Q- Was 18th C in India a period of continuity rather than change?

Q- Do you agree with the view that 18th C in India was a ‘dark age’? discuss
with the reference to some recent writings.
Q- Do you agree with the view that 18th century India was a period of
“reckless rapine, anarchy and foreign conquest”? Elucidate.
Q- Have revisionist scholars overstated the dynamism of 18th C India?
Q- How have studies of regional economies and societies altered our
understanding of 18th C India?
Introduction
The 18th century in India was not just an era of transition; it was a crucible of
ideological, cultural, and political debates that shaped the nation’s future. As
the Mughal Empire waned and colonial powers rose, Indian society found itself
at the intersection of tradition and modernity, introspection and external
influence, with intellectuals questioning the very fabric of society.
The poet and thinker Shah Waliullah, observing the chaos of the era,
remarked, “In times of crisis, the roots of a people’s soul are tested.”
Meanwhile, British governor Warren Hastings noted with both awe and
calculation, “India is a land ancient and wise, yet fractured and ripe for
reordering.” These debates were not just about political dominance but also
about how India would reconcile its profound spiritual heritage with the stark
realities of colonial modernity.
This century asks us to reflect: How do civilizations adapt without losing their
essence? How do external forces shape internal debates? As we delve into this
transformative period, we uncover the intellectual sparks that lit the path to
modern India.
Background
The 18th century in Indian history has been extensively studied by historians,
largely under the framework of two critical developments: the decline of the
Mughal Empire and the expansion of British colonial power. These
transformations have led to diverging interpretations. While the traditional
view categorizes this period as a "Dark Age" marked by decline and stagnation,
recent studies emphasize economic dynamism and regional prosperity.
Alongside these differing views, historians also highlight patterns of change,
evolution, and continuity in the socio-political and economic landscape of the
period.
Aurangzeb's death in 1707 is often seen as the beginning of the Mughal
Empire's decline, though the seeds of its weakening had been sown earlier. His
ambitious territorial expansion placed enormous financial pressure on the
state, destabilizing its governance. Following the decline of centralized Mughal
authority, numerous independent and semi-independent political units
emerged. These can be categorized into three types.
The first includes warrior states such as the Sikhs, Jats, and Marathas, which
arose through rebellions against Mughal authority and adopted military
fiscalism to sustain their rule. The second category consists of independent
kingdoms, such as the Nawabs of Bengal and the Nizams of Hyderabad, where
provincial governors asserted their autonomy. The third type includes smaller
regional kingdoms, such as the Rajput states and Mysore, which practiced
military fiscalism within compact domains, achieving varying degrees of
success in extracting revenues from trade and production.
Traditional Views: Nationalist and Colonialist Schools
Initially, nationalist and colonialist historians attributed the empire's decline to
the weaknesses of individual Mughal rulers where the nationalist school,
represented by historians like Jadunath Sarkar, argued that the Maratha, Jat,
and Sikh resistances symbolized Hindu opposition to Aurangzeb’s religiously
discriminatory policies. They posited that these groups played a significant role
in the Mughal Empire's downfall and claimed that Hindu rulers, such as the
Marathas, were the legitimate successors of the Mughals.
In contrast, colonialist historians such as James Mill in his seminal work, ‘ The
History of British India” (1817) contended that the British East India Company
was the rightful heir to the declining Mughal regime as 18th-century India was
a period of “reckless rapine, anarchy, and foreign conquest”. They portrayed
the British as bearers of modernity and civilization to a stagnant and despotic
East. These contrasting narratives framed India either as a land of resistance or
as a static society awaiting reform from the West.
The Aligarh School of Marxist Historians
By the 1980s and 1990s, Marxist and Annalist historians shifted their focus to
structural transformations in Indian society. The Aligarh School of Marxist
historians thus, examined state formation and emphasized the significant role
of bankers, merchants, and elites in shaping pre-colonial and colonial states.
These historians viewed the economy as the base, with politics, society, and
culture as superstructures.
Irfan Habib argued that the Mughal state was the principal instrument of
exploitation. He acknowledged its centralized nature and the substantial land-
tax surplus but emphasized that this system coexisted with a localized,
hereditary ruling class—the zamindars—who also shared in the surplus. The
traditional notion of a two-tier relationship between the state and the
peasantry was replaced by a three-tier structure comprising the imperial ruling
class, zamindars, and peasants. The rotational land allotment to mansabdars
increased pressure on the peasantry, leading to declining land fertility and
poverty, which ultimately weakened Mughal authority.
Muzaffar Alam’s study of Awadh highlighted that landlord rather than
peasants, resisted revenue payments, asserting their supremacy. He also
pointed out that the difference between jama (estimated revenue) and hasil
(actual revenue collected) meant little benefit for peasants.
Satish Chandra introduced theories on Jagirdars and mansabdari crises. He
explained that jama referred to estimated revenue, while hasil was actual
revenue; similarly, zat was a mansabdar’s rank, and sawa denoted the number
of horses they maintained.
M. Athar Ali supports Chandra’s theory, except, he asserts that the reckless
expansion and expeditions of Aurangzeb compromised the land revenue
payments of the officials who maintained a ready supply of troops, thus
decreasing their number. He also criticizes the elementary error of historians to
assume that if the Mughal Empire was centralized and had administrative unity
then it was same as the Post-Reformation European Enlightened Despotism. He
is one of the harshest critics of the various revisionist projects and insists that
the breakdown of the Mughal empire into “mutually conflicting small political
units,” collectively less strong than centralized empire paved the way for
European expansion
However, J.F. Richards challenged Ali, asserting that Aurangzeb's Deccan
policies did not cause bejagiri (land scarcity), as sufficient land was available for
mansabdars.
Cambridge School and Revisionist Perspectives
The Cambridge School, led by historians like C.A. Bayly, introduced a revisionist
approach to understanding Mughal polity. Bayly emphasized the centralizing
tendencies of Mughal rule but viewed its decline positively, as it allowed
regional elites to foster agricultural and commercial growth. This "continuity
thesis" argued that regional polities built upon Mughal administrative
frameworks, maintaining economic vitality even as central authority waned.
Andre Wink’s approach is somewhere along the line of Bayly’s argument, he
assumes that ‘Mughal sources’ consist of only a few chronicles which ‘merely
hide behind a façade of moralistic or religious condemnation’.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam however, adopted a global perspective, highlighting the
interconnectedness of local and supra-local economies through trade, travel,
and cultural exchange. His concept of "portfolio capitalism" underscored the
dual roles of traders and merchants as both economic and political actors.
Regional Case Studies: Awadh and the Deccan
The decline of Mughal centralization was particularly evident in regions like
Awadh and the Deccan. Muzaffar Alam's study of Awadh revealed that local
elites, who had thrived under Mughal patronage, gradually asserted
sovereignty by appropriating symbols of authority. In his analysis, agrarian
uprisings often stemmed from conflicts among zamindars, with peasants
caught in the crossfire. Alam argued that the economic prosperity of certain
regions, driven by trade and agrarian productivity, facilitated the ascent of
zamindars.
Similarly, J.F. Richards' work on Golconda challenged the idea of a land deficit
in the Deccan, demonstrating that land was available for jagir grants,
countering claims that land shortages precipitated Mughal decline.
Neo-Revisionists: Rethinking Colonial Impact
Neo-revisionists like Prasannan Parthasarathi and David Washbrook revisited
the revisionist critique of colonialism. Parthasarathi argued that South Indian
laborers enjoyed higher wages and better living standards than their British
counterparts, due to high agricultural` productivity and the absence of state
intervention in labor disputes. He suggested that the British Industrial
Revolution was partly a response to competition from the Indian textile
industry.
Washbrook, on the other hand, highlighted how wars and increased demand
for labor in the late 18th century created better conditions for workers,
particularly low-status laborers in South India. For some regions, this period
marked economic growth and relative prosperity.
Continuity vs. Change
The 18th century exhibits trends of both continuity and change. Politically,
regional polities adopted Mughal administrative practices even as central
authority diminished. Economically, the commercialization and monetization of
agriculture sustained vibrant trade networks. Cultural continuity was evident in
patron-client relationships, even as artists shifted to new regional centers.
However, the period also witnessed significant changes, such as the emergence
of regional powers and the incorporation of indigenous systems into British
colonial frameworks. The debate over whether 1757, the year of the Battle of
Plassey, marked a decisive break or a continuation of pre-colonial trends
remains contested.
Dark Age vs. Prosperity
While traditional narratives emphasize political decentralization as a cause of
economic decline, revisionists highlight evidence of regional prosperity.
Systems of revenue farming and tribute extraction tied villages to extensive
commercial networks, contributing to economic dynamism. This vibrant
commercialism attracted European trading companies, setting the stage for
British colonial rule. The 18th century thus cannot be reduced to a "Dark Age";
instead, it was a period of transformation characterized by both challenges and
opportunities.
Conclusion
The 18th century was thus, a dynamic and complex period in Indian history,
marked by both decline and resilience. It witnessed the fragmentation of the
Mughal Empire, the rise of regional powers, and the economic and cultural
shifts that laid the groundwork for British colonialism. Far from being a mere
"Dark Age," this era was characterized by significant developments in polity,
economy, and culture. The interplay between continuity and change, resistance
and collaboration, and decline and prosperity underscores the nuanced nature
of this transformative period.