“Civilisation is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each
generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted for one century,
civilisation would die, and we should be savages again.”
(William James Durant)
The 18th century in India was a period of profound transition, marked by the
decline of the Mughal Empire, the rise of regional powers, and the growing
influence of the English East India Company. The discourse around this era is
shaped by two key perspectives: the traditional viewpoint, which associates the
fall of the Mughal Empire with the onset of a “dark age” characterised by
economic and social deterioration, and the revisionist stance, which counters
this by emphasising the political and economic developments at the regional
level during the same time.
This essay will delve into these differing perspectives, coupled with the rise of
the Company, analysing whether the period genuinely warrants being labelled
as a “dark age”.
Pioneers of the traditional school, such as Jadunath Sarkar, Sri Ram Sharma,
and Ishwari Prasad, attributed the decline of the Mughal Empire to a
combination of religious, administrative, and economic factors. Sarkar
specifically blamed the decline on Aurangzeb’s religious orthodoxy and his
costly Deccan campaigns, viewing the peasant uprisings as a ‘Hindu reaction’ to
his ‘Muslim policies’. Sharma and Prasad argued that the 18th century was
agriculturally and fiscally crisis-prone.
Marxist historians such as Satish Chandra, Athar Ali, and Irfan Habib
attributed the decline to material failures. Chandra argued that the flawed
structures of mansabs and jagirs, with discrepancies between estimated and
actual revenue caused a fiscal crisis. Ali attributed the decline to the growing
number of nobles and a shortage of fertile jagirs due to Deccan expansion,
though John F. Richards argued that the Deccan was still a viable jagir base.
Ali also suggested that the failure to adapt to European technological
advancements, combined with regional powers’ inability to break free from
traditional Mughal ideologies, led to stagnation and economic decline. Habib
attributed the decline to zamindar-led peasant uprisings in the face of
exploitation, as well as the delineation of trade and urbanisation which led to
capital stagnation and a weakened banking system.
However, Revisionist scholars like Hermann Goetz and Bernard S. Cohn
highlighted the resilience of Mughal society through cultural and regional
adaptations in music, architecture, and fiscal structures. The latter half of the
18th century saw the rise of the English East India Company after its victories at
Plassey and Buxar, with scholars divided on whether colonial rule disrupted or
integrated into regional economies. The early colonial ideological framework,
shaped by Edward Said’s Orientalism and J.C. Heesterman’s cyclical model,
has been critiqued for oversimplifying Indian society. The rise of regional
polities, such as those in Awadh, Bengal, and Hyderabad, and the Marathas and
Sikhs, represents diverse paths of dissociation from Mughal rule.
CA Bayly strongly critiques the “Dark Age”, arguing that there was no
universal decline, and points to regions like Awadh and Banaras, where internal
trade, urbanisation, agrarian expansion, and the growth of industries like textiles
demonstrate economic prosperity.
P.J. Marshall contends that the traditional interpretation exaggerates the
conflicts of the period, as coastal areas (Coromandel, Malabar and Bengal)
remained largely unaffected by the political upheavals.
Muzaffar Alam critiques Habib’s view that zamindars led peasant uprisings,
arguing that internal conflicts among them prevented unity. Alam and Chetan
Singh highlight local economic prosperity in regions like Awadh and Punjab,
where increased agrarian wealth and trade, facilitated by the Banjaras spurred
the rise of zamindars and new towns. Alam’s arguments have been criticised
from within the revisionist camp, with Richards and V.N. Rao questioning his
reliance on Persian sources. Ali also criticises him for comparing 16th and 18th-
century revenue figures without factoring in inflation.
Ashin Das Gupta argued that inland trade and corporate mercantile institutions
survived even during periods of decline, while former trade hubs like Surat and
Masulipatnam diminished as new colonial ports like Madras, Bombay, and
Calcutta grew. B.R. Grover found that new provincial markets absorbed rural
commercial production, in the face of European competition, compensating for
the loss in foreign trade. Karen Leonard emphasised how merchant activity
shifted from Delhi to regional territories. Burton Stein introduced the concept
of military fiscalism, illustrating how military efforts became integral to
revenue extraction during wartime.
Stewart Gordon and Frank Perlin examine the Maratha state-building
process, emphasising militarised expansion and commercial activity. However,
Ali critiques this idea, arguing that revisionists like them overlook the enduring
influence of the Mughal Empire, focusing too much on local politics.
In conclusion, Revisionist scholars have significantly expanded our
understanding of regional polities, local economies, and social transformations,
effectively challenging the narrative of a uniformly grim period. However, it is
important to recognise that earlier works, which provided key economic data,
are often sidelined in Revisionist scholarship. While some regions experienced
economic hardships, the concurrent prosperity of others undermines the
reductionist “dark age” characterisation. The Revisionist perspective, which
frames the 18th century as a period of dynamic transformation, has gained
wider acceptance as the dominant scholarly interpretation.
