Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Subject: History
Unit: India in the mid Eighteenth Century: Society,
Economy, Polity
Lesson: The Eighteenth Century: Society, Economy and
Polity
Lesson Developer : Partho Datta
College/Department : Zakir Hussain (Evening) College,
University of Delhi
Table of contents
Chapter
Introduction
In the middle of the 1980s two books published within a few years of each other,
Christopher Baylys Rulers, Townsmen and Bazars and Muzaffar Alams The Crisis of Empire
in Mughal North India brought a renewed focus on the 18th century. The 18th century had
always been important in Indian history. Generally it was seen as a period of transition in
which the land-based Mughal empire gave way to the power of the sea-based British
empire. The consensus till the 1980s was that the moribund Mughal state had collapsed due
to its own contradictions and the English East India Company representing the aggressive
mercantilist forces of the West had taken advantage of the ensuing confusion to subjugate
and reduce India to a colony. The transition was not simply political one regime replacing
another, but also economic: the pre-modern economy of the Mughals was forcibly linked to
world capitalist markets to Indias detriment. For Indian historians, the 18th century
signalled the beginning of a new historical era of pillage and colonial rule.
The historian Seema Alavi has suggested that the new writings on the 18th century have
created a divide. Those studying the process of the decline of the Mughals - which happened
in the first few decades of the 18th century - have a tendency to extend their views and
apply them to the entire century. For instance, these historians argue that with the collapse
of the centralized Mughal state structure the important political, economic and social
institutions tied with the state also crumbled, bringing unrest and havoc through the
century. The newer historians studying the later period paint a less gloomy picture. They
argue that their viewpoint - which studies trends from the peripheries and not the centre presents an altogether different scenario. According to them the process was one of
decentralization and assertion of regional powers rather than outright decline. They say that
these trends were noticeable early and left their mark on the rest of the century. Clearly
there was little agreement between the two views and this clash of interpretations is what
we will examine below. One outcome of this debate was that it is now possible to present a
more holistic and varied picture of the 18th century than before.
Despite the convincing and authoritative picture of the decline of Mughals, this
interpretation was challenged. J.F. Richards demonstrated that in Mughal Deccan there was
no shortage of jagirs. So clearly, earlier arguments needed to be modified in this light. But it
was Muzaffar Alams detailed study for provinces like Awadh and Punjab that demonstrated
that the peasant rebellions led by zamindars were in areas of relative agrarian prosperity.
This was a serious challenge to the high revenue leading to exploitation leading to
poverty leading to rebellion argument. From Alams evidence it would seem that peasant
rebellions occurred because they were growing prosperous and were unwilling to alienate
their prosperity to the Mughal state. Furthermore, the work of historian Chetan Singh
demonstrated that in the peripheries of empire the Mughal states relations with
communities was often informal. This meant that the much vaunted all-controlling
centralized structure of the Mughal state needed to be qualified. In this scenario if the
Mughal state did collapse it left no impact on distant regions.
For the debate on 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.
Drawing on the work of Christopher Bayly, historians have identified broadly three types of
states that replaced the Mughal empire. These characterizations help us to understand the
nature of the smaller political formations. Firstly there was the successor state i.e.
provinces like Bengal, Awadh and Hyderabad which grew out of the body of the erstwhile
Mughal empire. Murshid Quli Khan in Bengal, Saadat Khan in Awadh and Asaf Jah in
Hyderabad were powerful nobles, governors and representatives of the Mughals who taking
advantage of the chaos at the centre carved out kingdoms for themselves combining the
hitherto separate departments of nizamat and diwani. Muzaffar Alam has called this the
formation of the new subedari. Although they acknowledged the political suzerainty of the
Mughals and called themselves nawabs in deference, in effect they had stopped sending
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
A third trend was the commercialization of royal or political power. This literally meant
merchant participation in politics. In Bengal the banking family of the Jagat Seths became
chief financiers of the nawabs, providing credit and participating in revenue farming. The
power of these merchant bankers was most apparent when in the ensuing conflict between
the Bengal ruler Sirajudaula and the East India Company, the Seths used their clout and
power to ensure the defeat of the former in the Battle of Plassey [1757]. Commercialization
of power encouraged the use of objective monetary values to express social relationships.
Rents, houses, proprietary rights of landholders and village headmen, statuses and offices
were leased and sub-leased as relationships between various groups changed. The new
states also used this process of sharing power to incorporate groups other than merchants
and bankers in their quest for military might and capital. The Marathas and Sikhs
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
Economy
The economic indicators for the 18th century show that the economy fared well before the
advent of colonial rule. There is little record of sustained famines. The devastating famine of
1770 happened in Bengal after the inauguration of Company rule. Population, prices, trade
and production all showed an upward swing which broadly indicated a positive trend.
Urbanization was also an important indicator of economic prosperity but here the story was
more complicated. As Ashin Dasgupta pointed, out the decline of some cities was
compensated for by the growth of others. Older Mughal centres like Delhi, Agra, Lahore and
Burhanpur declined with Mughal political fortunes. Important port cities like Surat and
Masulipatnam too declined as international trade was wrested away from Indian merchants
by European companies. Their place was taken by colonial cities like Madras, Bombay and
Calcutta and the inland cities and capitals of regional kingdoms: Lucknow, Fyzabad,
Benaras, Hyderabad, Srirangapatam and Bangalore. Trading cities like Mirzapur, Kanpur and
Baroda also came into being to service trade.
Paradoxically, inland trade thrived and merchant corporations managed to maintain their
networks despite the growing political fragmentation. Political fragmentation in fact made
the credit network stronger. By the middle of the 18th century Jagat Seth could send the
entire revenue of the eastern provinces as a hundi drawn on his agents in Delhi. B.R.
Grovers research shows that local rural commercial production found new markets in the
provincial kingdoms and was thus compensated for any disruptions caused by the
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
The 18th century saw both devastation due to Mughal decline as well as rapid adjustment
as economic forces regrouped and re-established themselves in more hospitable areas. This
mixed view of the period which is different from the earlier one of relentless decline and
disintegration has prompted historians to characterize the period as one that was full of
dynamism. They argue that this was the primary reason why the European companies got
attracted to India in the first place. Why would these trading companies whose governing
motive was profit expend their mercantile energies if 18th century India was in economic
decline?
1.2: Exercises
Essay questions
1) How has Christopher Baylys book revised our understanding of the 18th century?
2) To what extent did non-agricultural wealth play an important part in the dynamics of the
18th century economy?
3) Examine the role of various classes in the 18th century. Which class according to
historians played a crucial role in sustaining the intermediate economy?
4) Examine the nature of the regional states which emerged after the decline of the
centralized Mughal state in the 18th century.
5) Did India have the potentialities for developing into a full-fledged capitalist economy in
the 18th century?
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
Objective Operations
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
True or False
Question
Which of these statements is false regarding Military Fiscalism?
It was an attempt by the state to do away with intermediaries.
A more efficient form of revenue collection.
Loot collected by the army
Correct Answer
Option(s)
c)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
True or False
Question
Which of these statements is false regarding intermediaries in eighteenth century
India?
Intermediaries were local craftsmen who supplied luxury goods to the royal courts.
They were local officials who represented the administration.
Hindu and Jain merchants who lent money to the state
Correct Answer
Option(s)
a)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
True or False
Question
Which of these statements are true?
The Mughal empire declined because the East India Company became powerful.
The Mughal empire declined because of internal political turmoil.
The Mughal empire disintegrated because it was unable to efficiently collect revenue
from the peasants.
The Mughal empire declined because of foreign invasions.
Correct Answer
Option(s)
b) and c)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
True or False
Question
Which of these statements are false regarding the arguments of the Aligarh school?
a) Mughals declined because of incapable rulers
b) The crisis of the Mughal empire was fiscal in character.
c) Mughals declined because of internal warfare among successors.
d) Mughals declined due to the mansabdari crisis.
Correct Answer
Option(s)
a) and c)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
True or False
Question
Correct Answer
Option(s)
b)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
Question
Match the following:
a) Murshid Quli Khan
i) Awadh
b) Asaf Jah
c) Saadat Khan
iii) Bengal
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
iv) Mysore
e) Hyder Ali
v) Hyderabad
f) Aurangzeb
Correct Answer
Option(s)
a) and iii)
b) and v)
e) and iv)
f) and ii).
c) and i)
d) and vi)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
Question
Match the following:
a) qasba
b) ganj
c) Mandi
d) arang
a) and iv)
b) and i)
c) and ii)
d) and iii)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
Question
Match the following:
a) Saraaf
i) Cloth dealers
b) Bazazas
ii) Jewellers
c) Jouhuris
Correct Answer
Option(s)
a) and iii)
b) and i)
c) and ii)
Question Number
Type of question
LOD
Question
Which of the following states emerged after the decline of the Mughals:
a) North West Provinces
b) Rajput states
c) Hyderabad
Correct Answer
Option(s)
c)
1.2 Glossary
Bazaar: Market
Bazazas: Cloth dealers
Diwani: Office, jurisdiction, emoluments of the diwan, the chief financial officer of the state
Ganj: Fixed regulated markets
Hundi: Indigenous bill of exchange
Jagir/Jagirdar: The public revenues of a land assigned for a term to a servant of the state the assignee was called the Jagirdar
Jouhuris: Jewellers
Mandi: Wholesale markets
Mansab/Mansabdar: Military rank conferred by the Mughal Government, the holder was
called the Mansabdar
Nawab: Viceroy, governor
Nizamat: Administration
Qasba: Fixed gentry seat
Saltpetre: Literally salt of rock; potassium nitrate found naturally and used as ingredient for
gunpowder
Saraafs: Money dealers
Subedar/Subedari: Governor of province
Zamindar: Landholder, a collector of revenue on behalf of government
Alam, Muzaffar. 1986. The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab,
1707-48. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Alam, Muzaffar and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, eds. 1998. The Mughal State, 1526-1750.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Alavi, Seema. ed. 2002. The Eighteenth Century in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Aston, T. H. and C. H. E. Philpin. 1985. The Brenner Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Athar Ali, M. 1968. The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb. Bombay: Aisa Publishing House.
Bayly, Christopher. 1983. Rulers, Townsmen and Bazars: North Indian Society in the Age of
British Expansion, 1770-1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayly, Christopher and Sanjay Subrahmaniam. 1988. Portfolio Capitalists and the Political
Economy of Early Modern India. Indian Economic and Social History Review, 25, 4.
Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal. 1998. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political
Economy. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chandra, Satish. 1979. Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707-1740. Delhi: Peoples
Publishing House.
Cohn, Bernard. 1960, 1987. The Initial Impact on India: A Case Study of the Benares
Region. An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays. Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Dasgupta, Ashin. 1970, 1998. Trade and Politics in Eighteenth Century India. Muzaffar
Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Mughal State. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Grover, B. R. 1966. An Integrated Pattern of Commercial Life in the Rural Society of North
India During the 17th-18th centuries. Indian Records Commission.
Habib, Irfan. 1969, 1995. Potentialities of Capitalist Development in India. Essays in Indian
History: Towards a Marxist Perception. Delhi: Tulika.
Habib, Irfan. 1999. The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556-1707. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Metcalf, Barbara D. and Thomas R. Metcalf. 2002. A Concise History of India. Delhi:
Cambridge University Press/ Foundation.