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.