Students name: Alivia Banerjee

Roll number: 17/ HIS / 002

Date of submission: 21. 02. 2019

Introduction
The 18th century debate is important because it was characterized by two critical
transitions which changed the structure of power and initiated important social
and economic reconfigurations. The first was the transition in the first half of the
century from Mughal political economy to regional political orders. The second
was the transition in the period following battles of Plessey and Bexar in the
polity, society, and economy as the English east India Company steered its way to
a position of political prominence in north India. It tells us that decline of Mughal
power in the 18th century was characterized by the rise of autonomous states
during the same period. Earlier the historians regarded this period as crisis torn
but recent researches have tried to study 18th century states as separate entities
possessing elements of dynamism and growth. The major scholars who
participated in this debate are James Mills, Seema Alvi, Athar Ali, Satish Chandra,
C. A. Bayly, Irfan Habib. A number of revisionist scholars suggested that 18 th
century as the Dark Age. For example the rise of regional powers the sikhs the
Marathas and the satnamis etc. was seen in terms of support by the oppressed
peasantry or within the framework of the functioning of Mughal agrarian system.
In their response several historians wrote a harsh critique of this historiography in
which they pointed out the notion of the overarching centralized Mughal state.
They emphasis the necessity of Mughal state to form and see support and
cooperation of local magnets and powers for various reasons' collection of
revenue maintenance of law and order etc. which would ensure relative stability
at the supra level. In other words, the rise of the regional powers in the
18th century is seen in terms of the increasing attempts of the already existing
local<regional powers to assert their independence.
Revisionist Historiography
In the book, Rulers, Townsmen and Bazzars, C. A. Bayly argued that regional
political crystallization was a consequence of three important developments. He
revisited the rise of intermediaries, complete with the trappings of royal power,
drawing on Mughal military and fiscal institutions, and their emergence as new
power centers. In the introduction to his book, he argued the increased local
control exercised on the ‘Indian information order’ by regional politics, which
resulted in the increasing bureaucratization of its formal and informal networks.
He further argues that the developments of the eighteenth century India were
not exclusive to India. In other words, ‘agrarian patriotism’ and ‘universal
benevolence’ became the guarantees of long term stability. I agree on C. A.
Bayly’s point of view the 18th century witnessed devolution of not only political
but also economic dynamics to the lower levels of sovereignty  regional rulers
small potentates and even the little rajas of the villages.

In his book/ essays/, Muzaffar Alam has argued economic growth resulted in the
emergence of wealthy zaminders who refused to part with their revenue and who
rose in revolt against the Mughals. His work shows that in the late 17th and 18th
century at least in awadh and Punjab registered unmistakable economic growth.
This is in sharp contrast to the more generalized argument about the early 18 th
century being in throes of a financial crisis. In his study of the region of awadh he
has argued that the decline of Mughal empire manifested in a kind of political
transformation and in emergence and configuration of the elements of a new
subdari. To sum up muzaffar alams arguments Mughal decline has to be seen in
the inability of the state to maintain its policy of checks and balances between
zamindars, jagirdars and new indigenous elements. The importance of alams
work is that getting to analyze what triggered of the imbalancing of the social and
political equilibrium in early 18th century.

There are also several other revisionist scholars who have participated in the
debate. They include, Seema Alvi and Satish Chandra. Among them the most
important contribution is made by seema alvi who has argued that gradual
decline of the Mughal Empire especially after the death of aurangzeb and the
subsequent rise of the regional political order consolidation of British colonial
power through English East India company , after battle of plassey , and Battle of
buxar , founded in 1600 by a royal charter outsets the Dutch the French the
Portuguese and other regional powers by the second half of the 18th century.

The Marxist Nationalist critique

On the other hand , irfan habib in his essays has argued English companys trading
operations dislocated and ddisrupted indigenous economies . habib writes the
company state was located external to the society. He further suggests it was
exploitive in character and the grant of diwani or revenue rights over Bengal and
bihar reduced bullion inflows into india. In other words, after 1813, caused large
scale deindustrialization.
Evaluating the debate
In his assessment of the debate, P. J. Marshall has argued the historiography of
political change in 18th century India has been dominated by the transition of
Mughal provinces into successor states or by carving out of new domains in the
former provinces by rebellious groups. On the other hand in his assessment of the
revisionist historiography, he has basically supported their views. In a nut shell,
seema alvi also argued gradual decline of the Mughal Empire especially after the
death of Aurangzeb in and the subsequent rise of the regional political order.
According to her the debate is The 18th century reflected the political
transformation from Mughal decline to British colonialism but the
socio5economic forces at the local level continued to cooperate as before but the
local groups shifted their political allegiance. I would like to highlight the following
points: 1, The Company’s transition from a commercial to a political entity. 2, The
theme of company state and the economy has generated conflicting viewpoints.
3, Issues regarding the making of the English Company’s administrative, military
and legal spheres. I agree with Marshal on the grounds that he basically
supported revisionist scholars. There are several important questions which have
remained unanswered. For instance we still don’t know if trade, non-agricultural
production, and company state was a prosperity or decline. On the whole the
debate has been on the nature of the eighteenth century which has engaged both
historians studying Mughal India as well as those more interested in colonial
studies.

Conclusion
I revisited the 18th century debate. I highlighted the major arguments of C. A.
Bayly who has not paid attention to Mughal Empire and its decline. He saw the
decline as an opportunity for intermediary classes to grow and gain importance. I
also summed up major arguments of muzzaffar alam who has studied the
background of zamindars and tried to understand their reasons for revolting. I
also discussed the major critique of irfan habib who believes that peasant revolts
due to oppression led to decline of Mughals. In the end I would like to conclude
that in the 18th century one observes several strands of development while on
one hand Mughal rule declined whereas on the other hand the century was
marked by rise of regional power. The political formations which emerged as a
result of the decline of Mughal Empire are regarded as the 18th century debate.