18th century debate

Name-ARIJIT ray
Rollno. 424
The significant changes that occurred in India in the 18th century make it a time that
historians continue to find significant. Particularly, there were two such shifts that have
spurred discussions; they are significant because they altered the power structure and
resulted in significant reconfigurations in the economy and society. The nature of change,
the causes of the Mughal state's demise, and the consequences for the emergence of early
colonial rule in India are the three main topics of discussion among historians throughout
the 18th century. Different academics understand the events of the eighteenth century in
different ways. Their views can be put into two broad categorizations:
1. The traditional perspective, or "dark age," was the first to propose that India's social and
economic decline began when the Mughal Empire's political collapsed in the early 1700s. so
bringing about the 18th-century "dark age" in India.

2. Revisionist perspective: Revisionists contend that the 18th century needs to be

interpreted independently of other periods and on its own terms. They refute the notion of
the "dark age" by studying the development of local politics and economic success. In this
article, we will examine the changes that occurred in the 18th century's politics, society, and
economy in relation to these two historical perspectives. We'll also look at how, over time,
research on this era has evolved and whether, as some have claimed, it was indeed a dark
age.

Several early historians, including Jadunath Sarkar, Sri Ram Sharma, and Ishwari Prasad,
identified the factors contributing to the Mughals' decline. Usually, they blamed the collapse
on the administrative and ecclesiastical policies as well as the personalities of the individual
kings. While Sharma and Prasad maintained that the 18th century was a time prone to
economic crises, Sarkar attributed the fall to Aurangzeb's religious policies and the Deccan
wars, viewing the peasant uprisings as a "Hindu reaction" to Aurangzeb's Muslim
orthodoxy.
The Mughal collapse was interpreted in material terms by the Marxist historians. Mansabs
and Jagirs, two Mughal administrative structures, were the subject of some of the
discussions. According to Satish Chandra, these institutions had flaws that caused a fiscal
crisis in the late 17th century. He thinks that the small number of infertile jagirs contributed
to an expanding gap between estimated revenue (Jama) and real revenue (Hasil), which
made it harder for state officials to consistently collect revenue and fuelled the budgetary
crisis.
According to Athar Ali, there was a lack of jagirs as a result of the Deccan's expansion into
less fertile regions, but there was also an economic and administrative decrease as the
number of nobles rose. J.F Richards, however, criticized Ali, claiming that there was an
abundance of viable and productive jagirs based on his research in the Deccan.
Irfan Habib is another ardent supporter of the "dark age" theory. He contends that the
Mughal administrative structure was highly centralised from Akbar's time onward, with a
universal land tax, a system of revenue assessment and collection (of which zamindars
received a portion), highly uniform revenue assignment tenures, and revenue collections
from remote parts of the empire. Habib comes to the conclusion that the Mughal economy
was dominated by the administration as a result. Habib contends, however, that India's
economy began to deteriorate in the late 17th century as a result of the jagirdars' unchecked
power and the emperor's arbitrary land allocation to them. In support of this position, he
explains that peasant flight, peasant uprisings against the State, and a breakdown in the
relationship between jagirdars and zamindars occurred when the zamindars took the lead in
the peasant rebellion due to growing pressure from the jagirdars for money. As a result,
there was an agricultural crisis, which made the political structure weaker. As a result, the
zamindars gained authority and influenced the establishment of the local state.
Regarding trade and urbanization, Habib contended that the elements that drove these
processes during the Mughal era—such as a robust banking and credit system, a large-scale
transfer of rural surplus to towns, and the availability of capital—were dwindling in the
18th century, which in turn led to a decline in trade and commerce. Habib comes to the
conclusion that there was a standstill of the capital supply since interest rates were stable
based on the material provided by Francis Buchanan. It is impossible to verify this, though.
According to Athar Ali, the collapse of the 18th century was caused by the ruling class's
cultural inability to adapt to the superior scientific and technological advancements that
occurred in Europe between 1500 and 1700. A few local governments, such as the Marathas
and Mysore, attempted but were unable to cross the divide. According to Ali, these states
failed intellectually, despite their efforts to modernize the army and concentrate on the
growth of commerce. Instead, they concentrated on spreading and assimilating western
knowledge and learning. As a result, these regimes persisted inside the Mughal ideological
framework. According to him, the state's basic function was to collect rent in order to
maintain the key components of the Mughal land income system. During this time, the
traditional centres like Agra and Delhi collapsed, but we can also observe the emergence of
new centres like Lucknow and Faizabad, which, according to Ali, indicates that the economy
was resilient but did not see true expansion.
The view that the 18th century was a “Dark Age” has been criticized by many historians,
especially the Revisionists who represent the second view in this debate. Revisionist works
focused on the socio-economic functioning of regional polities and pioneered in the in-depth
studies on trade and mercantile activity.
CA Bayly presents one of the most compelling arguments against the "dark age" idea. He
contends that there is evidence of progress in some areas of India throughout the 18th
century and that the country did not enter a dark period. For example, regions like Awadh
and Banaras which experienced urbanisation and agrarian expansion, textile industry also
grew in this period. Bayly further argues that indigenous capital did not decline but it was
engaged with internal bulk and luxury trade along new routes and well as in financing
military and revenue machinery. However, he does believe that certain areas did experience
decline in the 18th century, in fact he believes that there was no universal growth in the 18 th
century. He critiques the views of Habib and Ali saying that they ascribe decline to
political factors alone and do not take the economic and ecological factors into consideration.
Bayly also questions Habib’s belief that the Mughal state and its economy was highly
centralised. He also argues that the Mughal states and its machinery was not responsible for
the growth witnessed in the 17 th century, contrary to what Habib propagated. Bayly also
does not agree with Habib that there was universal economic decline due to the rise of
zamindars at the expense of the state. Rather, Bayly argues, in the 18th century the zamindars
and other intermediaries established closer control over the peasantry and the artisans than
it had during the Mughal hegemony, also the mechanisms of control varied from one
kingdom to another. Bayly also critiques the view that once the British assumed their
diwani rights, it destroyed all socio-economic forces that existed in other words it wiped out
the possibility of British rule being built upon any pre-colonial past or forces.
Along with Bayly, PJ Marshall contends that the battles of the eighteenth century were
overstated in the conventional understanding and that many regions remained unscathed
by the political unrest in some of the Mughal domain. He claims that the promotion of
export-oriented manufacturing has less of an impact on coastal areas. According to Bayly
and Marshall, the 18th century was characterized by governmental decentralization and
economic redistribution rather than decline.
Among the causes of the Mughal downfall were Irfan Habib's theory that the zamindars
spearheaded the oppressed peasant uprisings that resulted in the establishment of states in
the eighteenth century was criticized by Muzaffar Alam. He makes the argument that the
zamindars were at war with one another rather than united in their uprising against the
Mughals because of caste, clan, and territorial divisions. Alam also makes the case that the
zamindars' rise was facilitated by the local economy. According to his research on Awadh,
the zamindars and communities there possessed abundant financial resources. The Banjaras'
vigorous trading between Awadh and Bihar is the reason for the agrarian success observed
there. New towns came up, indicating the expansion of trade networks. . Thus, Alam
contests the economic decline model.
However, Alam’s explanation has been criticised from within the revisionist camp itself by
people like John F. Richards and V Narayana Rao who points out the exclusive usage of
Persian sources by Alam which may hamper the conclusions drawn, especially while
studying the resistance to Mughal rule. Athar Ali critiques Alam for comparing the
jamadani figures from Ain-i-Akbari to the 18th century revenue figures, as it shows rise
without adjusting them to the rise in prices of the 18th century.
Other revisionists, such Ashin Das Gupta, B.R. Grover, and Karen Leonard, concentrate on
the regional shift in banking institutions and trade that Habib and Ali's previous research
overlooked. Das Gupta contended that corporate mercantile structures endured and inland
trade grew, despite a brief period of downturn. He claims that while new colonial ports like
Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta flourished, older ports like Surat and Masulipatinam
languished due to a lack of foreign trade. When B.R. Grover examined rural commercial
production, he discovered that new provincial markets had emerged to take in the output,
offsetting the decline in exports. According to Karen Leonard, the transfer of merchant
activity from Delhi to regional areas contributed to the economic prosperity of the
surrounding area.
The idea that a collapse in politics inevitably caused a decline in the economy is criticized by
Frank Perlin. He contends that throughout the eighteenth century, political decentralization
and power localization coexisted and gave rise to new political systems that accompanied
socioeconomic reconfigurations. This was demonstrated by the relocation of minor lordly
courts and urban services to rural small towns and villages. Athar Ali, however, has
criticized Perlin, claiming that Perlin downplays the impact of the Mughal Empire on Indian
civilization. He makes the case that revisionists are quick to downplay the importance of the
imperial economy. According to Ali, Perlin and other revisionists focus only on small social
groups and grassroots politics, which makes it simple to detect no economic downturn.
From the various views drawn on the 18 th century we can say that there are two major
views. The traditional view asserts that the period was one of decline and decay – a ‘dark
age’. However, this view has been criticised immensely, especially by the Revisionists who
argue and contradict that despite decline of a imperial power, that is the Mughal state, the
period actually witnessed growth in trade and urbanisation and a boom in sectors like the
textile industry. The Revisionist studies pioneered work on regional polities, local economies
and social reconfigurations. But, it is also important to note that earlier works explored the
impact of Mughal decline on the 18th century and their economic data, and this is something
that some revisionists tend to negate.
In conclusion, it is evident that the conventional and orientalist perspective regarding the
18th century in India as a "Dark Age" is becoming increasingly difficult to embrace. Even
though the nation may have experienced economic hardship in some areas, other regions'
wealth more than made up for it. Nowadays, the "Revisionist" perspective—which sees the
18th century as a crucial, inventive, and dynamic time characterized by the emergence of
powerful regional polities concurrent with the fall of the Mughal Empire—is by far the more
prevalent and acceptable one.

Bibliography
1. Bandyopadhyay Sekhar:- From Plassey To Partition And After: A
History of Modern India .
2. Alavi Seema:- The Eighteenth Century in India .
3. Bose Sugata and Jalal Ayesha:- Modern South Asia : History, Culture,
Political Economy .
4. Kumar Dharma and Roychaudhuri Tapan: -The Cambridge Economic
History of India.
5. M. Athar Ali: - Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb.
6. Bayly C. A.: - The Cambridge History of India: Indian society and the
making of the British Empire.