UNIT 25 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY IN INDIAN

HISTORY
Structure
25.1 Introduction
25.2 The Eighteenth Century : Salient Features
25.3 The 18th Century Debate
25.4 The Mughal Empire, Its Decline and the Genesis of the Eighteenth Century
25.5 The Process of Regionalization
25.6 How ‘Mughal’ were these Regimes?
25.7 The Economy of the Eighteenth Century
25.8 The Indian Economy in the Late Eighteenth Century: The Emerging Differences
25.9 Summary
25.10 Glossary
25.11 Exercises
25.12 Suggested Readings

25.1 INTRODUCTION
For the people of India, the eighteenth century appeared as an age of dissolving certainties.
Never in its history had the Mughal Empire appeared so vulnerable. Its citadels were
being buffeted by Afghan marauders (Nadir Shah, 1739 and Ahmad Shah Abdali, 1748-
1767), Maratha adventurers (the Peshwas) and various warrior-peasant groups (Jats,
Rohillas, and the Sikhs), while its military-bureaucratic apparatus (the mansabdari
system), which had been its pride and mainstay stood by helplessly. The fiscal system
had also broken down, thereby threatening the life-styles of a genteel, highly urbane
class of people and their dependants. The empire was bankrupt and all semblance of
political governance and fiscal probity had apparently disappeared. And this was not all.
The worst possible ignominies had been heaped on the house of Timur: two emperors,
Ahmad Shah (1748-1754) and Shah Alam II (1759-1816) were blinded, and another,
Alamgir II (1754-1759) was assassinated by nobles engaged in bitter factional feuds.

The speed with which this happened was bewildering. In 1700 the Mughal Empire
under Aurungzeb was at its territorial zenith. Yet by the 1730s of the century many of its
core areas had been fragmented into numerous regional polities. While some of these,
like the Nawabi of Awadh or the Nizamat in Bengal, took roots as ‘successor’ regimes,
others, like the Marathas or the Jats, emerged on the basis of their sustained and often
violent opposition to the Mughal empire. A further thirty years down, the political fortunes
of India were clearly moving in a different direction. A European power, the British East
India Company, had succeeded in conquering much of eastern India and had begun to
exercise a decisive influence on the state of affairs in other parts of the subcontinent. On
the basis of these successful political ventures, the Company was slowly but inexorably
creating the bases of an early-colonial system of rule. No wonder, contemporaries amazed
at the intensity of the disturbances around them thought that this was an age when their
world was being turned upside down.

Given the nature of these changes, the eighteenth century has attracted the attention of a
number of modern historians and has gradually emerged as the hub of a lively debate.
Because of this, the historiography of this century has seen some very innovative advances.
79
Expansion and Growth of While interpretations differ sharply on many aspects, there are a few areas of unanimity.
Medieval Economy-2 The older interpretation that the decline of the Mughal Empire was a result of Aurungzeb’s
religious bigotry has been comprehensively rejected. If Aurungzeb faced opposition from
the Marathas, the Jats and some Rajput clans, he was equally troubled by recalcitrant
Muslim nobles and officials who were instrumental in leading the factional struggles in the
imperial court, and powerful Rajput ruling houses continued to be loyal to the empire.

The earlier stereotype that this was a century of moral decadence and cultural decay has
also been rejected. Attention is now drawn to the robust and dynamic cultural life of the
regional states, many of whom carried the legacies of high Mughal culture and blended
these with the rich cultural heritage of the regions. Lucknow and Hyderabad had emerged
as centres of literary and cultural patronage thus becoming the hubs of remarkable cultural
efflorescence. Eighteenth century Banaras emerged as a great centre of banking and
commerce in north India and combined this with its unique position as a centre of religion,
education and pilgrimage. In Bengal, Nadia was the centre of Sanskrit learning and
Dayabhaga Hindu law, and Bishnupur became the place where elaborate regional
architectural and musical styles grew and flourished. In the south, Tanjore, under the
patronage of its Maratha rulers, became a vibrant centre in the fields of religion, music
and dance.

Thus historians now view the decline of the Mughal Empire and its aftermath not as a
result of religious bigotry or the weakness of individual rulers but as a structural process:
as a systemic rather than the personal failure of an individual. But sharp differences
nevertheless remain about the causes and nature of this systemic failure. Opinions are
divided between those who view the decline as a result of an economic crisis engendered
by an over-exploitative ruling class and those who see the entire process as a process of
local resurgence fuelled by a long-term process of economic growth. There are also
differing interpretations of the changing relationships between state and society, the patterns
and processes of economic growth, and the consequences of the tussle between the
empire and the localities over the distribution of the fruits of this growth.

But the eighteenth century was not limited to the decline of the Mughal Empire and the
consolidation of regional state systems. Much more fundamental changes were occurring
in the subcontinent from the middle of the century, and these have understandably attracted
the attention of a large number of historians with widely discordant voices. The areas of
debate are centred around, first, the reasons of the transition of the Company from a
commercial to a political entity; secondly, the roots of colonialism in India, whether it
was a purely exogenous process, or did it have local, that is, indigenous roots; and
thirdly, what was the nature of its social and economic impact. Implicated in these are
questions of continuities and changes and the relative position and importance of each in
the new colonial order.

25.2 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY: SALIENT

FEATURES
In order to understand the broad processes at work, and to make sense of the immense
range of issues thrown up by the differing points of view, it is worth keeping in mind the
following salient features of this century.

First, the eighteenth century witnessed two transitions. One occurred with the parcellisation
of the Mughal Empire into regional, and even sub-regional, political entities. The genesis
of this transition lay in the crisis of the empire and its subsequent disintegration. While
80 this mainly involved the redistribution of political power among regional social groups,
the other transition went much deeper. This occurred towards the middle of the century Eighteenth Century in
and was unleashed by the political ascendancy of the British East India Company after Indian History
the battles of Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1763). Involved in this were some new
developments, the most important being the transformation of an overseas trading
organization, the East India Company, into a ruling power in India, and the use of this
political supremacy for military and commercial purposes.

Second, in order to fathom its full implications historians are beginning to look upon the
eighteenth century as a ‘long’ century. Recent interpretations tend to see the political
dynamics of this century beginning to unfold in the 1680s amidst the fragmentation of the
Mughal Empire. By the 1720s the aftershocks of the disintegration had been absorbed
by the stable regional polities which had emerged in most parts. From the 1750s major
political realignments had started occurring under the growing hegemony of the Company.
This process continued till the 1820s by which time all major indigenous regimes had
been either annexed or had become subsidiary allies of the Company. Thus in terms of
its political significance the eighteenth century encompassed the last two decades of the
seventeenth and the first three decades of the nineteenth centuries. From the economic
perspective too a ‘long’ view is a worthwhile one. There is now substantial evidence to
show that political regeneration in the provinces was accompanied by regional economic
reorientation. While some places declined, economic growth occurred in other areas
and this was spearheaded by local landed and commercial classes; and compared to a
prevalent view which stresses economic dislocation from the middle of the century, recent
research shows that despite the pressures being imposed on indigenous structures by
the ascendancy of the Company, prospects of economic growth were not abruptly closed.
Even in Bengal, where the Company’s regime was at its most intrusive, commercial and
agricultural expansion continued though in somewhat modified forms. Such was the
situation till first two decades of the nineteenth century, when by all accounts the slow
growth of the eighteenth century was coming to an end.

A third meaningful perspective, which has been of a recent vintage, is to see the
relationship between the Indian economy and the global economy. The Indian Ocean
was part of an elaborate commercial network with the Atlantic and the Pacific, and it
was the increasing Europeanisation of early modern trade that set the tone and the future
of India’s commercial life in the eighteenth century. In its long engagement with this
commerce, the Indian side had always provided goods and the services, but under
conditions of demand which were mediated by the global networks of European
commerce. The profits were significant from the Indian point of view, and much wealth
flowed into India through this channel. From the perspective of understanding the
eighteenth century, these developments are significant. A substantial part of the problem
of continuity between the Mughal and post-Mughal and from there to the early-colonial
can be understood if one remembers that Indian commercial life and merchant capital
was deployed in the service of wider networks of connections whose impulses were
determined as much as from Africa, South-east Asia and Europe as they were from
Agra and Delhi. The early-colonial intervention deepened this incorporation. One
instance of this was transformation in the networks of the intra-Asian trade in the
middle of the eighteenth century when the earlier linkages between India and west
Asia were now redirected towards east and south-east Asia under the directions of
British commerce. Since the eighteenth century was period of global economic
expansion (compared to the seventeenth century which is commonly recognized a
period of crisis), and since India’s overseas trade also increased phenomenally in
this period, any view which sees the eighteenth century only as a period of economic
disjuncture or crisis is a questionable one.
81
Expansion and Growth of
Medieval Economy-2
25.3 THE 18TH CENTURY DEBATE
Given the rapidity and the significance of the changes which occurred in the 18th century,
it is natural that there are differing interpretations of almost every issue involved. Broadly,
the debate follows the traditional division of this century into two halves and the protagonists
of different points of view can be divided into two broad groups. For the period up to
1750 one can divide them into those who hold an empire-centric view and those who
hold a region-centric view. For the period after 1750, the views can be held to broadly
conform to the Indianist and Europeansist positions. In other words, for the first half of
the 18th century, there are historians whose view of the 18th century is based on the
centrality of the Mughal Empire and its institutions in the workings of the society and
economy of the country. In this view the decline had catastrophic results. While the
extreme edge of this view would interpret the decline as one of political chaos and
anarchy, recent interpretations see it more in terms of a structural collapse but with very
little positive emerging from the rubble. The regional formations, which succeeded the
empire, are ascribed with little potential for improving their performances beyond the
levels already achieved as Mughal provinces, whereas oppositional movements like the
Jats, Sikhs and Marathas are considered nothing more than predatory-formations with
very little positive to speak for them.

In contrast are those who view the developments from the perspective of the provinces
and localities. Instead of giving the empire a superordinate role, as is done in the empire-
centric perspective, the region-centric approach focuses on how social groups inhabiting
different areas of the empire became active agents in determining the course of the
political and economic trajectories for their own ends. At one level, the structures of
Mughal provincial government was fundamentally transformed which led to the creation
of autonomous kingdoms in Bengal, Awadh and Hyderabad. At another level there arose
those polities, like the Marathas and Sikhs, whose genesis lay in opposition to the Mughals,
but who, ironically, created political systems within the imperial domains which also
made use of many of the administrative methods of the Mughals. All these modified
provincial authorities gave the erstwhile Mughal grandees new opportunities to deepen
their hold on power in the regions, and in addition, their clients and family members were
also able to amass large bundles of proprietary rights and rights to farm revenue from the
state which in course of time became hereditary estates. A process of commercial growth
in the regions underpinned all this.

For the post-1750 situation, the Europeanist explanation gives primacy of place to the
ascendancy of a triumphant, expansionist Europe (especially Britain) defeating an India
in chaos and disarray. This is by far the most dominant view amongst Indian nationalist
and Marxist historians, and provides the foremost historical perspective on the roots of
India’s economic backwardness. The nationalist view overwhelmingly has been to see
the anarchy in eighteenth century India as a momentary but catastrophic lapse in an
otherwise unfolding saga of nation building in India’s history which allowed a foreign
power to conquer and to colonise the country. While the more traditional Marxist view
was to see the rise of British rule as a necessary evil as it ended much of the ‘feudal’
disintegration of society in the eighteenth century, more recent variants see it as a system
relentlessly driven by the search for profits, commodities and markets, with no
‘progressive’ aspects to its credit. But some common assumptions are embedded in
both historiographical perspectives as far as the eighteenth century is concerned. The
first is the assumption shared by both that order and stability could exist only in large,
pan-Indian political structures; and since this disappeared in the eighteenth century, it
was a period of chaos, anarchy and decline. The second commonly shared ground is
82
that of discontinuity. Both see British rule as a fundamental disjuncture: a completely Eighteenth Century in
foreign and alien system of domination, totally removed from the traditions of Indian Indian History
governance or culture.

On the other hand, the Indianist perspective tries to adopt a more differentiated
perspective of this transition to colonialism. The rise of the British power is seen not as a
one-sided process of conquest and subjugation, but also as a result of Europe’s (especially
Britain’s) deep engagement with India over a long period. Instead of a forced grafting of
a foreign regime on Indian soil, the emphasis is on the way in which conditions in Indian
society determined the emergence and form of British India. In this argument, the shape
of British rule in India was determined as much by the metropolitan interests as it was by
Indian agency. Instead of seeing the eighteenth century as a period of unchecked anarchy,
the Indianist perspective devotes great attention to the political stability imparted by the
‘successor’ states of the Mughal Empire. Instead of seeing a picture of economic regression
in the disintegration of the empire, the Indianist view is that India’s commercial and
military sophistication continued in the eighteenth century and the Company used this to
its advantage. While there was strong indigenous resistance to this intrusion, Indian agency
was a vital ingredient in ensuring the ultimate success of British rule in India. British rule
was based on Indian norms of governance, modes of agro-commercial management
and the skills of its human resources, but it successfully modified these for its own
purposes. Thus in the Indianist view, the eighteenth century was not a century of
ruptures, but a century of deep continuities in which past institutions and structures
continued albeit in substantially redeployed forms in the midst of vastly expanding
commercial opportunities. Those subscribing to this view are often infelicitously
referred to as the ‘Cambridge School’ as many of the protagonsists are situated in
North America and a number of Indian historians also share this perspective.
However, together they constitute what is commonly referred to as ‘revisionist’
historians.

25.4 THE MUGHAL EMPIRE, ITS DECLINE AND THE

GENESIS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Much has been written about the decline of the Mughal Empire. As stated earlier,
theories of moral turpitude, weak rulers and communal policies need not be taken
seriously as they are empirically unsustainable. Later Mughal emperors, for example
Farrukh Siyar, tried in their own way to stem the rot. There is no evidence to suggest
that these emperors abdicated their responsibilities, but events were moving too
fast for a single person to handle. The other theories focus on a rapidly disintegrating
structure, a severe crisis in the Empire’s fiscal and jagirdari systems, which severely
compromised the institutions of governance. This has been written about extensively
and Irfan Habib’s arguments have been the most influential. For Habib, while the
capacity of the economy to expand was self-limiting, there was an unrestrained
tendency of the Mughal fiscal system to appropriate greater and greater amounts of
the peasants’ surplus. This sparked off a tri-polar confrontation between the imperial
ruling class, the hereditary land holding classes (the zamindars) and peasants, which
soon went beyond the capacity of the system to contain or control. Satish Chandra
provided important reason when he explained the empire’s demise in the inability of
state functionaries to ensure the desired efficiency of the assignment (jagir) system, thus
leading to intense factional struggles. In a similar vein Athar Ali saw the crisis as a result
of a growing shortage of jagirs and the inability of the system to accommodate the
growing number of aspirants to the assignment system in the aftermath of Aurungzeb’s
Deccan campaigns. However, an important corrective to this was provided by John 83
Expansion and Growth of Richards who showed that be-jagiri (jagir-less) wasn’t problem in the Deccan as it
Medieval Economy-2 was not a deficit area, but it was the larger failure to devise a viable system of
accommodating local elites in the Deccan which was proving to be the Empire’s major
drawback in the Deccan. In this view, the crisis arose because of an imperfect imperial
consolidation, visible in the failure of the state to effectively incorporate the local agrarian
elite, thereby creating deep fissures in the empire.

An interesting argument made by Marshall Hodgson is that the three Islamic empires –
the Ottoman, the Safavid and the Mughal – were successful not because of their adherence
to a single formal religion, but because of their successful control over the deployment of
gunpowder, and the reason why they atrophied or failed ultimately was because of their
inability to keep up with the changing technologies of warfare that were happening in the
western hemisphere. Can this be applied to the Indian case? Recently, Iqtidar Alam
Khan has drawn our attention to the simultaneous correspondence between gunpowder,
centralization and resistance: while access to muskets, cannons and gunpowder
strengthened the sinews of imperial power, these were simultaneously used by its more
powerful subjects to arm themselves and to resist the intrusion of the state. It was
logistically impossible to prevent such crucial technology from percolating downwards.
Therefore, any notion of the state’s exclusive control over firepower as a prescription of
its success tends to break down as zamindars, chaudhuris, and dominant-peasant
groups controlled large numbers of armed militia. The Marathas, the Sikhs and the Jats
used muskets, as did most other rural-magnates. One must also remember that these
people enjoyed various traditional rights and perquisites because of their social/caste
standing in the countryside. This made them capable of drawing additional human
resources to augment their military strength if necessary, which they did regularly.
Though the Mughal army controlled a great amount of military hardware, as a
collectivity the local magnates were always a serious military threat, especially
considering their strategic location in the countryside. By the eighteenth century the
terms of reference between the state and rural magnates, as far as military technology
was concerned had equalized because of the concerted upsurge in the countryside.
Stewart Gordon has shown how the Marathas were successful in tapping into a vast
and heterogeneous military labour market, including the one being provided by
Europeans, in the eighteenth century.

Therefore, in order to understand the process of Mughal decline one has to take both a
long-term view and a conjunctural view. The long-term view is that the Mughal Empire
provided a number of institutions ostensibly to centralize power, but unfortunately those
led to periodic crises in institutional and fiscal arrangements of the empire, which the
Mughals were unable to sort out effectively. Some examples of this are the inability of
the state to affect parity between assessment of revenue (the jama) and what was actually
collected (the hasil), or its failure to prevent transmission losses of up to 20 percent of
its revenue from the countryside. There was also the more structural inability of the
empire between a set of enduring systems between the agrarian elite and the state. Both
existed in a state of perennial contradiction. Of course, there were instances of
rapprochements between the two. For example, there was the so-called Rajput policy
of Akbar; but even this did not cover the whole of Rajputana or the entire grid of Rajput
clans, nor was it able to contain a potent source of political friction. This was further
aggravated by the inability of the state to strike out workable (consensual) arrangements
with a myriad of small zamindars scattered even in the heartland of the empire as well as
all over the country, and this accentuated problems. Mawasat and zor-talab (perennially
refractory areas) thus existed cheek by jowl with sir-i hasil lands. These were the long-
term structural problems.
84
The conjunctural problem assumed the form of the Deccan crisis, and the sustained Eighteenth Century in
oppositional movements of the Jats and the Mewatis in the north India, particularly in the Indian History
Ganga-Yamuna Doab, and of the Sikhs in the Punjab. Other places, like eastern India,
where great commercial advances had taken place in the seventeenth century, there was
the difficulty of getting adequate tribute as zamindars had been able to use a slack
revenue system to their advantage. Though this did not cause political instability, it
accentuated the financial problems of the empire. This was accompanied by the convergent
crisis in two other Asiatic empires which disrupted the established and highly profitable
commercial linkages between India and west Asia. In fact in one influential explanation
of the economic problems being faced by the great Mughal port of Surat is ascribed to
the crisis of these empires.

The conjunctural crises intensified the long-term conflicts between the imperial imperative
and the local imperative and brought the empire to its knees.

What is being suggested here is that to understand the endogenous processes of

centralization, decentralization, and crisis in the Mughal Empire, the constantly changing
and negotiated relationship between the centre and the localities, and the perpetual tensions
between the imperial ruling class and the local magnates, have to be kept in mind. These
relationships were never fixed at the dictates of the state; they were constantly changing
and unfolding. The analysis of the Mughal Empire as an establishment of negotiated
political relationships means that there was greater flux in its interstices, and this fluidity
allowed for a greater constellation of social groups in different parts of the empire and
this explains the various social configurations in different parts of the empire. Studying
the empire in terms of the fluidity of the relationship between the centre and the provinces
allows us to understand articulation between the regions and the centre. The more the
empire tried to centralize, the gainers were the regional groups, which latched on to this
process of centralization and benefited from it. As the empire generated enormous wealth
through its revenue mechanisms, the tussle between its maximization and the attempts to
retaining larger and larger proportions of this wealth in the localities grew stronger.

25.5 THE PROCESS OF REGIONALIZATION

If one adopts a region-centric perspective, alternative versions of the empire and its
collapse begin to emerge. Even in the Persian language sources, there are possibilities of
reading more decentralized and vulnerable versions of the empire. For example, Andre
Wink’s advances the notion of fitna to argue that the system was constantly being
subverted from within, and that there were forces of factionalism and centrifugalism
constantly pulling away from the centre. Stephen Blake’s description of the Mughal
system as a ‘patrimonial-bureaucratic’ edifice is another such variant reading. What this
means is that the Mughals were always walking a tightrope while attempting to balance
an elaborately personalized style of rule (the patrimonial) with a highly militarized and
centralized vision of the empire. This created a peculiar contradiction, and as M.N.
Pearson has argued, the Mughals failed to bridge the gap between a paternalistic, highly
personalized form of government and its military aspirations; that while trying to be militarily
effective it was not able to carve out a system of rule based on an autonomous military-
bureaucratic system. Muzaffar Alam also shows how the imperial process was
continuously being subverted by the aims and aspirations of the local gentry constantly
attempting to consolidate themselves at the expense of the imperial ruling class.

What we now see is a whole range of pressures pulling away from the Mughal state:
these ranged from factions at the centre to the independent consolidation of the local and
regional elite. The nature of the elite was not the same everywhere. While in Awadh such 85
Expansion and Growth of people belonged to the upper echelons of the social system (the ashraf), elsewhere they
Medieval Economy-2 could include more ‘subaltern’ elements like the Jat peasantry in the Punjab or the Sadgop
zamindaris on the fringes of the settled zones in Bengal. Merchants and bankers played
a crucial role in underwriting them for a consideration. It is this diversity which appears
as a striking feature of the newly constituted regional elite in the eighteenth, thus giving us
a picture of a system buffeted by multi-polar tensions. The crisis now can be seen as one
created by resurgent aspirations of groups below composed of what C.A. Bayly has
described as ‘many types of military, merchant and political entrepreneurs’ all coming
together to ‘capitalise on the buoyant trade and production of the Mughal realm’. This
resurgence did not mean a decline; it meant the social displacement at the top combined
with the replacement of some institutions and the reconstitution of others.

The basic point is that seeds of change germinated within the Mughal institutions themselves.
Paradoxically, the institutions of centralization generated their own counter-tendencies.
Much of the process of regionalization can be explained by the consolidation of the
imperial elite who took advantage of the disintegrating jagirdari-mansabdari complex
for their own purposes. Similar tendencies were at work in the zamindari system too.
While the Mughals sought to make the zamindars work as intermediaries in their land
revenue administration, these local elites, highly armed and ruling over substantial domains
like petty kings, generated alternative, localized, sub-imperialisms. Also recent researches,
particularly in the Mughal provinces of Awadh and Bengal, have done much to revise the
older views of zamindars as a class of rural exploiters. On the contrary, they were
active agents in local economies as financiers, entrepreneurs and consumers. They
financed agricultural reclamation, set up markets and traded, and consumed in cash.
Their retainers became a sub-elite between them and the peasants, as they were usually
given prebends, which they used to extend small zones of high-value consumption in the
countryside. They thus rose in rebellion to defend the fruits of their prosperity from the
intrusive pressures of state fiscalism. These in turn were used by the provincial satraps to
enhance their powers vis-à-vis the centre. In Awadh, the provincial subahdar enhanced
his power by using such agrarian disturbances as a bargaining counter against the centre.
In Bengal, the subahdar used the pressing financial needs of the empire and the
recalcitrance of some local zamindars to augment his power base.

Recent studies of the political processes in eighteenth century have indicated the growth
of three types of regimes. First, there were those that replicated the former imperial
structures. Ruling these ‘successor’ states that nominal Mughal governorships: the nawabs
of the Deccan, Awadh, and Bengal who tended to perpetuate Mughal forms and practices.
The second types of regimes were the polities whose origins were independent of the
Mughal Empire. These were the Maratha, the Jat and the Sikh regimes, whose
crystallization established new systems, thus representing a real and persistent danger to
the Mughal Empire. The third political complex was extremely significant. This comprised
many local principalities of Muslim, Hindu or tribal origin located in the frontiers of the
semi-autonomous states. As burgeoning Jat zamindars began to push them out of the
Ganga-Yamuna Doab, Rajput clans began establishing petty- kingdoms from Gujarat in
the west to Awadh in the north through a process of conquest, migration and settlement.
In Rohilkhand and Bhopal, Afghan chiefdoms were established by an innovative
combination of conquest, revenue-farming and trading with the northwest frontier.
Agricultural colonization, revenue farming and commercial dealings were also instrumental
in the consolidation of the Banaras Raj and the great zamindari households of Burdwan
or Qasimbazar in Bengal. On the northeast frontier of India Mughal expansion was
stopped in the 1680s by the Ahom dynasty that maintained an independent Assam under
a Hindu tradition of kingship until the British annexed it in the early nineteenth century.
86
In the south, while the really great royalist concentration occurred only from the 1760s in Eighteenth Century in
Mysore, the situation before that, as David Ludden shows, was characterised by petty Indian History
kingdoms being formed by the Telugu-speaking nayakas, who had been subordinate to
Vijayanagar and had established their autonomy on its downfall, or from palayakkarans
or (poligars) who managed to carve out small domains from the territory of the nayakas,
based on temples and a highly militarised population. On the Malabar coast, the situation
was an uneasy alliance between the coastal kingdoms and the land-owning households
held together by a mutual sharing of profits from trade, land and labour. An intrusive
monarchical system was introduced in this region only after the invasion by the aggressive
Mysore state under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan.

25.6 HOW ‘MUGHAL’ WERE THESE REGIMES?

Recent studies of regional government and administration have shown that the political
changes in north India in the first half of the eighteenth century denoted no sudden deviation
from the established Mughal pattern of politics in the regions. Some of the developments
which led to the transformation of the Mughal provinces of Bengal, Hyderabad and
Awadh into virtually autonomous kingdoms can be traced back to the end of Aurangzeb’s
reign and together represented a long-term process of change towards a regional
fragmentation of power. The rulers of successor states who were nominal Mughal
governors, the Nawabs of the Deccan, Awadh, and Bengal, naturally transplanted many
of the cultural idioms of the imperial court to their new capitals. These regimes tended to
utilise Mughal forms and practices of governance. Even the Nawabs of Arcot, whose
rule was propped-up by the support they could garner from the English, was introducing
Mughal principles of administration for the first time in this region. The Marathas, who
claimed sovereign rights for themselves in their territories, nevertheless collected revenue
on Mughal principles, even if they used different names for their officials. Although the
Sikhs developed distinct community institutions like the khalsa, which were strongly
opposed to Mughal claims, they still collected revenue on Mughal principles and alienated
large blocks of land in Mughal-style jagirs. Persian remained the official language of
diplomacy, of high-level administration, and of high culture in each of these regimes.

Yet there were major differences. Though these regimes replicated Mughal institutions in
their own territories they were not regionalised prototypes of Mughal rule. They used
Mughal norms but only to a very limited extent and in highly redeployed forms. There
were many specific differences.

First, though many of the larger provincial regimes (the nawabis) were established by
Mughal grandees, they were highly suspicious of that very institution on whose back
they had ridden to power, namely, the jagirdari system. Each of the subahdars (governors)
therefore either broke with its essentials, or modified it enormously to suit his designs. In
Bengal, Murshid Quli Khan resumed all imperial jagirs and transferred the holders to
Orissa. In Awadh, the structure of the jagirdari system was maintained, but large
jagirdaris were broken-up and reallocated among smaller assignees and the nawabs
maintained close control over jagirdari officials (the amils, revenue collectors). In
Hyderabad the power of jagirdars were curtailed by the appointment of officials like
the daftardars (record keepers) and taaluqdars who were directly under the control of
the Nawab himself. Secondly, the Mughal practice of separating the executive and fiscal
powers of different office-holders in the provinces was henceforth broken. Murshid
Quli Khan appropriated the dual functions of the diwan and subahdar, as did Asaf Jah
in the Deccan, while in Awadh, Burhan-ul Mulk combined the high offices of subahdari
and faujdari (commandant).
87
Expansion and Growth of The second major difference lay in the sphere of fiscal management, and this was
Medieval Economy-2 ubiquitously widespread notwithstanding the difference in the size of the regime. While
the central financial prop of these regimes was the assessment and collection of the land-
tax in cash, the management and its execution was given over to revenue-farmers
(ijaradari) in preference to paid officials or landed intermediaries. The practice of
ijaradari, thoroughly disapproved by the Mughals, exploded all over India in the
eighteenth century. The ambits of tax-farms were extended beyond mal (land-revenue)
to include sair (non-agricultural) taxes as well as various types of public offices and
positions. Though the conventional view of historians has been to see ijaradari as a
ruinous expedient, the evidence on which this view is based is far from conclusive. In
Rajasthan, where Dilbagh Singh has extensively studied the spread of this system, an
ijara contract was reckoned not on the assessed revenue (jama, which was often
unrealistic) but on the basis of the actual collections (hasil) of the previous five to seven
years. This would provide an in-built check on rack-renting though there were bound to
be loopholes in the system. Studies of Awadh and Banaras have shown that ijaradari
raised revenue and ensured a higher return for the state while minimizing its administrative
overheads. It also provided the scope for a diverse range of people to become implicated
in the interstices of the state’s fiscal system. Successful zamindars could extend their
holdings by farming extra land and people with money developed a stake in agrarian
management, either by taking on farms themselves or, as was the more common practice,
by advancing money to those who did. Revenue farming seems to have expanded in a
big way in the Coromandel from the middle of the century, with the ‘landed and military
gentry’ taking the lead in bidding for such farms.

This introduces the third element of difference between the Mughal system and the new
ones. In all the regional polities, irrespective of their size or geographical location, there
developed an extremely close nexus between the state and people with money at their
disposal. According to Karen Leonard, the period of imperial decline coincided with the
increasing involvement of banking firms in revenue collection at regional and local levels.
This involvement increased in the first half of the eighteenth century. By 1750 bankers
were the ones who controlled access to the actual collection of land revenue, through
provision of credit or cash. They provided the funds that enabled people to become tax
farmers and had their own agents into the countryside to collect from the land given to
them as security or mortgage. Throughout India the richest merchants and bankers were
gaining a stake in the new political order, and in several of the smaller eighteenth-century
states trader-bankers had become the key political group by the 1760s. In the larger
states, like Bengal, individual merchants were given monopoly rights over commodities
like salt and saltpetere and wielded political authority in the saltpetre districts. Why did
this reorientation occur? Stable regional centres began to attract banking capital. Bankers
migrated from the Mughal core to places like Farrukabad, Lucknow, Murshidabad,
Patna and Banaras where they began extending credit to rulers and ijaradars (revenue
farmers) and guaranteed the remittance of revenue from where it was collected by bill of
exchange to the ruler’s capital or wherever else it was needed. In areas characterised by
political instability like Gujarat, Rajasthan or the western Deccan, merchants quickly
found alternative avenues of investment and patronage. The vulnerability of the Mughals
against the Marathas led merchants and bankers to migrate from Surat to other cities.
Many shifted to Poona, the capital of the Peshwas and to other cities, like Baroda, in the
Maratha Confederacy. Credit transactions were quickly extended to the European
companies, particularly to the English, who were emerging as major players in the regional
politics of this period.

The fourth area of difference was the gradual but steady insinuation of the European,
88 especially British, element in the fabric of Indian political life. This was an important
development, whose implications have constituted one of the principal concerns of the Eighteenth Century in
Indianist reading of the eighteenth century. Instead of being a great disjuncture, the logic Indian History
of the events of the middle of the eighteenth century can only be understood as part of a
long pre-history of the interface between Europe and India. Though based primarily in
commercial transactions, Indian rulers were no strangers to the skills of the Europeans in
land warfare as well as at sea. Numerous Europeans were employed in the artillery wing
and in the armouries of Mughal armies. During the eighteenth century the situation began
to change as many of the larger regional polities began developing massed infantry drilled
and armed in the European fashion with European technical and logistical expertise, and
Europeans, as P.J. Marshall, says, began to ‘infiltrate regimes that were willing to hire
services for cash’.

Its full manifestation occurred in the 1740s. As the tussle between the Awadh family of
Anwaruddin Khan and his son Mahomed Ali Wallajah, on the one hand, and the Deccani
Navaiyitis, a major administrative family led by Chanda Sahib, flared up in 1740s, the
British and the French became drawn into the politics of regional state formation. The
British supported the Wallajah of Arcot, the French propped up Chanda Sahib. British
troops were also hired out to the Wallajah to enable him to consolidate his control over
the southern Poligars and even in an abortive attempt to procure for him the very rich
lands of Tanjore. Chanda Sahib was defeated and killed in 1752. By 1763, British naval
supremacy and financial clout had become virtually unassailable in the Carnatic. In return
for their services, the British were rewarded with leases of revenue from enormously
productive tracts of land (called ‘subsidies’) and allowed to station their military garrisons
in the lands of the Nawab. Equally significant was another dimension of this relationship.
British personnel in Madras privately loaned enormous sums of money to the Nawab:
money which was borrowed in turn from Indian and European investors, thereby giving
rise to, what Bayly describes as ‘a paradox typical of eighteenth-century India’ in which
‘indigenous capital penetrated into the emerging Muslim state system through the good
offices of British speculators’.

25.7 THE ECONOMY OF THE EIGHTEENTH

CENTURY
Two problems have engaged much of the debate on the economy of eighteenth century
India. The first is the economic context in which such diverse patterns of regionalization
took place, or whether the processes of regionalization were symptoms of economic
expansion, crisis or stasis? The second concerns the state of the economy in the early-
colonial transition.

The creation of post-Mughal polities wasn’t always a smooth process. From the
descriptions contained in contemporary literature, the impression one gets is that of a
serious breakdown, anarchy and economic uncertainty. But some of it appears to be
exaggerated. The transitions in Bengal and Awadh were largely peaceful, though serious
disruptions occurred in the Punjab and the eastern Deccan. Most serious accusations
were levied against the Marathas. Their armies ravaged the rich commercial province of
Gujarat in the early parts of the century, followed by plundering raids into eastern India
in the 1740s and Rajasthan in the late eighteenth century. But whether these, and other
instances of temporary dislocations were enough to cause a serious reversal from the
levels of prosperity in the seventeenth century is a debatable issue. As Stewart Gordon’s
study of Malwa shows, once conquest had been completed and Maratha rule was secure,
effective administration and a regulated revenue demand on Mughal principles was
installed. Agriculture was encouraged and trade revived. The domains of leaders like
89
Expansion and Growth of Sindhia, the Gaekwads or the Bhonsles supported powerful armies sustained by effectively
Medieval Economy-2 administered revenue systems by the late eighteenth century. Elsewhere too the situation
was mixed. Punjab was clearly beginning to recover from its travails in the late eighteenth
century, whereas Rajasthan, whose economic problems began at that time, was thriving
during the process of the Empire’s disintegration. Stable regimes had also been formed
in Rohilkhand, Farrukabad and in Banaras. Expansionism was ingrained in many of
these regimes. Awadh managed to usurp vast territories from the Afghans of Rohilkhand.
In the south, Mysore under the Sultans annexed most of the Malabar coast, and Arcot
spread along the south-eastern coast to grab the domains of the southern Nayakas.
Such a differentiated process of political formation does not support notions of the decline
of the Mughal Empire as an unmitigated economic disaster.

Emergence of New Town Centres

Given the absence of concrete indicators of growth, it is very difficult to clinch an argument
either way, but some broad parameters can be considered. Though the economy
continued to be predominantly agricultural, the levels of urban growth seemed to have
expanded not declined in the eighteenth century. Contemporaries lamented the decline
of Shahjahanabad, while other cities, like Sirhind in the Punjab definitely suffered. Mathura
which was considered a prosperous and populous city till the middle of the eighteenth
century suffered a major blow after it was sacked by Abdali’s forces in 1756; yet further
down the Yamuna, the great imperial city of Agra was still considered by many in the
1760s to be the richest city in the Mughal empire, not having been plundered by either
the Afghans or the Marathas. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that smaller
places like Ballabhgarh, Bharatpur and Kumbher were growing, and existing trading
centres like Hathras or Panipat actually expanded.

Even if north India presents a mixed picture of urban existence, it is impossible to find
urban contraction in other parts. Contemporary observers talked eloquently of the increase
in Calcutta’s population and importance, and while Calcutta’s case may be dismissed as
a colonial enclave, Dhaka had about 450,000 people living within its environs in 1765
and continued to be as thickly populated later on. In 1756, Murshidabad was declared
as ‘one of the richest cities in the world’; and in 1764 it was described, by no less a
person than Clive himself, as ‘[a city] as extensive, populous, and rich as the city of
London, with this great difference that there are individuals in the first possessing infinitely
greater property than in the last named city’ In addition to these premier places, Bengal
also had cities which were positioned at medium levels of consumption. Towns such as
Bhagwangola, Azimganj, Katwa, Kalna, Chinsura and Chittagong were swiftly becoming
intermediate centres of consumption, trade and habitation in the eighteenth century.

In western India, the partial decline of Surat was more than offset by the rise of Bombay.
There also appears to have been no demonstrable correlation between political turbulence
and urban contraction in central India. In Malwa, Maratha depredations in the 1720s
had not prevented a pattern of urban growth along an axis different from the previously
established Mughal sarkar towns. By the 1760s Ujjain expanded as Sindhia’s capital
and Indore became the base for the Holkar’s, and by all accounts this city grew into a
large and prosperous trading centre in the last decades of the century. Poona became
the new outlet for Chanderi silk during its rapid growth from a small town to the capital
of the Marathas. Burhanpur which had earlier served as an entrepot for trade along the
Agra-Surat axis now shifted its hinterland to include Pune and Nagpur and Lucknow
and Allahabad in the east. In the south, where the decline of the Empire had only a
tangential resonance, towns continued to grow. Madras expanded at a phenomenal
90 pace, and under the new regime Hyderabad witnessed remarkable growth, both as a
place of elite residence and as a node of great commercial importance. While the decline Eighteenth Century in
of the Empire seems to have had an initially disturbing effect on some centres on the Indian History
Coromandel, places like Masulipatnam, Nagapatnam and Devanapatnam quickly
recovered under the political stability provided initially by Nayakas of Ginji and later by
the better-developed regional kingdom of Tanjore.

Therefore, the eighteenth century may actually have witnessed a net accretion as far as
town life, and presumably an urban-economy, are concerned.

Expansion of Overseas Trade

The other indication of India’s economic vitality was the considerable expansion of its
overseas trade. In the early 18th century there were disruptions with the damage to the
great port of Surat caused by the Maratha invasions and by the crisis in west Asia.
Anglo-French conflicts caused temporary setbacks in the Carnatic, but despite this India’s
overseas trade with Europe increased steadily. Om Prakash has recently shown that
while the exports by the Dutch East India Company (VOC) from Gujarat suffered a
steady decline between 1700 and 1750, these were counterbalanced by the enormous
expansion of exports from Bengal between 1700 and 1752. These fell subsequently, but
hovered at an average of about 2 million florins a year till 1785, which was still substantially
higher than the value of exports at any point of time in the seventeenth century. While the
Dutch ascendancy had certainly ended by the middle of the century, English trade was
undergoing its most phenomenal expansion: expanding from £ 1.15 million in 1698-
1700, to £ 1.92 million in 1738-40, £ 2.1 million in 1758-60 and £ 5.8 million in 1777-
79. The pride of place had now shifted to Bengal. Some historians believe that prior to
the British conquest of Bengal, the component of Bengal’s export trade under European
control was secondary compared to the trade with Asian markets, but there is very little
evidence to substantiate such a claim. On the contrary, contemporary estimates of bullion
imported into pre-Plassey Bengal show that of the annual importation worth Rs. 10
million, the share of bullion from Asia seldom exceeded Rs.2 million. India’s trade was
structurally linked to Europe much before the fact of colonization, and the major fall-out
of this linkage was an unprecedented export-expansion accompanied by massive
injections of bullion into the Indian economy. On an average, the Dutch pumped in 4.69
million florins worth of bullion in the Indian economy between 1700 and 1760. The
English East Company brought in a total of £ 8.72 million worth of bullion into India
between 1701 and 1721; this had gone up to £ 12.9 million between 1733 and 1756.
The victory at Plassey introduced changes to the structure of this trade, but as will be
discussed below, these were temporary closures.

The economic implications of such a massive expansion in trade have yet to be worked
out for the eighteenth-century as a whole, but they are likely to have been positive. At a
subcontinental level, Om Prakash visualizes the impact to have generated expansions in
‘income, output and employment’. In Bengal alone he estimates that full-time employment
opportunities in the artisanal sector increased at least by 10 percent by the middle of the
century. Though he discounts any inflationary impact of this massive influx of bullion, a
rise in prices of commodities like rice and sugar is suggested in the prices of provisions
listed in the purchases made by the English company around Calcutta. This would suggest
that increases in money supply occasioned by larger and larger amounts of silver-bullion
being pumped into the economy might have led to a simultaneous rise in both output and
prices in the province. It seems Bengal wasn’t an isolated instance as Prasannan
Parthasarathi has recently detected a similar tendency on the Coromandel coast from
the 1720s.
91
Expansion and Growth of The important point is that bullion was flowing to recharge provincial economies. While
Medieval Economy-2 substantial amounts of this were being sent to the imperial centre as tribute, most of it
tended to stick in the provinces. Early Company observers estimated that such injections
of bullion had resulted in a net accretion of at least 25 crores rupees (£25 million) to the
Bengal’s monetary reserves by the middle of the century. Provincial reorganization could
thus occur in the midst of expanding regional economies. This would explain why the
hallmark of the eighteenth century ‘regional centralization’ was an increase in the
assessment (jama) in the provinces and the propensity of the state to collect revenue
in cash.

An overwhelming consensus among historians in India is the view that political turmoil of
the eighteenth century had disrupted networks of trade, particularly along the east-west
and Agra-Surat axes. While some disruption cannot be ruled out, what is not clear is the
extent or the depth of its adverse impact. Extremely fragmentary evidence about rising
rates of insurance in the eighteenth century have been provided by Irfan Habib to show
an increasing vulnerability of trade in this region, but this does not clinch the issue. Revenues
showed no signs of declining. From Rs. 460,000 in 1571-72, Surat’s revenue had
increased to Rs. 700,000 lakhs in 1721. Cambay’s revenue had gone up from Rs.
120,000 in 1719 to Rs.285, 000 lakhs in 1755, while Broach’s revenue, which was
45,000 rupees in 1714, stood at Rs. 50,000 in 1726; it hovered around Rs.25, 000
between 1750-60, but had jumped to a phenomenal Rs.400, 000 by the 1780s.
Disruptions in western and central India had largely subsided by the 1720s, and according
to Sumit Guha that trade increased in the Maratha territories from about that time, and
commodity circulation and credit flows significantly affected village production and
consumption. Elsewhere too, trade doesn’t seem to have been critically disrupted. As
Jos Gommans has shows, the Afghans developed the route to central Asia via Multan
and Shikarpur. This supplied India with huge numbers of horses and the caravans of
Indian merchants passed westward through their territory.

Taking an overview of the economy at the middle of the century, there is no ground to
believe that the regionalization had diluted the tenuous commercial integration of the
previous century. The Mughal highways operated with minimal disruption, and disruption
in one area tended to be compensated by integration in another. Banjaras (transporters
of grain) continued to ply their trade between Banaras and the Deccan through Mirzapur
throughout the century, thus suggesting integrated circuits of long-distance trade even in
cheap bulk commodities and foodgrains. For all the alleged problems caused by the
Marathas, remittance networks through bills of exchange (hundis) between western
India, Malwa, Rajasthan and Upper India seems to have held up well. Hundi dealers
also dominated the complex network of remittances of tribute within the Marartha
territories themselves, as they did with the revenues flowing out of eastern India. Credit
could still be extended and money remitted over long distances. Bengal’s rice and sugar
were being traded for textiles from the Coromandel coast, cowrie shells from the
Maldives, and for money from the Red Sea. Regional specialization in textile production
seems to have intensified in this century, with the lower end of the market increasingly
being catered from small, largely rurban, production centres. Production was increasingly
getting tied to advance contracts. Raw materials, seed or the money were advanced to
weavers and cultivators by the rich and neighbours or by the agents of merchants, who
received the crops or textiles as finished products in repayment.

What was the situation in the countryside? In the absence of any sustained technological
improvement to enhance productivity, higher output could only have arisen by expanding
the area under cultivation, or by intensive marketing, or by devising newer devices to
92 control agricultural labour. The eighteenth century shows the existence of all three, either
separately or in various combinations. While the Punjab was undergoing a phase of Eighteenth Century in
contraction, and the surroundings of Delhi and Agra were suffering sharp vicissitudes, Indian History
agricultural reclamation on an extensive scale seems to have been underway in the Deccan
and in territories controlled by the Marathas. Rajasthan saw fairly impressive agricultural
growth in the first half of the century. Prices rose faster than the level of revenue demand
providing the incentive for increasing the area under cultivation and for growing more
valuable crops. Both grain, taken by the state as taxation and cash crops were traded
out of the province in large quantities. In Bengal, Richard Eaton has identified a marked
extension of cultivation in response to the eastward shift of the course of the Ganges
delta, which created favourable conditions for opening up new rice growing lands, whose
produce went to feed the growing city of Calcutta and textile manufacturing districts of
the west. In Awadh and Allahabad evidence of increasing prosperity in both country and
towns is adduced in the higher revenue yields and the creation of new market centres
extending even as far to the east as Bihar.

Reclamation was being organized by many agencies, ranging from the state to the landed-
magnates, revenue-farmers and merchants. New market centres – peths, bazaars, and
ganjs – were being established, or old ones were being reorganized under new owners
on an extensive scale in Maharashtra, Awadh, Bihar and Bengal. Particularly important
seems to have been the proliferation of village level markets, the haat, as these allowed
exchange networks to percolate right up to the village level. Sharecropping seems to
have expanded in a big way. In the Marathas Deccan, the term used for sharecropping
was vatekari, whereas in eastern India, sharecroppers were known adhiar or bargadar.
Client-labour was in widespread usage in Awadh and eastern India, while agrarian
servitude and bondage was on the rise in areas of expanding irrigated agriculture in south
India.

Such a situation leaves very little scope for doubt about indigenous eighteenth-century
regimes witnessing significant measures of economic growth. While data for demographic
growth are scarce, there is little ambiguity about the extension of cultivation, or expansion
of trade in these regimes. On the whole, therefore, the situation would support the recent
‘revisionist’ view that the process of the imperial fragmentation had very little to do with
the economies of the localities, except in some core regions. The regional economies
continued to be buoyant. Pan-Indian networks of trade thrived in the changed political
scenario and in some cases may even have expanded, and areas of growth seem to have
adequately compensated for areas of decline.

The period after 1757 is usually seen a major watershed in the Indian economy. A recent
reassessment of the Company’s rule in eighteenth century Bengal by P.J. Marshall finds
that in the Company’s scheme of political dominance, the primary imperatives were (a)
to ensure that their trading privileges were reformulated in terms of absolute rights, (b) to
convert limited territorial grants into its outright property, (c) to maximise what it obtained
from grants of revenue, and (d) to maintain armed forces at a level which would guarantee
its security. Yet, its initial optimism and grandiose self-perceptions were considerably
tempered ‘by caution in using these powers, which inclined the British to non-intervention
and to conserve Indian states as they understood them’. In addition, there were ‘severe
practical restrictions on what a foreign regime, even with a monopoly of overt force
could achieve in conditions in which had only limited contact with the mass of the
population’.

In order to understand the role of the Company in determining the fate of the late
eighteenth-century Indian economy, one must put its ascendancy in proper context. The
decline of the Mughal Empire facilitated the Company’s bid for power; it did not cause 93
Expansion and Growth of it. The old idea that there was complete chaos after the collapse of the empire now
Medieval Economy-2 stands sufficiently revised. Some chaos there was, but it was geographically limited and
was offset by the growth of stable and commercially viable regimes at different levels.
The Company’s success lay in battening on to such processes for commercial benefit
and in using the rhetoric of chaos to augment its military presence and utility among the
contenders of local dominance. They did this with consummate skill in south India in the
1740s and that experience was to serve them well throughout the century. In fact, most
of the commercial concessions which the Company later used for political capital (like
the firman of 1717 in Bengal) were consciously granted by the Mughals or their subahdars
in the provinces; and the growth of fortified settlements in the east, south and western
parts of India occurred in the full gaze of the empire, then at the zenith of its power. This
meant that the Company’s commercial and military interests were inseparably linked
from an early stage of its existence, and that its enterprise in India was geared to ensuring
that it was maintained at an optimum level. Therefore the transition to early-colonialism
was underpinned by the success already achieved by the Company in ensuring the
compliance from its indigenous political and commercial collaborators to the furtherance
of its military-fiscal requirements. Conquest was the great facilitator of the transition, not
its creator.

One has also to keep the territorial dimension of the early British Empire in mind in order
to understand the economic implications of its rule. The British Empire unfolded over a
period of a hundred years, and, like its predecessor, grew through a process of conquest,
collaboration and co-option of indigenous systems into a gradually evolving pan-Indian
framework of rule. Out of a possible 4.2 million square kilometres of territory, the
Company had managed to control only about 388,500 square kilometres between 1757
and 1792, most of it located in northern and eastern India. Between 1798 and 1805,
Richard Wellesley added another 50,000 square kilometres of territory per year to the
British Empire between 1798 and 1805, thus inaugurating, what C.A. Bayly has termed,
‘the harder edge of British empire-building’ in India. This occurred under unprecedented
demands being placed on Great Britain for resources during the Napoleonic Wars, and
was characterized by ‘a new single-mindedness of the power and dignity of the state,
the morality of conquest and British racial superiority’. It also brought to an end the
rampant opportunism of the Empire under Clive, of the cautious protectionism, which
had characterized Hastings’ governorship, and the defensive pragmatism of Cornwallis’
tenure. 3.42 million square kilometres of India still lay outside the ambit of the Company’s
control at the turn of the century, and it wasn’t before 1815 that the big push to swallow
a large part of it began. With 2.56 million square kilometres under its belt by 1856, the
job of imperial expansion had been successfully completed, though forty percent of
India still lay outside its direct ambit.

But this view of the Company as a relatively loose structure and its initial vulnerabilities
cuts no ice with most historians in India. For them, this regime ‘of blue-blooded European
ancestry’ was different for three reasons: first, it was driven by a relentless urge to maximize
revenue; secondly, it reversed the established patterns of trading between India and
Europe; and thirdly, it introduced the drain of wealth – the one-way flow of tribute –
from India to Britain. The economic impact of such a cohesive system of exploitation
was deleterious: impoverishing, deflationary and ruinous to both craft-production and
agriculture. Let us examine these issues individually. Naturally, most of the discussion of
this would centre on Bengal, which was the primary centre of the Company’s rule in the
eighteenth century as well as its principal financial pump.

On the question of revenue maximization, the evidence from Bengal, which was the
94 initial laboratory of the Company’s fiscal experiment, shows that on an average, 40 to
45 percent of the agricultural output was collected as land revenue. The demand was Eighteenth Century in
also raised. With 1755 as base equal to 100, the index of the amount assessed stood at Indian History
135 in 1770, 155 in 1778 and 168 in 1783, but had dropped to 156.01 in 1790. The
amount of revenue collected also went up but not significantly enough to constitute a
radical departure from existing practices. The Company’s collections seldom exceeded
85 percent of the assessment, which compares well with situation under the Nawabs
who were successful in collecting anything between 90 percent and 65 percent of their
assessments. The collection was made exclusively in cash, significantly furthering the
process of monetisation in the province. But one aspect of the Company’s financial
behaviour constituted a radical break from the past. During periods of price slumps, the
Mughal revenue officials often accepted payment of revenue in kind in order to reduce
the real burden on the peasantry. That element of flexibility was now dispensed with.
The Company insisted on all revenue being paid in cash, irrespective of the nature of the
agricultural season. This tended to have serious consequences on the poorer cultivators
during harvest failures.

Given the fact that collections were made exclusively in cash, the question of maximization
of revenue would depend on whether or not the tax-burden had increased in real terms,
and this would be factor of the prevailing state of prices. The consensual view of this
period is that the real burdens had increased, as this period was one of price-deflation
caused by the extraction of tribute; but this is based on a very selective use of the
evidence and goes against contemporary accounts, which show a substantial rise in the
prices of both agricultural and non-agricultural goods in this period. A study of price
figures available from the Dutch settlement of Chinsura and the prices of provisions near
Calcutta leave little doubt about the inflationary tendencies at work in eighteenth century
Bengal, especially from the middle of the eighteenth century. By the most conservative
estimate, agricultural prices had more than doubled during the course of the century with
the price-crest stretching between 1750 and 1795. Prices dipped somewhat after 1790
but remained well above the level at the middle of the century level, and continued to be
so till 1795; and it was only by 1800 that prices tended to fall, but not below the 1736-
40 level. Such increases blunted the edge of the Company’s demands on many sections
of rural society. While the smaller and marginal peasants suffered considerably, landed-
magnates and the merchants weathered the Company’s pressures quite well, and in fact
prospered. Some historians have also ascribed the rise of a ‘rich-peasant class’, the
jotedars, to this period.

Turning to the question of the pattern of trading between Britain and India, the picture is
one of overall continuity. Bullion supplies were never discontinued after the battle of
Plassey. They were reduced, and even that restriction seems to have been partial. The
Company imported £2.46 million of treasure between 1758 and 1768, £1.3 million
between 1769 and 1779, £3.83 million between 1779 and 1789. But between 1790
and 1805 the Company pumped in £9.14 million worth of bullion into India of which
Bengal’s share was a whopping £5.77 million. Bengal had never received such huge
supplies at any other time in the past. Private European trade was responsible for the
arrival of £5.2 million worth of silver to Bengal between 1796 and 1806, and despite
their trade being on a downward slope, the Dutch still imported 4.24 million florins
worth of bullion per year to pay for their merchandize between 1790 and 1794.
Contemporary grievances, and modern convictions, that a severe shortage of money in
the late-eighteenth century was caused by this great reversal of India’s pattern of trade
need to be seriously countenanced against this evidence. The rate of agio (batta) being
charged by money-changers for converting Arcot rupees into the Bengal sicca seldom
exceeded 7 percent in the 1770s, which was considerably less than the rates being
charged in the 1720s when Bengal, ostensibly, was receiving huge amounts of bullion. 95
Expansion and Growth of Commercial reports from the Company’s Bengal’s manufactories (aurangs) in 1773
Medieval Economy-2 revealed that the combined investments by the English, the Dutch and the French companies
and those made by private European merchants ‘exceed double the quantity which can
possibly be made in the year’. Customs receipts collected by the Board of Trade in the
late 1790s showed that Bengal’s exports had tripled between 1777 and 1797, and that
most of it was still based on an exchange of textiles, foodstuffs and other raw materials
for precious metals and certain manufactured goods. Bengal was still far from becoming
a source of raw materials or a receptacle of the finished products of an industrialising
Britain in this period, and K.N. Chaudhuri’s general assessment that during the ‘half
century following the revolution of 1757, trade continued to flow along the traditional
channels’ conforms well with the evidence on the ground. The vitality of Bengal’s
commercial economy remained substantially unaltered throughout the eighteenth century.

Elsewhere, too, commercial transactions appear to have remained robust. Nagpur,

Bundelkhand, Ghazipur and Mirzapur were functioning as important nodes for the
distribution of Bengal goods in western India and the Deccan at the end of the century.
In the late 1780s, nearly 43 percent of the textiles produced in Banaras were being
vended in western India, 49 percent was being sent to Bengal for shipment overseas,
and the remaining 8 percent was destined for the Deccan and the northern provinces.
Considering the fact that the markets for the luxury-end of Banaras textiles, its silk, was
traditionally located in north and western India, whereas Bengal received its medium-
priced cottons, this regional division of the trade from Banaras does not show a major
change in India’s internal market for textiles. By the 1790s, cotton wool from Gujarat
and central India, and Malwa opium and indigo had started becoming an important part
of India’s overseas trade, and may have even partly compensated for the decline of
some of the old staples. The North American market for Indian goods was expanding,
and in Asia the demand from Europe was being supplemented by the demand from the
Indonesia, while the west Asian markets revived by 1790. The attempt by the Company
to monopolize the production of the ‘new’ international staples like opium may not have
worked as efficiently as believed by some later historians. As B.B.Chaudhuri has shown,
the production or the sale of such cash crops through the advance-payment system did
not prevent ‘market conjunctions’, especially prices, in determining the autonomous
response of the cultivators towards these crops; nor could the monopolistic policies of
the state obstruct indigenous sources of credit from percolating into these sectors of
production. In fact, cultivators often found advances to be an assured source of income
and even welcomed them. International demand had also induced an element of regional
specialization in the production of indigo. Bengal, Bihar and Banaras produced the finer
variety, Awadh produced the ‘middling’ sort, whereas the ‘ordinary’ sort was being
produced in the Doab and further west.

Other continuities existed. A major one, the financial relationships between the state and
the bankers, which had been established during the process of regional growth was
continued and even deepened in this period. Indigenous bankers supported the Company
during the Plassey ‘revolution’, and once in place some changes occurred. Though the
old banking establishment of the Jagat Seth had declined, the East India Company’s
Bengal revenue still depended on the advances of Indian bankers, above all on the
support of the great Benares businesses. Their capacity to transfer funds all over India
by bills of exchange or hundi made it possible for armies from Bengal to operate in
western India or in the south. One shouldn’t underestimate the resilience of the Indian
banking system nor its capacity to resist the Company’s financial machinations. Recent
research in the banking sector of late-18th century Bengal has shown that Bengal’s
bankers (shroffs) continued to operate in the framework of their traditional business
96 practices. They cooperated with the Company, but only on their own terms, and it was
their intransigence which was the main reason why the Company’s repeated attempts at Eighteenth Century in
reforming the currency of Bengal remained unfulfilled till 1835. Indian History

Bengal was not an isolated instance. Studies of banking in other parts of India have also
shown the persistence of the relationship between indigenous capital and the early-colonial
state. In Bihar, the change in the political regime in eastern India seems to have adversely
affected some wealthy provincial merchants, but substantial banking firms of Patna and
other cities of Bihar survived and thrived as their remittance business increased under
the aegis of the Company. Like their counterparts in Bengal, shroffs continued to do
good business, taking advantage of the multiplicity of coins. In western India, the linkage
stemmed, paradoxically, not from the strength but from the weakness of the Company’s
finances. Here, the Company was facing an acute shortage of money and this made
them turn inevitably to the financial assistance of the indigenous bankers.

The steady expansion of English trade, particularly English private trading towards China
in the 1780s cemented this relationship. The share of private trade, which was 7.6 percent
of the total overseas trade of Bengal between 1752-58, 6.8 percent between 1759-
1764, and 5.96 percent between 1766 and 1772, rose to 41.88 per cent between 1790
and 1799. Some of this trade was undertaken by the import of bullion, but such huge
increases necessitated internally generated funds. Commercial opportunities thus expanded
for people with money. These were available in good measure from Indian financiers
who provided private traders with ready-money loans, or invested in the agency houses,
which were growing in Calcutta and Bombay mainly to finance the growing trade of
opium and cotton to China.

In southern India, the documentation on the relationship between the Company and
bankers is not very clear, but the larger nexus relationship between the Company and
indigenous finances seems to have occurred initially in the context of its participation in
indigenous state building, particularly in Arcot, reference to which has been made earlier.
Prasannan Parthasarathi does not see bankers playing a major role in the Company’s
finances in the south, but he detects an expanding relationship between it and merchant-
financiers, which became critical for the rise of English power. The Company also received
financial support from other groups. Using the expanding opportunities of political-
profiteering opened by the Company, dubashes (brokers/interpreters) drawn from the
Komati commercial community of the Andhra region made large fortunes, much of it
which they pressed back into the services of the Company’s finances, and on the
Coromandel, Chetty merchants and Brahman ijaradars (revenue farmers) served as
part-financiers and account-keepers of the Company’s trade. On the Malabar coast,
the systems of renting monopolies and an array of new taxes on valuable agricultural
produce which had been established during the occupation of this region by Mysore,
was used by the Company and private British interests in Bombay to set up lucrative
trade in peppers and cardamoms with the help of the indigenous merchants, who had
also provided the commercial support base of the previous regime on the Malabar coast.
Thus it would seem that in south India too the early-colonial system had the backing of
a diverse group of commercial and powerful indigenous people.

For such people, the late eighteenth century was a period of expanding commercial
opportunities. The case of Bengal illustrates this well. Here the Company effectively
intervened to free the internal market of restrictions imposed by zamindari control during
the previous regime. These had taken the forms of a proliferation of zamindari outposts
(chowkies) to collect tolls at various rates dictated by the financial predilections of an
individual zamindar and continuous conflicts between merchants and zamindars over
the rate of tolls, over market jurisdictions and the movement of commodities. By taking 97
Expansion and Growth of a number of interventionist measures to regulate the administration of non-agricultural
Medieval Economy-2 taxes, the Company was able to take a number of steps between 1773 and 1790 to
rectify this situation. The chief of them was the abolition of the myriad duties which were
levied at the various chowkies upon articles of internal consumption, and their consolidation
at the final point of destination. The management of such duties was to be under five
customs houses to be established at Calcutta, Hughli, Murshidabad, Dhaka and Patna.
The other problem, of the control exercised by the zamindars and the taalluqdars over
markets, was redressed in 1790, when the Company introduced a separation between
rent collected in the markets so controlled and the taxes collected there on trade. While
rent could continue to be collected on a private basis, the right to tax was henceforth to
be vested in the Company. These measures streamlined the structure of internal trade,
and enabled a rationalization of incomes between the state, the landed-magnate and the
merchant. The combined result of these policies was a proliferation of market places all
over Bengal. The increase in their numbers or their establishment in previously deficient
areas enabled the peasantry to relate more easily to wider markets, and merchants
could move more easily through them with their networks of credit.

Landed proprietors, who set up markets in the interior areas, provided loans to cultivators
and generally underwrote the finances for agricultural reclamation, also joined the
commercial bandwagon. This was certainly the case in Bengal. Markets created by the
petty gentry and great nobles alike were appearing in Awadh, Maharashtra and peninsular
India in the much less propitious circumstances of the late eighteenth century. In
Maharashtra such places grew into ‘little towns’ (in the words of Sumit Guha) where a
whole range of people could spread themselves into commerce, land holding and revenue
farming in equal measure. Landed magnates also tried their hand at the direct cultivation
of indigo when markets looked favourable, but most of them preferred to latch on to
opportunities opened by the newly expanding horizons in the trade in indigo and opium
by routing some of their monies into provisioning the agency houses who raised much of
their capital locally.

25.8 THE INDIAN ECONOMY IN THE LATE

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY: THE EMERGING
DIFFERENCES
While such a picture does not square well with the notions of devastation and decay
which reside so dominantly in the received wisdom of early-colonialism, it would be
quite wrong to think that nothing had changed in India, or that every change was for the
better. The Company’s regime was aggressively mercantilist whose orientation was
European, not Indian. State policy was financially driven and all institutions were to be
streamlined to ensure this ultimate objective. Notwithstanding the great rhetoric which
accompanied it, the Permanent Settlement was a feat of mercantilist social engineering
to stabilize Bengal’s revenue for the purposes of the Company’s commerce. Under its
terms the Mughal right of taxation, traditionally devolved upon the zamindars by the
state was fused to their milkiyat, their ‘private’ domains, both of which could now be
sold. Though this enlarged the ‘rule’ of private property in Bengal’s countryside, the dip
in agricultural prices after 1790 exacerbated matters and left the ordinary cultivator to
receive the rough-end of the stick. There is no doubt that agrarian distress had increased
considerably in the immediate aftermath of the Permanent Settlement.

What this indicates is that while the early-colonial regime buttressed regimes of indigenous
landed and commercial properties; it did so by increasing the vulnerability of many at the
98 poorer ends of society. The case of Bengal illustrates this process well. The Company
was unrelenting in revenue being collected in cash irrespective of the conditions of the Eighteenth Century in
current harvest. This removed an important cushion, which the peasant had during the Indian History
previous regime and became a major cause of mortality and distress during the famine of
1769-70. But notions of universal agrarian distress and a devastated peasantry would
be over-pessimistic. The situation on the ground was more complex. Agricultural
reclamation along the northern edges of the province and along its estuaries was
continuing robustly and the fruits of it were being mopped up by the zamindars and
the jotedars. Their positions, especially that of the zamindars’, were becoming
stronger in relation to sharecropping tenants and day labourers. Though the evidence
for this is patchy, some historians believe that jotedars in the northern fringes were
behaving like ‘kulak-landlords’: providing credit and engaging in agricultural trade
over short distances. Rural stratification had increased in the course of the century,
and its pace appears speeded-up during the latter part.

In south India, British intervention, while widening and deepening the circuits of cash
transactions, consolidated the position of the leading mirasidars (peasant-proprietor)
as ‘village contractors’. As David Ludden tells us, these mirasidars now began combining
cultivation with revenue farming and local level agrarian management. ‘Mahajan’
mirasidars used their control over land, labour and various commercial assets to
accumulate financial resources that enabled them to contract for village revenues. But
this was accompanied by a drastic change in the social conditions of the less privileged
groups who were pushed into social and economic subordination. David Washbrook
shows how the Company’s direct intervention in south India consolidated two apparently
contradictory elements: traditional social relations and modern laws of contract. The first
was designed to preserve the existing social structure, while the second was geared to
expanding commercial opportunities, and both these were detrimental to the position of
labour. While custom was upheld to legitimize traditional bonds of labour control,
agricultural wages were determined by laws of supply and demand, and enforced by a
system of contracts. The labourers, especially those belonging to the low-castes, thus
stood doubly deprived.

The Company was also a hard commercial taskmaster. In its dealings, the Company as
a monopolist-trader was extremely harsh with producers under its control, relentlessly
enforcing the delivery of what was due to it and constantly attempting to depress the
wages of the weavers in its employment. This made them extremely vulnerable to any
sharp changes in the prices of food: highest famine mortalities were usually recorded
among artisans working at the Company’s manufactories. In south India, Parthasarathi’s
study of weavers in the Coromandel also draws a picture of growing artisanal vulnerability
under the new dispensation. He shows that under the Company the weavers entered a
new regime of labour control, which removed many of their past entitlements, and this
led to a sharp decline in their wages and economic status.

But what we must also remember that this harsh regime did not cover the majority of
cotton-textile weavers, at least not in Bengal, and many artisans managed to find loopholes
in the system. There was a huge internal market for the more common varieties of cotton
textiles, while the luxury-end of production hadn’t completely dried up; and these meant
that cotton textile producers and upcountry cotton merchants could still do well even
under these trying circumstances. The silk industry is another good example of this
differential impact. While Bengal’s silk exports to Surat had shrunk from Rs. 0.45 million
in 1766 to Rs.0.03 million in 1789, the north Indian market seems to have held up well.
In 1789 the upcountry consumption of raw silk from Bengal was worth Rs. 1.99 million;
in 1790 it was pegged at Rs.1.68 million. In the meantime, the Company’s investments
for Bengal’s silk had increased from Rs. 0.92 million 1766 to Rs.5.54 million in 1789. 99
Expansion and Growth of This had induced a structural shift of Bengal’s silk from an internal to an international
Medieval Economy-2 market with somewhat serious consequences. Any drop in the Company’s investment
for silk had serious repercussions for the silk-growers (chassars) and the winders’
incomes, and contrary to cotton, the existence of a small internal market for silk held out
slim prospects of a limited recovery. Any improvement depended on the vagaries of the
international market. A partial upturn in the 1790s was offset by a depression caused by
the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, and it was only after 1813 that silk
exports began to pick up from Bengal once gain. By that time silk production in places
like Murshidabad and Rajshahi had already gone into steep decline.

Thus, despite increasing the scope, scale and volume of commercial transactions, the
end-result of the Company’s intercession was to tie the Indian economy into the north
European cycles of trade and production. This integration wasn’t new. It had begun with
the increasing in the seventeenth century with the steady expansion of European trading
in India, and its great expansion in the early eighteenth century had speeded up the
process considerably. The difference now was that key sectors of India’s economy
were henceforth tied into the vicissitudes of this global-economy, and downturns in the
latter caused harm to these important components of the Indian economy or foreclosed
the possibilities of their autonomous growth. While many Indians were able to enrich
themselves enormously in the process, much of the profits accruing from expanded
commercial opportunities were siphoned away from India with little or no corresponding
benefits to the country. There was rampant fiscal and commercial profiteering. Private
British and European individuals made huge profits from revenue farming, from the
expanding trade in opium or indigo, and from political corruption. These were mostly
pumped out of India to East Asia, especially to Macao and Canton (port cities on the
southern edge of China) through the agency of private British shipping and Portuguese
commercial houses, where it was used to make further fortunes for the European
expatriates. The agency houses became the front through which the salaries,
perquisites and often illegally made money by individuals was siphoned out of India.
£17.67 million were taken out of Bengal alone through these channels between
1757 and 1796. Much of the Indian capital in the service of private trade was thus
dissipated through such remittances.

The remittances of private fortunes were accompanied by the official transfer of substantial
amounts of India’s surpluses to Britain as tribute. This was the drain of wealth in its
classic sense, which, understandably, has come to occupy centre-stage in understanding
the impact of the early-colonial system on the India economy. While an estimate places
the combined (that is, on private and official accounts) transfer under this head at £4
million in the 1780s and 1790s, lower estimates ranging between £1.8 million and £1.92
million per year have been suggested by others for the period between 1757 and 1793.
Given the nature of the data, it is difficult to establish incontrovertible figures, but these
were indeed enormous. They were also unprecedented not just because of their
magnitudes alone. Enormous amounts of up to 1 crore rupees (£1 million) a year had
been sent to Delhi from Bengal in the 1720s. The difference of the transfers under the
tribute of the late-eighteenth century arose on the grounds that for the first time official
channels of trade were used to transfer private fortunes. Additionally there was no mobility
of labour and capital between Britain and India to partially compensate for this loss as
would have existed in the past when enormous amounts of imperial tribute being remitted
from Bengal to Delhi in the past. General economic indices however do not suggest that
this drain had succeeded in paralysing the Indian economy. As discussed earlier,
commodity prices held up well till the end of the century and there was no shortage of
money. But what is indisputable is that transfers of such magnitudes from India were
100 easing the massive deficits on Britain’s balance of trade with both India and China, thus
leaving the Company free to divert its finances to the aggrandizement of India by enlarging Eighteenth Century in
the scale of its subsidies from Indian powers and by borrowing money from private Indian History
Indian and European capital in India. India was now subsidising the colonisation of its
own economy.

25.9 SUMMARY
The eighteenth century was marked by the decline of the Mughal Empire, giving rise to
the emergence of several regional centres of power. Towards the middle of the century
another factor came into the forefront with the establishment of the political power of the
British East India Company, which ad much deeper implications. The eighteenth century
is interpreted by the historians from two angles, one set of historians, following an empire-
centric approach, argue that the decline of the Mughal empire was catastrophic resulting
in ‘chaos and anarchy’. The other set of historians, who have followed a region-centric
approach, emphasize that though the empire declined, this did not result in ‘chaos and
anarchy’. Regions became vibrant centers of socio-economic activities and the Indian
economy continued to expand despite the political problems. This process was not
substantially disrupted under early British rule, though numerous changes did emerge
which were subjecting the Indian economy to unprecedented financial burdens.

25.10 GLOSSARY
Chaudhuri Semi-hereditary pargana level official, mainly concerned
with revenue collection.

Florin A silver coin first struck in twelfth century Florence, and

noted for its beauty. In India, this coin was widely used
by the Dutch traders and was valued at about forty cents.

Jagat Seth Lit. Bankers to the world. It was the title wielded by the
famous Jain bankers of Bengal. It was during Siraj-ud
Daulah’s reign, the then Jagat Seth played a pivotal and
treacherous role together with Siraj’s maternal uncle Mir
Jafar, Umichand and Rai Durlabh in determining the
outcome of the battle of Plassey in 1757.

Jagirdari system The assignments given in lieu of salary to the nobles.

The areas thus assigned were called jagir and its holder
jagirdar. However, jagirdar was not allotted the land
instead he received the income/revenue from the area
assigned to him. Jagirs were frequently transferable.

Jotedars Village landlord. The jotedars used to take lands on

long-term leases from the zamindars and then got that
cultivated on contract on a sharecropping basis. The
lease so granted by the zamindar for the purpose of
bringing the land back into cultivation at concessional
rates. However, peasants’ rights in the jotes were
recognized by a set of customary codes.

Mansabdari system Mansab means rank. Each individual entered in the

Mughal bureaucracy was allotted a mansab. It has dual
ranks – zat and sawar. Zat determined the status of its 101
Expansion and Growth of holder in the official hierarchy and the personal pay of
Medieval Economy-2 the holder. Sawar rank denotes how much contingent
(horses, horsemen, and equipment) a mansabdar was
supposed to maintain.

Taalluqdars Substitute for zamindar. The term came into usage

during the late 17th century.

Zamindars Hereditary superior right holder. The zamindar was

entitled to a percentage of the total revenue collected.
It was generally 10% (though varies upto 25%) of the
total revenue collected. When the zamindar was
collecting the revenue for the state it was known as
nankar and when the state was directly collecting the
revenue by-passing him he was entitled to malikana.

25.11 EXERCISES
1) ‘The eighteenth century was a century of universal decline.’ Comment.

2) Critically analyse the ‘empire-centric’ approach. Do you agree with a view that
the eighteenth century was a century of ‘anarchy and chaos’?

3) How would you view the eighteenth century in the context of the regions emerging
as vibrant centers of socio-economic activities.

4) Examine the region centric approach of historians in the context of the eighteenth
century.

5) Analyse the state of Indian Economy during the eighteenth century.

6) What continuities and changes do you see in the Indian economy in the late
eighteenth century?

25.12 SUGGESTED READINGS

Alam, Muzaffar, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India, Awadh and the Punjab
1707-1748, Delhi, 1986.
Alavi, Seema (ed.), The Eighteenth Century in India, Delhi, 2002.
Ali, M. Athar, ‘The Eighteenth Century: an Interpretation’, Indian Historical Review,
vol. 5, nos. 1-2, 1978-79.
Bayly, C.A., Rulers Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of
British Expansion 1770-1801, Cambridge, 1983.
Habib, Irfan, ‘The Eighteenth Century in Indian Economic History’, in Seema Alavi, The
Eighteenth Century in India, Delhi, 2002.
Marshall, P.J. (ed.), The Eighteenth Century in Indian History, Evolution or
Revolution, Delhi, 2003.
Singh, Chetan, ‘A Critique of Revisionist Approaches’, Proceedings of Indian History
Congress, 52nd Session, Delhi, 1991.
Stein, Burton, ‘State Formation and Economy Reconsidered’, Modern Asian Studies,
102 Vol. 19, no. 3, July, 1985.
 M.A. History
List of Courses

Course Title of the Course Credits

Code.
MHI-01 Ancient and Medieval Societies 8
MHI-02 Modern World 8
MHI-03 Historiography 8
MHI-04 Political Structures in India 8
MHI-05 History of Indian Economy 8
MHI-06 Evolution of Social Structures in India 8
Through the Ages
MHI-07 Religious Thought and Belief in India 8
MHI-08 History of Ecology and Environment: India 8

MHI-05 History of Indian Economy

Block-wise Course Structure

Block-1 : Historiography, Environment and Economy

Block 2 : Emergence and Structure of Complex Economy

Block 3 : Early Medieval Economy and Its Continuities

Block 4 : Expansion and Growth of Medieval Economy-1

Block 5 : Expansion and Growth of Medieval Economy-2

Block 6 : Trade and Markets

Block 7 : The Rural Economy

Block 8 : Craft Production, Technological Change

and Industrialisation

103