By: Shafin Shabir (1310110293)
Explain
why the ‘fall of the Mughal Empire’ is an inadequate theme for understanding 18th century
India?
‘The
fall of Mughal Empire’ has been the main theme for a generation of historians
while discussing eighteenth century
India. But a closer study at this century will demonstrate the inefficacy of this theme in understanding the
events that took place in this century. It is true that the Mughal political power started to wane by
the start of the century and by the end of this
century had practically vanished. However, this does not necessarily
mean that this was a period of decline.
A period of decline has negative connotations that are similar to darkness and
decay. We believe that it was a period
of resurgence, innovation and efflorescence. This period saw the rise of small states, some of which were a
part of the Mughal Empire before becoming
‘practically independent’ states like the Nawabs of Bengal and Awadh.
This period also saw innovations in art
and architecture. New schools of paintings were developed in this period.
This is essentially the ‘paradox of the
eighteenth century’ as pointed by Bayly. We had regions of prosperity and progress alongside political
turbulence and a decline in agricultural produce.1
We
believe that these differences in understanding the 18th century arose out of
the idea that the Mughal state was a
centralized state. There was an element of decentralization through the mansabdari and jagirdari system. But these
mansabs and jagirs were bequeathed by the emperor and could be taken back by him if he so
desired. Thus, the emperor ensured that the power to control the state rested with him alone. In
the eighteenth century, since the state was a center of power, authority and bureaucracy, its decline
must have had impacted the entire subcontinent
therefore turning the century into a dark century similar to the Dark
Ages of the Europe. However, Alam and
Subramanyam believe that the Mughal state was not a centralizing state. The addition of new regions into the Mughal
fold was done after taking into consideration the local conditions. The Mughal state also had
areas with independent rulers who filled the Mughal coffers in return of being independent.
Moreover the governors had been delegated a significant portion of the emperors power. Thus, in the
words of Alam and Subramanyam the Mughal state
resembled
a ‘patchwork quilt’ rather than a ‘wall-to-wall carpet’.2 Therefore, the effect
of the fall in the Mughal central power
was only in places under direct Mughal central authority like Delhi and Agra. Other areas saw an opportunity in
the weakening of Mughal central authority and
resulted in the rise of local rulers or the governors taking over as the
new rulers.
In
this essay we intend to discuss that the fall of Mughal Empire is an inadequate
theme for understanding eighteenth
century India. To do this we divide this essay in two parts. In the first part we will look at the rapidly changing
political and administrative structure in the
subcontinent that paved a way for the rise of locality based rulers and
elites and will devote the later part of
this essay to discuss the effect that these changes had on the society, their
impact on the art, architecture and
trade.
Political
Structure
The
political climate of the eighteenth century was that of continuous
transformation and transition of power
from the Mughal Emperors to the local ethnic and religious groups. The links between the provinces and the center (Delhi)
weakened and later these provinces emerged as
independent states. The first half of this period also witnessed the
destruction of Delhi by Nadir Shah, the
coming of Afghans (Abdalis), the rapid rise of the Marathas and Sikhs and
the increasing importance of Bengal and
Awadh while the second half of this century saw the ‘blunder’ of Marathas in the third battle of
Panipat and the growing influence of European
companies in the internal politics of the subcontinent. At the same
time, the Mughal Empire did not
completely vanish but survived through to the nineteenth century although the
actual dominion of the empire remained
negligible.
The
Marathas posed a considerable threat to the Mughal dominance before the start
of eighteenth century from the time of
Aurangzeb. However this rebellion was contained after the Mughals killed Shivaji in 1680. Later his son
Shambuji was killed and his son Shahu was taken
in by the Mughal household. After the death of Aurangzeb things started
to change rapidly. His succesor, Bahadur
Shah 1, released Shahu after taking over as emperor in 1707. Shahu was raised in Mughal court under Aurangzeb and
soon after coming to power in 1708 tried to mediate between the Mughals and the Marathas but had
to face resistance from his Aunt Tarabai. Shahu
had the support of the Mughals due to obvious reasons and further
support from Chitpavan
Brahman
ministers helped him to become the Chhatrapati. In 1713 he appointed
Balaji Vishwanath as his peshwa (Prime
Minister) who went on to negotiate with the Mughals and succeeded in making the Mughals
‘legitimatize’ the Maratha control over the Deccan provinces.
Balaji
was followed by Baji Rao who convinced Shahu to begin an assault on the
Mughals. He was successful in taking over
Malwa and Gujarat by early 1720s. However the local zamindars in these regions
did not allow the Marathas to showcase their sovereignty. The ‘Mughal
system’ continued to exist. However what
changed was the funding. These locals paid the rents or tributes to the Marathas instead of the
Mughals but the sovereign to them was still the Mughal emperor.3 By the time of his death in 1748
the Maratha state had spread its borders all over India-From Rajasthan to Punjab in North,
Bihar to Orrisa in the east including Bengal, and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the South.
Despite
the hostility between the Marathas and the Mughals, Holkars and Scindias
after obtaining permission from the
Peshwa signed a treaty with the Mughals in 1751 stating that they will act as regents for the emperor in case
the Mughals are under attack in return for collecting revenues in many Mughal provinces. This
treaty was one of the reason for the battle of Panipat in 1761 in which Marathas were routed by the
Abdalis. Nevertheless, it is these political alliances which in hindsight became crucial for the
survival of the Mughals till the nineteenth century.
The
territories under the Marathas in the Deccan were characterized by a
sophisticated network of trade supported
by strong banking and financial industry. Thanks to this, the Maratha army was paid in cash, therefore enhancing its size
and strength. However, the strength of the
Marathas was not just because of its strong military. Their use of
patriotism, religion and invented
genealogies were an important ingredient for creating a distinct identity.
4
However
Marathas were not the only the only danger to the Mughals. The Sikhs and Jats
did their best to keep the Mughal armies
on their feet. They represented a full scale rebellion against the Mughal authority. Jats attacked Delhi and
Agra repetitively and had presence in Western
Gangetic plains whereas the Sikh stronghold was in Amritsar and some
areas in Punjab. Despite their hatred
for the empire, they continued to administer like the Mughals. Also the
courtly practices of Mughals endured the
regime change.5
But
what might have affected the Mughal rulers the most must have been the breaking
away of provinces from the empire.
Officially these were a part of the empire but in reality acted as independent states. Take the case of Bengal.
Kartalab Khan, later called Murshid Quli Khan, was appointed initially by Aurangzeb as the
revenue collector of Bengal in 1701 and was later appointed as governor in 1717. He started to
act independently without the consent of the
monarch. He made Murshidabad his new capital and enjoyed the powers of
administration and revenue collection.6
But he did not completely let go of the monarch, he kept paying them the revenue in return of his increased
independence as a governor.
The
successor of Murshid Quli Khan, Alivardi Khan started to act more
independently. However, his regime had
to face the Marathas and Afghans following which he stopped sending tribute to Delhi. Following this a series of
clashes deteriorated the situation in Bengal. Afghans took over Patna which he later recovered. He
was forced to sign a treaty with the Marathas in 1751 following which he had to pay one-fourth
of the revenue to the Marathas. All this had a
considerable impact on trade and agriculture in Bengal.7 It is because
of this trade and agriculture that
Bengal became a very important territory and saw the rise of the English East
India Company in the last quarter of the
eighteenth century.
Similarly
the eighteenth century saw rise of other regional and ethnic states. It
witnessed the rise of Rohillas, Rajputs,
Mysore, Nawabs of Awadh and the Nizams of Hyderabad. However characterizing it as period of chaos and
anarchy based on all these facts will be a blunder. Based on all the discussion we had, we believe that
it was not a period of decay and decline. Rather it was a period where the old rulers and nobles
were assigned new roles and a new political class and structures emerged. In addition also the
existing forms of art, trade and commerce were
influenced which we will discuss in the next section.
Society,
Art and Culture
The
political processes had a significant impact on the society and economy of the
eighteenth century. This impact to a
large extent has been painted as negative.8 The crisis in revenue management, poor management and incessant
wars had an adverse impact on the economy.
However, this view has been challenged by historians who believe that
the picture was not as start as has been
painted.9 The situation was much more balanced. Some cities like Benaras,
Murshidabad,
Mysore, Hyderabad and Malabar Coast saw rise in population, trade and agriculture in the first half of eighteenth
century which persisted till the early nineteenth century. While other cities like Delhi and Agra had to
face the brunt of the decline of the imperial power. Delhi faced attacks from Persians, Afghans,
Marathas and Jats which had devastating effects on the local economy. However the recovery of
these cities was also quick.10
The
economy was predominantly agrarian with a slowly developing manufacturing and
services sector. Within those involved
in agriculture some had large tracts of land while others had smaller lands. Also a small number of people
were landless laborers who worked on other lands in return for cash payments.11 The use of
cash payments was not just limited to them. Lending money to people by banks and merchants was
done in cash. It was also used to pay the
mercenary armies, wages and even taxes. It is this growth of the
importance of cash and credit
transactions that led to the eventual rise in the status of the bankers
and merchants like the Jagat Seths of
Bengal.12 These bankers due to their financial power went on to become
kingmakers and had an important part to
play in the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
Despite
all the ‘political disorder’ the local markets remained loosely connected with
each other. Trade in textiles, cotton,
food grains and oil-seeds flourished. Items from the subcontinent were exported to central Asia and Europe by sea.
Advance payments were made to local merchants by merchants including foreign companies in
order to obtain commodities for overseas trade.13 Many times the local
merchants were paid by Europeans in bullions which was then used in the local markets. Bullion from trade with
Europeans helped revive the economy of Bengal after the Maratha raids of 1740s by increasing the
investments.14 The manufacturing economy also
benefited from the population growth as is evident from the case of
textiles. Perlin believes that this
increase was not related to some technological advancement but rather to the
increase in the number of laborers
producing textiles.15
It
is important to mention here that a significant portion of land was influenced
by the changing political scenario. It
led to a decline in the local commerce of cities like Delhi, Agra and
Punjab. However, this decline was not
necessarily due to war or other military operations. Many times it was related to the movement of
‘aristocracies, capital or skills from one centre to another’.16
The
political decentralization intuitively meant growing importance of small towns
and cities. This is exactly what
happened in the eighteenth century. We see cities like Murshidabad,
Faizabad,
Lucknow, Benaras, Hyderabad, Malabar Coast, Mysore and many more
flourishing with trade, art and
commerce. Benaras became a financial hub and a pilgrimage site. The architecture in Murshidabad, Lucknow and
Faizabad reflected the pomp and glory of these cities just like Delhi and Agra.17 Architectural
features of the nawas of Bengal were similar to those of the Mughals. Murshid Quli Khan created a
palace and an audience hall where he sat on an
ostentatious throne. He also made a Jami mosque and ordered that the
khutbah (Sermon) be given in his name.18
The elites of Marathas created a special kinds of house for themselves
called wada. They were large,
multi-storyed wooden structures with spiked doors and secret passages. Marathas also developed a large number of
forts.19 In the areas surrounding Hyderabad new
farming colonies were created. All this was possible only due to the
decentralization of the Mughal
authority. The Mughal nobles started to develop closer links with the rural
society and started favoring local rulers
who provided them generous perquisites and remissions. As a result of which a large number of local towns and
cities were created.20
The
condition of painting and music was not at all grim. Art and music thrived in
the eighteenth century. Many local
rulers started attracting artists to their courts by extending patronage
something which under Aurangzeb had been cancelled. This ensured that artists
spread all over the country. This also
gave them the opportunity to express themselves and experiment with their painting style.21 As a result of this
experimentation, many new forms of paintings and music were established in the subcontinent like the
Bengal school of Painting and the Mysore school of painting.
All
the discussion we had about the economy and society of the eighteenth century
makes it difficult to believe that this
century was a period of chaos, anarchy and decline. It was just the opposite. A period of experimentation,
innovation and changing social structures.
Conclusion
The
above discussion suggests that eighteenth century was not a dark century as has
often been said. Instead it was a
fascinating period of transformation and change characterized by decline of Mughal ‘central authority’ and resurgence of
local and ethnic rulers. It was a time where social structures were redefined. Traders and
bankers became important and Europeans started to
interfere
in the local politics of the regions. Most importantly, it was a time of
experimentation and innovation in art
and architecture.
Notes
and References
1
Bayly, C.A (1983) The Rise of the Corporations in Rulers, Townsmen and
Bazaars:North Indian Society in the Age of
British Expansion, 1770-1870, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , p
163
2
M. Alam and S. Subrahmanyam (1998) The Mughal State 1526-1750, Oxford
University Press: New Delhi,p 57 3
Hasan, Farhat (2004) State and Authority in Mughal India: Power Relations in
Western India, 1520-1730, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 48
4
M. Alam and S. Subrahmanyam (1998) The Mughal State 1526-1750, Oxford
University Press: New Delhi,pp 64- 65
5
M. Alam and S. Subrahmanyam (1998) The Mughal State 1526-1750, Oxford
University Press: New Delhi,pp 66 6
Banarjee-Dube (2015) The Colourful World of the Eighteenth Century in A History
of Modern India, Cambrige: Cambridge
University Press, p 18
7
Banarjee-Dube (2015) The Colourful World of the Eighteenth Century in A History
of Modern India, Cambrige: Cambridge
University Press, p 20
8
Those who believe that it had a negative impact in society include the
historians like Irfan Habib and Athar Ali
who believe that the eighteenth century economy was in some form of
crisis.
9
For this perspective see: Bayly, C.A. (1983) Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars:
North Indian Society in the Age of
British Expansion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Marhall, P.J
(2013) Introduction in Themes in Indian
History: The Eighteenth Century in Indian History, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, pp 1-36 10 Bayly, C.A.
(1983) Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British
Expansion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 68-73
11
P.J (2013) Introduction in Themes in Indian History: The Eighteenth Century in
Indian History, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, p 14
12
Bayly, C.A. (1983) Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the
Age of British Expansion, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p.32
13
P.J (2013) Introduction in Themes in Indian History: The Eighteenth Century in
Indian History, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, pp 14-15
14
Prakash, Om (1998) Trade and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Bengal in On the
Eighteenth Century as a Category of
Indian History: Van Leur in Retrospect, edited by Leonard Blusse and Femma
Gaastra, Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing
Ltd. P 242
15
Perlin, F. (1993) Proto-Industrialization and Pre-Colonial South Asia, Past and
Present, xcviii, p. 86 16 Bayly, C.A.
(1983) Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British
Expansion, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, p.460
17
Asher B. Catherine and Talbot Cynthia (2008) India Before Europe, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 250
18
Banarjee-Dube (2015) The Colourful World of the Eighteenth Century in A History
of Modern India, Cambrige: Cambridge
University Press, p 20
19
Asher B. Catherine and Talbot Cynthia (2008) India Before Europe, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 243
20
Bayly, C.A. (1983) Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the
Age of British Expansion, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 459
21
Asher B. Catherine and Talbot Cynthia (2008) India Before Europe, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 230