Name: Elizabeth Saji

Paper: History of Indian - VI

Class: II BA (hons.) History
Semester: IV

HISTORY OF INDIA - VI: ASSIGNMENT

Q. Can the 18th century be characterized as a ‘Dark Age’?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18th century India was a period that stays important in an historians gaze due to
the critical transitions that took place during this period. Namely there were two
such transitions which have sparked debates, they are critical as they changed
the structure of power and caused important economic and social
reconfigurations. Historians namely debate on three aspects of the 18th century
i.e. the nature of change, the reasons for the decline of the Mughal state and the
implications it had for the establishment of early colonial rule in India. Scholars
have various interpretations to the events of the 18th century. Their views can be
put into two broad categorizations:
1. Traditional view (‘dark age’): this was the earliest view that held that the
political collapse of the Mughal Empire in the early 18th century initiated
a process of economic and social decline across India. Thereby, plunging
India into a ‘dark age’ during the 18th century.
2. Revisionist view: the revisionists believe that the 18th century must be
understood in its own terms and not in relation to the previous era. They
have studied the growth of regional polity and regional economic
prosperity and challenge the ‘dark age’ view.
We shall, in this essay discuss the transitions in the polity, society and economy
of the 18th century with reference to these two views of looking the period. We
shall also see how over a period of time the studies regarding this period have
changed and if it really was a dark age as some claim it to be.
Jadunath Sarkar, Sri Ram Sharma and Ishwari Prasad were among earliest
historians who pointed out the reasons for decline of the Mughals. They usually
attributed the decline to the religious and administrative policies and the
character of individual rulers. While Sarkar blamed Aurangzeb’s religious
policies and the Deccan campaigns for the decline and saw the peasant
rebellions as a ‘Hindu reaction’ to Aurangzeb’s Muslim orthodoxy, Sharma and
Prasad held that the 18th century was a economically crisis-prone period.

The Marxist historians explained Mughal decline in material terms. Some of the
arguments were related to Mughal administrative institutions like mansabs and
jagirs. Satish Chandra argued that these structures were flawed and their
functioning led to a fiscal crisis in the late 17 th century. He believes that the few
and infertile jagirs led to an increasing discrepancy in estimated revenue (jama)
and actual revenue (hasil) which led to a decreased ability of state officials to
collect revenue regularly, thus fuelling a fiscal crisis. Athar Ali argues that there
was an economic and administrative decline as the number of nobles increased
however there was a shortage of jagirs caused by expansion into less fertile
tracts in the Deccan. However JF Richards based on his studies in the Deccan
critiqued Ali saying that there was no shortage in the number of usable and
fertile jagirs.
Another strong proponent of the ‘dark age’ theory is Irfan Habib, he argues that
the Mughal administrative structure, since Akbar’s time, was highly centralised
with a universal land tax, systematic revenue assessment and collection, with a
share going to zamindars, as well as highly uniform revenue assignment tenures
and revenue collections from far away territories of the empire. Thus Habib
concludes that the administration played a dominant role in the Mughal
economy. However, Habib argues that from the late 17 th century a process of
economic decay had set in India due to unrestricted authority of the jagirdars
who were assigned lands for unpredictably short tenures by the emperor.
Explaining this view he says there was an increased pressure for revenue by
jagirdars, which led to peasant flight, peasant uprisings against the State and a
breakdown in collaboration between jagirdars and zamindars, as the zamindars
started to lead the peasant uprising. This led to an agrarian crisis and subsequent
weakening of the political edifice. With this the zamindars emerged powerful
and shaped local state formation.
With regards to trade and urbanisation Habib argued the factors that propelled
trade and urbanisation during the Mughal period, such as large availability of
capital, a developed banking and credit system, the large transfer of rural
surplus to towns etc. were declining in the 18th century thereby causing a decline
in commerce and trade. Based on the material by Francis Buchanan, Habib
concludes that there was a stagnation of capital supply since the interest rates
were stable. However this cannot be confirmed.
Athar Ali attributes decline of the 18th century to the cultural failure of the
ruling elite to respond to superior technological and scientific advancement in
Europe during 1500-1700. Some regional polities like Mysore and the Marathas
tried to bridge the gulf but they failed. Ali argues while these states tried to
modernise the army and focus on the development of commerce they failed in
the intellectual sphere meaning they did focus on imparting and absorbing
western learning and knowledge. Therefore these regimes continued within the
Mughal ideological apparatus. The fundamental nature of the state, he says, was
that of extracting rent as it preserved essential features of Mughal land revenue
system. The old centres such as Agra and Delhi declined during this period
however we can see that new centres like Lucknow and Faizabad also emerged,
this Ali says shows that the economy was resilient but there was no real growth.
The view that the 18th century was a “Dark Age” has been criticized by many
historians, specially the Revisionists who represent the second view in this
debate. Revisionist works focused on the socio-economic functioning of
regional polities and pioneered in the in-depth studies on trade and mercantile
activity.
One of the strongest arguments against the ‘dark age’ theory comes from CA
Bayly. He argues that 18th century India did not plunge into a dark age rather
there is evidence of growth in certain regions. For example regions like Awadh
and Banaras which experienced urbanisation and agrarian expansion, textile
industry also grew in this period. Bayly further argues that indigenous capital
did not decline but it was engaged with internal bulk and luxury trade along new
routes and well as in financing military and revenue machinery. However, he
does believe that certain areas did experience decline in the 18 th century, in fact
he believes that there was no universal growth in the 18th century. He critiques
the views of Habib and Ali saying that they ascribe decline to political factors
alone and do not take the economic and ecological factors into consideration.
Bayly also questions Habib’s belief that the Mughal state and its economy was
highly centralised. He also argues that the Mughal states and its machinery was
not responsible for the growth witnessed in the 17 th century, contrary to what
Habib propagated. Bayly also does not agree with Habib that there was
universal economic decline due to the rise of zamindars at the expense of the
state. Rather, Bayly argues, in the 18th century the zamindars and other
intermediaries established closer control over the peasantry and the artisans than
it had during the Mughal hegemony, also the mechanisms of control varied
from one kingdom to another. Bayly also critiques the view that once the British
assumed their diwani rights, it destroyed all socio-economic forces that existed
in other words it wiped out the possibility of British rule being built upon any
pre-colonial past or forces.
PJ Marshall argues along with Bayly that the conflicts of the 18 th century were
exaggerated in the traditional interpretation and therfe were many region that
remained unaffected despite the political turbulence in some areas of Mughal
control. He says that the coastal areas were less effected production of good for
export was encouraged. Bayly and Marshall propose that the 18 th century was
not marked by decline rather it was a period of economic re-distribution and
political de-centralisation.
Among the factors for Mughal decline Muzaffar Alam critiqued Irfan Habib’s
view that the zamindars led the uprisings of the oppressed peasants, which were
later responsible for the state formations in the 18 th century. He points out that
due to caste, clan and territorial distinctions, zamindars were not unified in their
rebellion against the Mughals, but were in fact at war with one another. Alam
also argues for a context of local economic prosperity which led to zamindars
ascendency. In his study of Awadh, he says the villages and zamindars had
great availability of money. Agrarian prosperity can be seen due to brisk trade
carried out by the Banjaras between Awadh and Bihar. New towns came up,
indicating the expansion of trade networks. . Thus, Alam contests the economic
decline model.
However, Alam’s explanation has been criticised from within the revisionist
camp itself by people like John F. Richards and V Narayana Rao who points out
the exclusive usage of Persian sources by Alam which may hamper the
conclusions drawn, especially while studying the resistance to Mughal rule.
Athar Ali critiques Alam for comparing the jamadani figures from Ain-i-Akbari
to the 18th century revenue figures, as it shows rise without adjusting them to the
rise in prices of the 18th century.
Other revisionists such as Ashin Das Gupta, B.R. Grover and Karen Leonard
focus on regional shift of trade and banking institutions, which earlier studies of
Habib and Ali ignored. Das Gupta argued that inland trade increased, even in a
period of some decline, and corporate mercantile institutions survived. He says
though former ports like Surat and Masulipatinam declined with low
international trade, new colonial ports such as Madras Bombay and Calcutta
rose. B.R. Grover looked at rural commercial production, found new provincial
markets had risen to absorb rural commercial production, thus compensating the
loss in foreign trade. Karen Leonard argues that merchant activity shifted from
Delhi to regional territories and led to local economic buoyancy.
Frank Perlin criticises the view that political decline meant decline in economy
as well. He argues that political decentralization and localization of power went
hand in hand in the 18th century and witnessed in rise of new political orders
which went along with socio-economic reconfigurations. This was seen in
 transfer of small lordly courts and urban functions to small towns and villages
in the countryside. However, Perlin has been critiqued by Athar Ali who argues
that Perlin discounts the influence of the Mughal Empire on Indian society. He
argues that revisionists easily dismiss the significance of the imperial economy.
Perlin and other revisionists, according to Ali look at grassroots polity and local
social groups alone which makes it is easy to see no decline in the economy.
From the various views drawn on the 18 th century we can say that there are two
major views. The traditional view asserts that the period was one of decline and
decay – a ‘dark age’. However this view has been criticised immensely,
especially by the Revisionists who argue and contradict that despite decline of a
imperial power, that is the Mughal state, the period actually witnessed growth in
trade and urbanisation and a boom in sectors like the textile industry. The
Revisionist studies pioneered work on regional polities, local economies and
social reconfigurations. But, it is also important to note that earlier works
explored the impact of Mughal decline on the 18th century and their economic
data, and this is something that some revisionists tend to negate.
Thus, to conclude one can see that the traditional and orientalist view point of
the 18th Century in India being a ‘Dark Age’ seems a little hard to accept now.
While, the country may have suffered economically in certain parts, it was more
than made up by the prosperity of other regions. The ‘Revisionist’ view point of
the 18th century as a critical, creative and dynamic period, which was marked by
the rise of strong regional polities even as the Mughal Empire began to crumble
is by far more acceptable and dominant point of view now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
1. Seema Alavi - The Eighteenth Century in India (edited)
2. Class notes