The characterization of the 18th century in India as a "Dark Age" is a matter of historical

interpretation and perspective. Different historians may have varying views on this topic, and
it's essential to consider multiple factors and events that occurred during this period.
The 18th century in India was marked by significant political instability and turmoil. The
Mughal Empire, which had been a dominant force in India for several centuries, experienced
a decline in power and authority. Regional powers and local rulers began asserting their
independence, leading to the fragmentation of the empire. This period saw the rise of various
regional states, such as the Marathas, Sikhs, and various princely states, which competed for
control over different territories.
Furthermore, the 18th century witnessed foreign invasions and colonial expansion. The British
East India Company gradually increased its influence and territorial control in India, starting
with the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and leading to the establishment of British colonial rule over
much of the subcontinent.
Traditional view, 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. Most colonial writers
including the likes of James Mill and that of Indian aristocrats and historians like Jadunath
Sarkar and Iswari Prasad point out that this was in fact a twilight period that characterized by
a decline in most areas of life - be it political, economic or cultural.
According to James Mills, he opined that the coming of the British rescued India from its
gloomy existence. 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 an economically crisis-prone period. These
historians projected the eighteenth century as a Dark Age, its hallmark being political chaos
and economic decline.
The Aligarh school of Marxist historians explained Mughal decline in material terms. Some of
the arguments were related to Mughal administrative institutions like mansabs and jagirs.
Satish Chandra in his book on politics in the Mughal Court suggests that it was really the crisis
in Mughal institutions- the Mansab and Jagir that brought out a financial crisis in the empire
thus leading to its eventual downfall. Athar Ali further adds how the crisis was led by Be-Jagiri
i.e. lack of Jagirs. Both historians argue that such state of affairs was led by burden of
expansionist wars and rebellions and the attempt of the Mughal state to accommodate newer
elements in the administration e.g., within the mansabdari system. The crisis was an outcome
of too many people awaiting the patronage of the state and not enough land to be distributed
as jagirs. This further led to dissatisfaction amongst the people and an eventual weakening
and downfall of the centre. Another strong proponent of the 'dark age' theory is Irfan Habib,
Habib argued that revenue demand on the peasantry was high and that with the
transferability of the Jagirs the tendency of mandsabdars to trouble the peasantry grew. To
resist this exploitation, most took to rebellion, some shifted to other parts and some
abandoned lands. Rebellions by Jats, Satnamis, Marathas and Sikhs were hence, essentially
peasant rebellions led by Zamindars. This led to an agrarian crisis and subsequent weakening
of the political edifice. With this the zamindars emerged powerful and shaped local state
formation. Irfan Habib argues furthermore that the period was in fact a period of decline,
chaos and anarchy.
For imperialist historians it served the legitimacy of imperialist nation. For Mughal Historians,
it helped signify the era as a stabilizing political system. For Nationalist historians the notion
testifies the causes for the success of the colonial power in India. Revisionist historians
however hold radically different views.
The view that the 18th century was a "Dark Age" has been criticized by many historians,
especially the Revisionists who represent the second view in this debate. 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. CA Bayly and Muzaffar Alam points out further
that this century was an extremely vibrant age with new trends in cultural and commercial
sectors of life.
One of the strongest arguments against the 'dark age' theory comes from C.A. 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. However, he
does believe that certain areas did experience decline in the 18th century, in fact he believes
that there was no universal growth in the 18th century. According to C. A. Bayly, the 18th
century witnessed devolution of not only political but also economic dynamics to the lower
levels of sovereignty- regional rulers, small potentates and even the little rajas of the villages.
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 18th 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. 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.
The 18th century in India was a period of significant change, challenges, and political shifts.
While on one hand, Mughal rule declined, whereas on the other hand, the century was
marked by rise of regional power. 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.