Review (Fernand Braudel Center)

Research Foundation of State University of New York

"World-Economies" and South Asia, 1600-1750: A Skeptical Note
Author(s): Sanjay Subrahmanyam
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter, 1989), pp. 141-148
Published by: Research Foundation of State University of New York for and on behalf of the
Fernand Braudel Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241119
Accessed: 02-02-2016 23:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Fernand Braudel Center and Research Foundation of State University of New
York are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"World-Economies"
and South
Asia, 1600-1750: A Skeptical Note

Sanjay Subrahmanyam
severalpapershave emergedfromthe "world-systems"
theconto introduceintoSouthAsianhistory
Recently,
school,purporting
as a significant
analyticaltool.The stated
ceptofthe"world-economy"
aim of some of thesewritingsis relatively
modest;forexample,Imin a recentpaper merelyclaimsthatby using"a
manuelWallerstein
in thestudyofSouthAsia, "theissuesunworld-systems
perspective"
theobjectsoffurther
derdebate(and therefore
research)can be made
claims,
sharper"(1986: esp. 28). But otherwritersmake farstronger
Ravi
a
as is evidentfroma recentessayby conglomerate
comprising
A. Palat, KennethBarr,JamesMatson,Vinay Bahl, and Nesar Ahreferred
to as Palat, et al.). Here, we are informed
mad (henceforth
schoolis in theprocessofprovidinga "reconthatthe"world-systems"
as wellas an "agendaforSouth
of
Asian
ceptualization South
history,"
is expressedwiththecurrent
Asianhistory"
(1986: 171).Dissatisfaction
units
which(we aretold)usesinappropriate
stateofthehistoriography,
ofanalysisderivedfrompoliticalhistoryforthestudyoflinkagesthat
are farbetterilluminatedby the concept,"world-economy."
Palat et el. setout in thespace ofless thanfortypagesto address
These are (i) the rise and demise
fiveissuesin SouthAsian history.
between1600-1750;
ofsomething
calleda "SouthAsianworld-economy"
into
the
ofSouthAsia
European(or capitalist)
(ii) the"incorporation"
half
of
in
second
the
the
century;(iii) the
eighteenth
world-economy
and early
in
the
late
nineteenth
ofBritish
limitedindustrialization
India,
twentieth
centuries;(iv) theemergenceand successoftheIndian NaREVIEW, XII, I, WINTER, I989, I4I-48

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

141

142

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

tionalCongress;and (v) the Partitionof India. The veryfactthata

couldevensetoutto answersuchan enormousdigroupofhistorians
in so shorta space,mayseem
of
versity questions,howevertentatively,
on SouthAsia.
a reflection
on thepresentstateofthehistoriography
As we shallsee ahead though,theproblemis notso muchthatthehisas that
is sparseand henceripeforbold generalizations,
toriography
sectionsofit.
withimportant
the"world-systems"
schoolis unfamiliar
is a familiarSurelya necessaryconditionfora "reconceptualization"
with
extant
concepts.
ity
to takingissuewithPalat
In thepresentnote,I shallconfinemyself
ofa "world-systems
on theveryutility
etal. (as wellas withWallerstein)
between1600
ofSouthAsianhistory
fortheunderstanding
perspective"
and 1750. I shall focusin particularon the conceptof the "worldand itsapplicationto SouthAsia. The primarycontention
economy,"
is thatthisapproach,farfromclarifying
any majorissues,servesas
a metha diversionary
up datedviewsandperpetuating
activity,
shoring
docmaterialforauthentic
secondary
superficial
odologythatsubstitutes
in thefieldaredissatisfied
umentation.
working
Manyofthosepresently
withtheuse ofunitssuchas "theMughalIndianeconomy"or the"ViHowever,to replacethesewiththeconceptofthe
jayanagareconomy."
is
King Log by King Stork.
"world-economy."simplysubstituting
in thetwovolumespublished
ReaderswouldrecallthatWallerstein
on South
tooffer
has
few
The
Modern
to
now
of
World-System comments
up
is
treated
1750.
Asia
intheperiod1500to
Asian(or evenAsian)history
in thisperiod,to be
as beingoutsidethe"Europeanworld-economy"
in the post-1750era. The fewremarksthatare made
"incorporated"
on Asia serve,in pointoffact,to misleadratherthanilluminate:thus,
and sevenof Euro-Asiantradein the sixteenth
the characterization
teenthcenturiesis remarkable
onlyforbeingwideoffthemark.WalEuro-Asiantradewitnessed
lerstein
assertsthatin thesixteenth
century,
cenin theseventeenth
a considerableexpansion,butthencontracted
the
sixteenth
of
the
in
student
whereas fact,(as any
periodknows)
tury,
in
tradeand thesevEuro-Asian
a
limited
saw
expansion
century only
enteenthcenturya farmorerapidgrowth(1980: 17-18).Wallerstein's
into
oftheIndiansubcontinent
morerecentessayon the"incorporation
reassure
one
not
does
thecapitalist
particularly
world-economy"
(1986)
circa
on SouthAsianhistory,
on theextentofhisgraspoftheliterature
to
assert
virtue
of
it
has
the
1750.
1500to
Still,
continuing
consistency,

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"world-economies" and south asia, 1600-1750

143

that"theIndian subcontinent
before1750 [was] a zone largelyexternal to the operationsof the then Europe-basedcapitalistworldeconomy.. . . 1750-1850[was]theperiodduringwhichit,alongwith
intotheworld-economy"
manyotherpartsoftheworld,wasincorporated
In
the
between
1500
and 1750,we mayconperiod
roughly
(1986:34).
and
clude fromWallerstein,
therewas a "Europeanworld-economy"
an "Asianworld-economy."
Euro-Asian
tradeand theCompanypresence
in Asian watersrepresented
themeagermeetinggroundofthesetwo.
It mightbe usefulat thispointtoconsiderofwhatthis"Asianworldis, afterall, notalone in
economy"mighthaveconsisted.Wallerstein
his use oftheterm.FernandBraudel,in his threevolumework,Civ15th-18th
ilizationand Capitalism,
Century
(1981, 1982, 1984), also makes

whiledealingwithAsia in
repeateduse oftheterm"world-economy"
theperiod1500-1750.We learnfromhimthatin thisepoch,"theFar
East takenas a wholeconsistedofthreegiganticworldeconomies:IstheIndian Ocean,. . . India . . . and China"(1984:
lam, overlooking
in thesame work,we also encountermenelsewhere
484). However,
mostnotablytheTurkishworldtionofotherAsian"world-economies,"
thatseemstohavecomeinto
a
and
Japaneseworld-economy,
economy,
stillis Braudel'sassertionthat
existencein the 1630's.More confusing
to
"betweenthe 15thand the 18thcenturies,it is perhapspermissible
talkof a singleworld-economy
broadlyembracingall three"-China,
India and theIslamicworld(1984: 441,467, 484, 533, passim.).This
in theAsia ofthe
ofworld-economies
surfeit
somewhatembarrassing
maypromptthereadertoaskwhata "world-economy"
period1500-1750
is anyway.
Accordingto K. N. Chaudhuri,thetermwhenused "inthe
economic
"a well-defined
senseadoptedby FernandBraudel"signifies
or centralregion[with]a
area undertheinfluenceof a central-place
betweenthecenterand
and possiblyhierarchical
functional
relationship
areas"(1985:230). Ifindeedwe acceptthenotionofa single
peripheral
theIslamicworld,India,and China,where
embracing
world-economy
be? Hard pressedforan answer,NielsSteensgaard
mightthisepicenter
has recently
providedthreecandidates:Melaka from1400to 1500,Goa
from1500to 1600,and Bataviafrom1600to 1700(1987).This absurd
ofEuropeanexpansionin
whichconfusesthehistory
characterization,
oftheAsianeconomyin theperiod,stillawaits
Asia withthestructure
in Loschianterms.1
a justification
intheAsian
A secondlookatwhatBraudelterms"world-economies"

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

144

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

contextshowsthattheterm(likemanyothermodeworten)
has littlecontentorutility.
We arein factdealingwithperfectly
conventional
unitsthe Ottomanempire,the Islamic worldof the Middle East, India,
China, theIndianOcean, theTradingWorldofAsia, and so on- and
themwiththesuffix
Has thisclarified
"world-economy."
any
glorifying
issue?
To returnto Palat et al., as wellas to Wallerstein,
theirnotionof
the"world-economy"
carriesfarmoredefinite
baggage.First,it is not
an "empire,"
theothersortof"world-system"
thattheirThesaurusad la Wallerstein,
theremustbe a "core"and
mits.In a "world-economy"
a "periphery"
the
of
and aboveall there
(plus rag-bag "semiperiphery"),
mustbe unequal exchange.Unequal exchangeis defined,not in the
termsofa labortheoryofvalue,
rigorous(but probablyindefensible)
and a conbutsomemoreinchoateconceptofmonopoly,
monopsony,
deviation
from
what
classical
economists
sequent
early
mighthave
termeda "justprice."All thisis summedup in thedefinition
thatPalat,
a unitthat"involvesan integraet al., provideofa "world-economy":
tionofproductionprocessesin a hierarchical
divisionoflaborwithin
an interstate
if
one
is
to followtheseauthors,
Now,
system"
(1986: 174).
suchan entitycame intoexistencein SouthAsia around1600,whereas previouslyit had not existed.Regrettably,
its geographicalextent
remainsvague.Apparently,
it includedtheIndian sub-continent,
but
theothercomponentpartsare neverclearlydelineated.Moreover,if
it is referred
to at timesas the"SouthAsian world-economy,"
equally
it appearson otheroccasionsas "theIndian Ocean world-economy,"
as ifthetwoweremuchthesame.So muchforitsbeinga "well-defined
economicarea."Aboveall, it is a profoundly
Indo-centric
entity:the
causes
for
its
rise
and
decline
are
located
in
principal
solely India,more
preciselyin the Gangeticduab.
The "rise"ofthisworld-economy
"bytheearlyseventeenth
century"
is explainedusinga simplepoliticalevent:thesettingup oftheDelhi
Sultanate.Accordingto Palat, et al., "theestablishment
of theDelhi
Sultanatein themid-thirteenth
centurysetin motiona seriesofeconomicandpoliticalprocessesthatled totheemergence
ofa SouthAsian
The rulersofDelhi
world-economy
bytheearlyseventeenth
century."
a
claimed
share
of
the
apparently
larger
agrariansurplusthandid predecessorstates,or,ifnothingelse,replaceda hostofindividualtaxes
by a singletax. This is a changethatis forsome reasonthoughtto

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"world-economies" and south asia, 1600-1750

145

be ofmomentousimport.The surplusclass was naturallyprincipally

residentin theurbanareas,and used theagrariansurplusto fuelcraft
naturallystimulatedtrade,and
production.Growingmanufactures
translated
(givensomeheroicallyunstatedchangeselsewherein Asia)
This worldto a SouthAsianworld-economy,
(1986: 173-76,passim.).2
and the
century
duringtheseventeenth
economycontinuedto function
1750
around
halfoftheeighteenth
first
However,
(thenicely
century.
startsto be "intraditionaldate of Plassey)the Indian subcontinent
corporated"
(whichmaybe readas "colonized").The causesofthedeare
miseoftheSouthAsian(or is theIndianOcean?) world-economy
"accelerates
intrusion
orthodox.
and
European
perfectly
again simple
a curiousbelief,giventhat
oftheworld-economy"thedismemberment
ofSouthAsia did not
in thetermsofPalat,et al., the"world-economy"
But thereal cause ofthedetheEuropeanintrusion.3
evenexistbefore
the
is anothertraditionalwhipping-boy:
mise of theworld-economy
cenand earlyeighteenth
crisisofthelateseventeenth
jagirdari-ijaradari
of
"subversion
the
to
leads
This
turies.
(in Habib's
peasantagriculture"
and Palat,et al.);
phrase,citedwithapprovalbyWallerstein
hyperbolic
thedeathin 1707ofAurangzeb,thatmostclichdof subcontinental
that"was siis followedby politicalfragmentation
"turning-points,"
oftheSouthAsianworlda processofthedisarticulation
multaneously
economy"(Palat, et al., 1986: 178). For historianswho professgreat
disdainfortraditional
Palat,et al., are quiteunsparpoliticalhistory,
ing in theirrecourseto it.
The centralproblemwiththethesisas it standsis thatone is left
ofan animalcalledthe"SouthAsian
oftheexistence
whollyunconvinced
in the periodfrom1600to 1750.
(or Indian Ocean) world-economy"
shelvethisissue and firstconsiderthe
However,let us momentarily
adoptedby Palat,et al. To explaintheriseof
strategy
methodological
recourseis takento the State as deusex machina,
thisworld-economy,
societies(or "pentheorthodoxviewthatstatescan affect
confirming
an
not
etrate"them,as thephrasegoes),but are
organicpartof sothatsits
cietiesat all. This is a peculiarformofpoliticaldeterminism
worldthe
that
veryuneasilyon themodelofeconomicinterlinkages
as
systemsschoolseemsto espouse.It is also quite simplyincorrect,
and
state
between
as an approachtotherelationship
wellas misleading
in general.4
formation
state
and
society
howtheworld-economy
Lookingnowto theargumentconcerning

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

centeredaroundSouthAsia perished,one observesthatneitherWallersteinnorPalat,et al., takeanynoteofan extensiveliterature

(represented
forinstancebythewritings
ofC. A. Bayly[1983],FrankPerlin
Andr
[1985; 1978; 1985],StewartGordon[1977],and morerecently
Wink [1986],and MuzaffarAlam [1986])on theeighteenth
century.5
To sum up theimportofthisliterature
(whichis by no meansmonolithic though),these writingsconvincinglydemonstratethat the
ofpeaseighteenth
century-farfrombeinga periodofthe"subversion
a
times
raant agriculture"was characterized
and
at
by prosperous
The declineoftheMughalempire
pidlyexpandingpeasantproduction.
did not mean economicchaos,any morethandid thedeclineof the
earlier.All thisevidence
Vijayanagarempiresomewhatovera century
seemsto haveescapedthenoticeofWallerstein,
and Palat,et al., who
fallintotheconventional
trapthatstemsfroma use ofpurelypolitical
Far fromprovidinga "reconunitsto studyeconomicinterlinkages.
theirwritingsthus reiteratehoaryhistoriographical
ceptualization,"
myths.
Moreover,to returnto thecentralissue,thatof the SouthAsian
and oftheextentofthisunit,itis herethatthewhole
world-economy,
edificecrumbles.Wherewas thecore and whatwas theperiphery
of
thisworld-economy?
The "GreaterIndia"perspective
of Palat, et al.
them
to believethattheIndian sub-continent
was indeed
mightlead
thecore,and areas such as Indonesiatheperiphery.
There are three
majorproblemswiththisview.First,it does notprovidean adequate
characterization
ofexchangebetweenChinaand Southeast
Asia (Souza,
1986:ch. I).6 Secondly,itis reallya crudeformofevolutionism:
India
which
were
on
some
scale
of
achievetextiles,
exported
"higherup"
mentthanthe pepper,spices,or base and preciousmetalsproduced
and exportedfromIndonesia.But thethirdobjectionis themosttellingofall: wherein all thisis unequal exchange?We notethediscreet
silenceof the world-systems
schoolon thisissue,and suggestthatit
is significant.7
To sum up then,whatis proposedby the world-systems
protagonistsis a trivialization
of SouthAsian history,
based on some misconceptionsand the orthodoxiesof severaldecades ago. That this
so faramonghisviewpointhas receivedevensomelimitedcurrency
toriansofSouthAsia stemsfroma desire(particularly
evidentamong
SouthAsianistsin theWest)to"universalize"
thehistory
oftheregion,

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"world-economies" and south asia, 1600-1750

147

as wellas to "conceptualize"
at any price.The formeris no doubt a
laudable end, but it cannotbe separatedfromthe means used. It is
thebeliefof at leastsomeofthosepresently
workingin thefieldthat
SouthAsian historywillbe takenmoreseriouslyby otherarea speworksare
cialistsifa sufficient
numberofauthenticand high-quality
produced,whichhappentothrowup problemsthatreallyhavea broad
Otherspreappeal- eitherconcreteor (morelikely)methodological.8
ferwhatseemsa simplerpathto "universalization":
boardingan exendsand means
where
the
between
This
is
dialectic
istingbandwagon.
is bound to provelong and divermustbe perceived.The short-cut
availablebandof
the
wheelsofcurrently
the
shape
sionary,
given rickety
wagons.
NOTES
is naturally
to theclassicworkofAugustLosch(1954),whichformsthe
1. The reference
basis forthestudyof hierarchicalmarketstructures.
as determined
2. This viewofmanufactures
(in a Quesnay-esquefashion)bythedemand
is criticizedin Subrahmanyam
ofthesurplus-class
(1986b:ch. VIII). The critiquefocusesin
particularon Raychaudhuri(1981).
discussionofthecolonizationofIndia, wheredescription
3. Notetoo theunsatisfactory
is confusedwithexplanation(1986: 178-84).
4. On thisquestion,see Perlin(1985) and Subrahmanyam
(1986a).
to make
but thesealone shouldsuffice
5. To this,one can add numerousotherwritings,
based
school- generalizations
the pointclear.This particularaspectof the"world-systems"
ofevensecondarymaterial- is noted(albeitin a toron a highlyincomplete
understanding
tuousfashion)by FrankPerlin(1986: 16-22).
theorist
6. The unwary"world-systems
maywellconcludefrombouzas discussionthat
to China's"core."
SoutheastAsia in factplayedthe roleof "periphery"
7. The problemspresented
bytheconceptof"unequalexchange"havebeen notedin the
critics.Fora particularly
contextofthe"Europeanworld-economy"
byseveralofWallerstein's
itpresents),
neo-classicalin thealternative
sharpcomment(thoughperhapstoo simplistically
see Klein (1982).
on a south
incumbent
nottoemploydoublestandardshere.It is no more
8. It is important
Asianistto pose problemswith"universal"
appeal thanit is on a historianof,say,medieval
France.Of course,it is no less so either.

REFERENCES
India.Delhi: OxfordUniv. Press.
North
inMughal
Alam, Muzaffar(1986). TheCrisisofEmpire
andBazaars.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Fress.
Townsmen
Bayly,C. A. (1983). Rulers,
vols. iNew
1M-WthLentury,
andCapitalism,
Braudel,Fernand(1981,1982,1984). Civilization
York:Harper & Row.

III: ThePerspective
15th-18th
andCapitalism,
oftheWorld.
Century,
Braudel, Fernand(1984). Civilization

New York:Harper & Row.

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

in theIndianOcean.Cambridge:Cambridge
Chaudhuri,K. N. (1985). Tradeand Civilisation
Univ. Press.
AsianStudies,
V, 2, Apr., 1-40.
Gordon,Stewart(1977). "The Slow Conquest,"Modern
Klein, R. W. "DutchCapital and theEuropeanWorld-Economy,"in MauriceAymard,d.,
DutchCapitalism
and WorldCapitalism.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 75-91.
Losch, August(1954). TheEconomies
ofLocation.New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
ofSouthAsia, 1600-1950,
and Peripheralization
Palat,Ravi,etal. (1986). "TheIncorporation
Review,X, 1, Sum., 171-208.
Marain theEighteenth-Century
Perlin,Frank(1978). "OfWhiteWhale and Countrymen
tha Deccan,"Journal
V, 2, Jan., 172-37.
ofPeasantStudies,
AsianStudies,
Modern
XIX, 3, July,
Perlin,Frank(1985). "StateFormationReconsidered,"
415-80.
Perlin,Frank(1986). "ComparativeHistory,"or "GropingAroundon All Fours,"unpubl.
inAsia, Delhi,
totheInternational
Workshopon RuralTransformation
paperpresented
October2-4.
Raychaudhuri,Tapan (1982). "InlandTrade," in T. Rauchaudhuri& I. Habib, eds., The
Economic
History
ofIndia,I,c. 1200-c.1750.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press,
Cambridge
325-59.
Steensgaard,Niels (1987). "The IndianOcean Networkand theEmergingWorld-bconomy
Commerce
inHistory,
(c. 1550to 1750),"in S. Chandra,ed. TheIndianOcean:Explorations
andPolitics.New Delhi: Sae, 125-50.
in Chinaandthe
TradeandSociety
Souza, GeorgeB. (1986). TheSurvival
ofEmpire:Portuguese
SouthChinaSea, 1630-1754. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press.
Sanjay(1986a). "AspectsofStateFormationin SouthIndia and South-East
Subrahmanyam,
andSocialHistory
Review,XXIII, 4, 356-77.
Asia, 1500-1650,"IndianEconomic
Sanjay(1986b)."Tradeand theRegionalEconomyofIndia,c. 1550to 1650,
Subrahmanyam,
unpubl. Ph. D. Diss., Univ. of Delhi.
andtheOrigins
I: Capitalist
Immanuel(1974). TheModernWorld-System,
Agriculture
Wallerstein,
Press.
Academic
York:
New
Sixteenth
in
the
the
Century.
of EuropeanWorld-Economy
andtheConsolidation
II: Mercantilism
Wallerstein,Immanuel(1980). TheModernWorld-System,
1600-1750. New York: AcademicPress.
oftheEuropeanWorld-Economy,
intotheCapitalist
oftheIndian Subcontinent
Immanuel(1986). "Incorporation
Wallerstein,
PE-28-PE-39.
Political
and
Economic
XXI,
4,
Jan.,
Weekly,
World-Economy,"
in India. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Fress.
Wink,Andr(1986). Land andSovereignty

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions