The debate about the second half of the 18th century in India revolves around
whether British colonial rule marked a complete break from the past or
continued many aspects of pre-colonial Indian society and economy. This
discussion focuses on critical aspects such as the agrarian economy, trade,
governance, and social structures. Scholars are divided between two
perspectives: those who view British rule as a disruption and those who see it
as an evolution of existing systems.
Argument for a Break from the Past
Historians like R.C. Dutt and Dadabhai Naoroji argue that British colonial rule
introduced drastic changes that significantly altered India’s traditional systems.
One major example is the Permanent Settlement of 1793, which introduced
private property rights for zamindars (landowners) and created a market for
buying and selling land. This was a stark departure from earlier practices where
land ownership was communal or tied to service obligations. The introduction
of such a system fundamentally shifted the nature of agrarian relations and
concentrated power in the hands of a few zamindars.
Irfan Habib provides a detailed critique of British economic policies, focusing
on their devastating effects on Bengal. He argues that the British East India
Company’s acquisition of Diwani rights (revenue collection rights) in 1765
drained wealth from Bengal, as the Company redirected surplus revenue to
fund its activities in Britain and China. This wealth transfer, referred to as the
“drain of wealth,” caused inflation and a collapse of local industries, particularly
handicrafts. Bengal’s revenue demands increased from £2.2 million in 1766 to
£3.38 million by 1779, and much of this was used to pay tribute to Britain.
Furthermore, Bengal silver funded the Company’s China trade, exacerbating
the economic drain.
This economic exploitation led to deindustrialization, reflected in widespread
unemployment among artisans and the collapse of service sectors. Trade hubs
and towns such as Punjab and Delhi faced economic decline as traditional trade
routes and systems deteriorated under colonial policies. Additionally, the
pressure of increased taxation caused immense suffering for peasants, leading
to poverty and landlessness.
The Permanent Settlement further cemented this break. Historians like Ranajit
Guha and Eric Stokes note that it replaced older systems of revenue farming
with private ownership of land. While this encouraged zamindars to invest
capital in agriculture, it also marginalized small farmers and increased rural
inequality. According to Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, the settlement led to
institutional changes, such as the development of a rural credit system and a
land market, but at the cost of widespread displacement and impoverishment
of small peasants.
Argument for Continuity with the Past
Contrary to the view of a complete break, many historians argue that British
colonial rule retained and built upon many pre-colonial structures. Ratnalekh
Ray, for instance, highlights that in rural areas, traditional landholding patterns
and agricultural practices remained largely intact. He notes that while there
were changes at the level of zamindars and elites, village life continued without
significant disruption. In fact, in many cases, the British simply formalized the
rights of zamindars, who already had revenue collection roles under earlier
regimes.
In South India, under the Ryotwari Settlement, traditional village officials like
mirsardars and kadims continued to function. Historians N. Mukherji and R.E.
Frykenberg argue that these officials retained their roles in governance,
showing that British policies often adapted to pre-existing systems rather than
completely replacing them. This suggests a significant degree of continuity with
the pre-colonial agrarian order.
Revisionist historians like C.A. Bayly and Laxmi Subramaniam further argue
that regional powers such as the Marathas and Mysore had already started
forming early systems of agrarian capitalism in the 18th century. These states
relied on merchants and zamindars for revenue collection and trade,
establishing a framework that the British later expanded. Bayly highlights the
rise of a “new gentry” during this period—merchants and intermediaries who
accumulated wealth and power by working closely with the state. This process
laid the groundwork for capitalist practices, which colonial rule did not
introduce but rather intensified.
The role of intermediaries also supports the continuity argument. Scholars like
Burton Stein and Ashin Das Gupta point out that the British relied heavily on
Indian merchants, scribes, and zamindars, who had risen in importance under
pre-colonial regional polities. These groups played a key role in maintaining
governance, collecting revenue, and managing trade under British rule. For
example, merchants in Bengal, who had prospered during the Mughal era,
continued to thrive under British policies by adapting to the new systems.
In trade and governance, Bayly argues that the British colonial economy grafted
itself onto existing networks rather than dismantling them. Traditional trade
centers like Surat and Masulipatnam declined, but new colonial ports like
Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay emerged, often staffed by the same
intermediary classes. This reflects a degree of continuity between the pre-
colonial and colonial economies.
Society: Historians Herman Goetz and Bernard Cohn focused on the society in
the 18th century. Goetz analysed 18th century music and architecture and
argued for the resilience of Mughal society, reflected in evolving music and
architectural styles despite imperial decline. Cohn studies Banaras and
analysed efforts of Mughal zamidars and alimdars, who manipulated imperial
and regional power to carve out independent areas of power for themselves.
These works also critiqued Irfan Habib’s conception of the Mughal state as a
centralized state as it is hard to conceive a centralized bureaucratic model of
state when economic and social markers outlive political decay as pointed out
above.
The 18th century in India was not as stagnant or backward as often portrayed.
While certain traditional practices like the caste system, patriarchy, purdah, and
sati were still present, they were not exclusive to this period. The rise of local
and regional regimes led to shifts in society, with groups like traders, bankers,
military personnel, and religious figures gaining more influence. The caste
system itself began to change, especially as trade, war, and travel led to new
interactions between different social groups, prompting shifts in social
boundaries.
Social life varied across regions, and there was no uniform culture. The upper
and lower classes lived very different lives, and people were divided by religion,
region, caste, and language. Regarding women, the practice of sati was rare in
the south but more common in the west, particularly in Rajputana. In Bengal,
the practice increased after British rule, possibly due to social mobility and the
desire to protect property.
Education was widespread under local rulers who set up primary schools to
train people for jobs, especially in revenue and accounting. Literacy levels
remained high until the late 18th century when British colonial rule began to
replace local rulers, causing literacy rates to decline. Despite the decline in
some areas, the idea that decentralization led to the collapse of education and
society is not entirely accurate.
