orthodoxy. The religious policy of the rulers was proclaimed
to be the reason of imperial decline by Sri Ram Sharma and Ishwari Prasad as well. The eighteenth
century was attributed to be a politically chaotic and economically crisis-prone period.
From the late 1950s, Marxist-oriented historians began to provide explanations of Mughal decline
in materialist terms. Satish Chandraheld the stuctural flaws in the working of the Mughal
institutions of jagir and mansab responsible for the fiscal crisisof the late seventeenth century. The
Mughal failure to ensure the smooth functioning of these institutions became most pronounced uing
Aurangzeb's reign and was to herald the process of imperial collapse.
Fromthe 1960s onwards, some economic historians, in particular Irfan Habib, explained Mughal
decline and the consequent political and social unrest in fiscal terms. Habib argued that the high rate
of land revemuedemanded by Delhi caused large-scale rural exploitation, leading to peasant migration
and rebellion. This created an agrarian crisis that resulted in the weakening of the empire's political
edifice. Athar Ali accepted Habib's model of a fiscally centralized state but attributed the declineto a
shortage of jagirs. The deficit was created because of the political expansion of the empire into less
fertile lands, especially in the Deccan. This increased the number of nobles without a coresponding
augmentation in jagirlands, The shortage of jagirs generated an administrative problem, which, in
turn, fueled the economic crisis.However, John F. Richards' concluded that the Deccan was not a
deficit area that rejected the belief that "be-jagiri" (absence of jagirs) was a major cause of the crisis of
the empire.
In the 1980s, the later work of Satish Chandra once again shiftedthe focus to the economic aspects
of the politico-administrative imperial crisis. He argued that as jagirs became few and relatively
infertile, the discrepancy between the estimated revenue (jama) and actual yields (hasil) intensified.
This had an adverse impact on the ability of state fnctionaries to ensure the regularity of revenue
collection which led to a jagirdari crisis, hence hampering the stability.
The downfall of the empire is also viewed as a 'cultural' failure. Culture is seen in terms of
technological, intellectual, and economic referents. Here, the economic crisis that underlined the
decline is attributed to the relative economic, technological, and intellectual rise of Europe in the
period 1500-1700 as a centre of world commerce. As Europe emerged as the principal market for
luxurious craft manufactures of the world, it attracted high-value products from the traditional Eastem
markets. This increased the cost of luxury items in India and intensified the financial difficulties of the
ruling classes, which was compensated through intensified agrarian exploitation. In addition, the
intellectual and technological aridity of India did not allow towns toemerge as 'safety valves' for the
people. AIl these reasons made the empire politically and economically vulnerable.
The predominant theme in the above works projects the eighteenth century as a "Dark Age," its
hallmark being political chaos and economic decline. The fixation of the historian's gaze on the
imperial center, without accommodating the developments taking place at regional levels, paved the
way for a new outlook in historiography, i.e. the emergence of regional courts, such as the Marathas,
the Satnamis, and the Sikhs.
Indian History? Describe with a detail of historiographical trends.
Introduction
India of the eighteenth century has often been characterised as the Dark Age" where no significant
developments took place. It has been put in the bracket of decline and weakening of central authority,
i.e. the Mughal Empire. However, Indian subcontinent witnessed two major transitions in the
eighteenth century that reshaped its political and socio-economic landscape. The first among these
was the shift from the Mughal political economy tothe rise of regional political powers, i.e.
decentralisation of power. The second transition was the one that followed the battles of Plassey
(1757) and Buxar (1764), since these paved the way for ascension of political dominance of English
East India Companyin north India, which impacted the region's polity, society, and economy. These
two phases have been widely examined by historians, who debate the nature of the changes during
this period and their significance for the establishment of early colonial rule in India.
The controversy regarding the political decline of the Mughals has triggered a debate on the nature of
economic and social change in the wake of imperial collapse. Opinions are sharply divided between
those who view the decline as a consequence of ec onomic crisis and exploitation by the ruling classes,
and those who regard the political turmoil in terms ofregional assertiveness triggered by economic
prosperity. These two divergent positions form the "Dark Ages versus economic prosperity" debate on
the eighteenth century.
The Company's transition from a commercial to a political entity has been variously explained.
Earlier explanations stressed the primacy of trade as the driving force behind political power, while
later works emphasized the political imperative that pushed trading interests. Second, the theme of
the Company state and the economy has generated conflicting viewpoints ranging from the emergence
ofregional economies; European trade and bullion imports into India; the position of labor,
merchants, and weavers; revenue settlements; and the introduction of agrarian capitalism. The third
important theme deals with the state and governance. Finally, in view of the vast number of detailed
regional histories of the peiod now available and the opening up of the non-economic dimensions of
Company nuleto historical scrutiny, the ideological underpinnings of early colonial power have been
considerably revised. Here historians also join issue with historiography influenced by Edward Said's
notion of "orientalism'.
The First Half of the Eiehteenth Century: Dark Ages versus Economic Prosperity
The early historians of Mughal India viewed the events of the eighteenth century as being integral to
political developments in the Mughal Empire. The early historiography of imperial decline focused on
the administrative and religious policies of individual rulers and their nobles.
, In the works of Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the spotlight remained on Aurangzeb, the emperor who
oversaw the imperial downfall. His religious policy, in particular, and later his Deccan campaigns
were identified as the reasons of subsequent decline of Mughal economy, institutions, and society.
Sarkar characterized the peasant rebellionsthat ultimately destroyed Mughal political stability as a
Hindu reaction' to Aurangzeb's Muslim orthodoxy. The religious policy of the rulers was proclaimed
to be the reason of imperial decline by Sri Ram Sharma and Ishwari Prasad as well. The eighteenth
century was attributed to be a politically chaotic and economically crisis-prone period.
From the late 1950s, Marxist-oriented historians began to provide explanations of Mughal decline
in materialist terms. Satish Chandraheld the stuctural flaws in the working of the Mughal
institutions of jagir and mansab responsible for the fiscal crisisof the late seventeenth century. The
Mughal failure to ensure the smooth functioning of these institutions became most pronounced uing
Aurangzeb's reign and was to herald the process of imperial collapse.
Fromthe 1960s onwards, some economic historians, in particular Irfan Habib, explained Mughal
decline and the consequent political and social unrest in fiscal terms. Habib argued that the high rate
of land revemuedemanded by Delhi caused large-scale rural exploitation, leading to peasant migration
and rebellion. This created an agrarian crisis that resulted in the weakening of the empire's political
edifice. Athar Ali accepted Habib's model of a fiscally centralized state but attributed the declineto a
shortage of jagirs. The deficit was created because of the political expansion of the empire into less
fertile lands, especially in the Deccan. This increased the number of nobles without a coresponding
augmentation in jagirlands, The shortage of jagirs generated an administrative problem, which, in
turn, fueled the economic crisis.However, John F. Richards' concluded that the Deccan was not a
deficit area that rejected the belief that "be-jagiri" (absence of jagirs) was a major cause of the crisis of
the empire.
In the 1980s, the later work of Satish Chandra once again shiftedthe focus to the economic aspects
of the politico-administrative imperial crisis. He argued that as jagirs became few and relatively
infertile, the discrepancy between the estimated revenue (jama) and actual yields (hasil) intensified.
This had an adverse impact on the ability of state fnctionaries to ensure the regularity of revenue
collection which led to a jagirdari crisis, hence hampering the stability.
The downfall of the empire is also viewed as a 'cultural' failure. Culture is seen in terms of
technological, intellectual, and economic referents. Here, the economic crisis that underlined the
decline is attributed to the relative economic, technological, and intellectual rise of Europe in the
period 1500-1700 as a centre of world commerce. As Europe emerged as the principal market for
luxurious craft manufactures of the world, it attracted high-value products from the traditional Eastem
markets. This increased the cost of luxury items in India and intensified the financial difficulties of the
ruling classes, which was compensated through intensified agrarian exploitation. In addition, the
intellectual and technological aridity of India did not allow towns toemerge as 'safety valves' for the
people. AIl these reasons made the empire politically and economically vulnerable.
The predominant theme in the above works projects the eighteenth century as a "Dark Age," its
hallmark being political chaos and economic decline. The fixation of the historian's gaze on the
imperial center, without accommodating the developments taking place at regional levels, paved the
way for a new outlook in historiography, i.e. the emergence of regional courts, such as the Marathas,
the Satnamis, and the Sikhs.
