18th Century India: Society, Polity and Economy

The 18th century in Indian history marks it relevance by two crucial developments - the decline of Mughal
Empire and the expansion of British Empire. These two events changed India’s social, economic and
political structure. Various historians have studied the two phases of the century and discussed distinct
views. There is a traditional view of the Aligarh School that examines the period as ‘Dark Age’, which is of
decline and stagnation. However, the recent revisionist historians view this period as of ‘economic
prosperity’. They stress on the period’s evolutionary pattern that represented continuity and the de-
centralization of the sovereignty.

Initially, the nationalist and colonialist writers attributed the weaknesses of individual Mughal rulers for the
decline of the empire. Then, Marxist and Annalist historians tried to uncover the structural shortcomings
that propelled the decline of Mughal Empire. Muzaffar Alam and Andre Wink expressed Mughal decline as
a process in which local elites who, under the ceremonial patronage of Mughal, started gaining more
sovereignty.

Historians like C. A. Bayly and Andre Wink have argued that the emergence of the new states reflected the
maturation of an earlier period of expansion and growth that Mughals could not contain. The break-up of
the Mughal State was followed by the emergence of large number of independent and semi-independent
smaller states. These were of three-distinct types:

 firstly, the warrior states established by Sikhs, Jats and Marathas in the course of rebellions against
the Mughals, who adopted military fiscalism
 secondly, the successor states, independent kingdoms where subedars asserted their
independence, e.g. Nawabs of Bengal and Awadh, Nizam of Hyderabad
 and thirdly, compact states, whose sovereignty acquired more substance in the 18th century, e.g.
the Rajput states, Mysore etc., which developed on the basis of military fiscalism

Newer research has gone deep into the nature of these smaller political formations, and noted several
trends. Apart from the change in the rights of land from ‘prebendal’ to ‘patrimonial’, the newly formed
provincial states implemented ‘military fiscalism’. This meant acquiring financial resources, finding a social
base and building an effective standing army. Burton Stein and David Washbrook assert that in military
fiscalism, states were widening their tax bases in innovative ways like appointing salaried tax collectors and
putting together a centralized army.

Another trend was the ‘commercialization of royal power’. This literally meant merchant participation in
politics. For instance, in Bengal the banking family of the Jagatseths became chief financiers of the
Nawabs, providing credit and participating in revenue farming. Commercialization of power encouraged
the use of objective monetary values to express social relationships. C.A. Bayly argues that a new class of
intermediaries emerged due to coalescence of merchant and due to new trends like agrarian interests,
military fiscalism and ‘gentrification’. ‘Kayasth’ tribe of Hindu scribes in the south is discussed by Karen
Leonard.

The economic indicators for the 18th century show that the economy fared well before the advent of
colonial rule. There is little record of sustained famines. Population, prices, production and trade all
showed an upward swing, thereby making economy stable.

Urbanization was also an important indicator of economic prosperity. Ashin Dasgupta asserts that the
decline of some cities was compensated for by the growth of others. Older Mughal centers like Delhi, Agra,
Lahore and Burhanpur declined with Mughal political fortunes. Important port cities like Surat and
Masalipatnam too declined. Their place was taken by colonial cities like Madras, Bombay and Calcutta and
the inland cities and capitals of regional kingdoms, Lucknow, Fyzabad, Benaras, Hyderabad, Srirangapatam
and Bangalore. Trading cities like Mirzapur, Kanpur and Baroda also came into being to service trade.

B.R. Grover’s research shows that local rural commercial production found new markets in the provincial
kingdoms and was thus compensated for any disruptions caused by the disintegration of the Mughal
Empire. Moreover, there was a thriving inter-regional trade. Marathas acquired cloth, food grains and
cattle from the Gangetic plain. Mysore imported cotton, wool and hides from the northern Deccan, sugar
from Banaras, and cloth from Carnatic. Bengal exported textiles to Gujarat and food supplies to Malabar
and Coromandel.

In later part of 18th century the peasants were forced to cultivate certain cash crops like indigo and opium.
This had adverse impact on food crop production. Moreover, some historians argue that 18 th century India
showed signs of proto-industrialization. Sanjay Subrahmanyam and C. Bayly have argued that the
ensemble of economic activity handled by entrepreneurs in the 18 th century, which included revenue
farming, private trade, warfare and loans, made them into enterprising ‘portfolio capitalists’.

Another interesting aspect of the 18 th century economy was the contribution of war. C. Bayly has argued
that due to the wars, towns and villages in Awadh contributed to a thriving market for saltpeter, swords,
matchlocks, and grains. War thus meant employment and the opportunity to create wealth as the growth
of numerous ancillary industries testified.

In the field of music, architecture and culture, the period showed dynamism. The artists shifted to other
regional centers as the Mughal Empire became insufficient to support their patronage. This change was
juxtaposed with an element of continuity as the patron-client relationship remained same under the
provincial rulers. Hermann Goetz in 1950s spoke of the cultural vitality of the 18 th century. He depicted the
resilience of Mughal society and culture by revealing musical and architectural styles (for e.g. ‘khyal’ music)
that were evolving in the wake of imperial collapse.

The watershed political event of the second phase of the 18 th century was the emergence of company raj.
Established on 31st December 1599, the English East India Company began to trade with India in 1613 with
the farman of Jahangir. Suffering and surviving fluctuations, the Company continued to trade with India
until 1757, thereafter it assumed a political character. Both political and economic motives behind
Company’s success are discussed by various historians.

Thus, we can clearly see that 18 th century polity, economy and society are characterized by trends that
reflect both change and continuity. This debate becomes more intense and pertinent for the second half of
the 18th century, which saw the beginnings of British colonial expansion in northern India and its impact
on the local society and economy. Here again, the contention is over whether 1757 marked a disjuncture
with the pre-colonial past, or whether, as the Revisionists have argued, the basis for colonialism was
already present in India and these elements were simply grafted over by colonialism.

We can conclude that 18th century cannot be seen as a period of total decline, be it politically, socially or
economically. It was an eventful period and not just a gap between two empires or a ‘dark age’ before the
‘gift’ of civilization by the occidentals. It was a period marked by change as new regional polities emerged
as well as indigenous economic and cultural elements were sucked in by the Company Raj. There were
major developments in the field of religion, culture, literature, music etc. It was this vibrant commercialism
branching off, which made India look attractive to European companies. Therefor the argument of a
stagnant, unchanging and backward society does not stand as well.