NAME :- Riya naithani

Roll number :- HIS/22/22

THE 18thCENTURY DEBATE

Abstract: In India 18th century has been the controversial period as it triggered a debate regarding
the decline of Mughal empire and
the changes it brought in the economy and society. This event has led to a debate among historians
whose opinions are divided
amongst two ideas i.e., those who saw 18th century as an era of decline and political turmoil and
others that saw it as period of
regional development. This paper is an attempt to analyse the controversy and the of the ongoing
debate on the topic that is whether
the 18th century was "dark age' or it was a period of regional autonomy.

INTRODUCTION

During the 18th century India saw major transitions, on one hand there was the decline of Mughal
Empire. The almighty powerful
Mughal empire that was once established by Babur in 16th century and saw strong emperors like
Akbar started disintegrating under
the reign and even with the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. There were several reasons that were
accompanied with its decline such as
Aurangzeb’s religious and bigotry policies against Hindus, the Deccan campaigns, the shortage of
jagirs and even with the coming
of Britishers who interfered with the politics of India and were able to get control over it through
several wars such as Battle of
Plassey and Battle of Buxar. Thus, there are group of historians who looked at 18th century in terms
of decline and chaos of Mughal
Empire.
On the other there is a group of Revisionist Historians who saw 18th century as a period where
certain individuals, groups or other
regions became independent of Mughals and flourished.
Irfan Habib in his book – The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-1707, explained the decline of
Mughal Empire and the
unrest among the political and social matters in fiscal terms. Habib argued that "the high rate of land
revenue demanded by Delhi
caused large-scale rural exploitation, leading to peasant migration and rebellion."
As per Irfan Habib the strength of Mughal Emperors lies in the cavalry maintained by Mansabdars
who were paid in jagirs or land
assignments in lieu of cash salaries in order to maintain the horses and contingents. Thus, we can
see that there was a connection
between the military power and the Jagirdari system of Mughals. However, the Mansabadari and
Jagirdari system were based on the
will of the Mughal emperor. This system that was started by Akbar gave him the position of Divine
Monarchy as he made the Mughal
army centralised and he was the sole one responsible for the conditions and privileges of
mansabdars as the rate of land revenue and
the assessment method and collection was decided by the emperor himself.
Also, the Revenue Policy of Mughals were based on 2 basic considerations –
First- as the military contingents were maintained out of the revenues of the jagirs granted to
mansabdars, the revenue demand was
set at the highest rate thus to get the army as strong as the time required.
Secondly- the Mughal administrative officers were aware of the fact that if the revenue was fixed at
the highest rate than the peasants
will be left with nothing for their survival which can result in the failure of revenue system
completely.
Therefore, the imperial authorities fixed the revenue rate on the surplus produce so the peasants
were left with the produce for
subsistence. This surplus was also appropriated by the mansabdars and zamindars as their profit.
However, this Jagirdari system had
a major flaw which led to the decline of Mughal economy. The Jagirdars were transferred in every 3
to 4 years in order to protect
any kind of their power accumulation in the region assigned to them.
But this has some negative impact as well as Jagirdars were transferred regularly they did not
undertake any steps for agricultural
development. Also, they were required to collect the Baqaya or the previous arrears and deposit it in
the Khalsa the official land of
Emperor.
The Jagirdar did not get a fresh assessment of land immediately when he was transferred and
remained without Jagir but received a
claim known as Talab for his pay which was stopped by Aurangzeb later and created problems as
Jagirdars collected as much revenue
as possible.
BHIMSEN in his NUSHKA- E- DILKUSHA argued that “owing to the unpredictable transfers of jagirs,
the agents of the
jagirdars had given up the practice of helping the peasantry."
This continuous transfer of Jagirdars, no claim for Talab and the high revenue demand by Jagirdars
led to the exploitation of
peasantry. The peasants in order to pay the revenue on time were compelled to sell their women,
children and cattle. Bernier too
declares that “a considerable portion of the good land remains untilled from the want of labourers,
many of whom perish in
consequence of bad treatment they received from the Governors."
Irfan Habib quoted Shah Waliullah of Delhi, 18th century writer who pointed out that as the
oppression of peasants increased by
the jagirdars the revolts by the peasants also increased. "He thought that the ruin of the countries or
town in his age was due to
first- strain on the resources on the Treasury from maintaining a class of idlers."
Second- due to the high rate of taxes imposed on peasants, artisans and merchants the submissive
ones left and the powerful rose in
rebellion. Those villages or areas that rose in rebellion and did not paid taxes were termed as Mawas
or Zor talab.
The Jat’s were the major peasant community that rose to rebellion in Mathura and they were joined
by Zamindars as well as now
they were also left with nothing as the surplus were taken by the jagirdars.
In 1669 Gokula Jat, a zamindar of Talipat near Mathura rose to rebellion. It was under Churaman Jat
that the independent Jat kingdom
arose in Mathura.
The Marathas were also responsible for the downfall of Mughal Empire. Bhimsen explained that in
the year 1700 Marathas succeeded
because of two reasons –
First Bhimsen focused on the Military and argued that the Mughal commanders were unable to
maintain the contingent up to the
standards. As a result, the Marathas did not fear the Mughals and refused to pay the revenue. The
zamindars also allied with Marathas.
Second, he argued that as the jagirdars oppressed the peasants and they refused to pay the revenue
they also joined the Marathas in
Dakhin.
Thus in 18th century Mughal Empire became financially weakened due to ineffective revenue
policies.
Satish Chandra in his book - Parties and Politics of the Mughal Court, saw the decline of Mughal
Empire as a result of Jagirdari
Crisis led by the structural flaws in the working of the jagirdari and mansabdari system which in turn
is responsible for the fiscal
crisis. He argued that the failure of the Mughals to ensure the efficient functioning of these two
institutions during Aurangzeb's reign
herald the process of imperial collapse.
He argued that how Mughal Empire depended on the Nobility for their effective functioning of
administration and military expansion
of the empire. These nobles were organised into Mansabdari system under Akbar and were given 2
ranks - Zat that represents their
personal pay and sawar that represents the horsemen to be maintained. The salaries of Mansabdars
were fixed and as per Irfan Habib
as we have already seen were paid in Jagirs. This fixation of salaries made the mansabdars the paid
servants and this can be seen as
the Bureaucratisation of Nobility.
However, the Jagirdari system was not hereditary and the jagirdars were also not the owners of the
land.
Satish Chandra focused on how this nobility which were heterogeneous and included Iranis, Turanis,
Uzbeks, Afghans and even
Rajputs under Akbar changed under Aurangzeb with the coming of Marathas and Deccanis into
Mansabdari system after Bijapur and
Golconda were incorporated into Empire in 1685 and 1689 respectively. As the number of
Mansabdars increased we see the shortage
of Jagirs or what Satish Chandra called as 'Jagirdari Crisis' or ‘Be-jagiri’ as every noble wanted the
fertile land in North India.
This placed the officials of revenue department in an extremely difficult situation as the contingents
of the officers were unlimited
while the land available for granting as was limited.
This led to delays in granting of jagirs and even the jagirdars were also unable to yield the surplus as
revenue due to the infertile
lands given to them which led to exploitation of peasants. Thus, the peasants migrated which can be
seen also as the result of Jagirdari
Crisis. This also led to a widening gap between the estimated revenue i.e., Jama and actual collection
i.e, Hasil and in turn led to
Revenue Deficit.
Athar M. Ali in his book The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb agreed with both Irfan Habib's idea of
a fiscally centralized state,
and Satish Chandra's idea of shortage of jagirs. As per him as the Mughal Empire expanded politically
into the less fertile lands of
Deccan the number of nobles increased but the fertile jagirs became acute.
He too pointed out that the nobility under Aurangzeb changed and studied it under two phases. First
was from Aurangzeb's accession
to 1678 when the nobility comprised of Turanis, Iranis, Afghans and Hindustanis. All of them were
promoted. But it was in the
second phase from 1679 till 1707 that the Rajput’s were not promoted and in fact their rank from
1000 and above declined. Thus,
Rajput’s who were allies of Mughals rose into rebellion. He too agreed with Satish Chandra and Irfan
Habib that as Aurangzeb led
to Deccan Campaigns, large number of Deccani nobles entered into Mughal administration which
deteriorated the situation. Thus,
Aurangzeb stopped any future recruitments but despite this the nobles increased to such an extent
that the condition worsened and
the revenue could not be collected and the maintenance of contingents became impossible. All this
chaos led to factionalism in
Mughal Court and the nobility got divided into factions under Firuz Jung, Ghazi Uddin Khan and
Zulfikar Khan which led to the
breakdown of the unity of Mughal Empire and emergence of independent kingdoms.
William Irvine in his book- Later Moguls and Sir Jadunath Sarkar in his book- Fall of the Mughal
Empire- were the first to
attribute the decline of Mughal Empire to the deteriorating character of the Mughal emperors and
their nobles. Jadunath Sarkar
argued that how the Mughal Empire that was prosperous under Akbar in terms of territory, wealth
and army declined during and after
the reign of Aurangzeb. Jadunath Sarkar first focused on how the grand Mughal Empire that was
established by Akbar in 1560
flourished in terms of territory, wealth, military, art and industry. It was in 1707 with the death of
Aurangzeb and with the accession
of imbecile and weak emperors such as Muhammad Shah that the condition of Mughals
deteriorated. Under Muhammad Shah with
invasion of Nadir Shah, Jats and Sikhs rebellions, the political condition of Mughals saw decline as
there was no strong army under
him to restore peace and maintain law and order. In this book Jadunath Sarkar also emphasised
another problem that led to political
chaos amongst Mughals was the absence of no strong Wakil or the prime minister. He argued that
due to court factionalism that led
t separate groups such as Turanis, Iranis and Hindustanis nobles did not let anyone be the prime
minister for long time and in fact
these Wakils or Wazirs became the King makers.
He argued that “Where the king has no inborn capacity to rule a realm, government by a responsible
prime minister is the
only alternative, unless administration is to disappear from the country and the State to break up.”
No fainéant Mughal
Emperor has given the wazir the chance to strongly administer Delhi which led to decline."
Jadunath Sarkar in his other book – History of Aurangzeb emphasised on 2 policies of Aurangzeb as
being the chief reasons for
decline-The first is the Deccan Campaigns and second is the Religious Policy of Aurangzeb.
Aurangzeb in 17th century led to two
campaigns in South India that made the Mughal Empire bankrupt and intensified political
disturbances. The two campaigns were
launched against Bijapur and Golconda to root out Marathas. As the campaign was far from Delhi
the Mughal capital it led to
lawlessness and disorder which led to chaos in what was known as Hindustan.
Another reason that led to the decline of Mughals in 18th century was Aurangzeb's religious policies
which made the life impossible
for Hindus. He pointed out that under Aurangzeb Hindus temples were demolished, they were taxed
more than Muslims. Muhatsib
who were the censors of Morals of Islam were also appointed by him to ensure that Islam was
followed in its true terms. In 1667
Aurangzeb abolished the custom duty called Mahsul for Muslim traders. In 1668 he forbade Hindus
to ride palkis and even forbade
Hindus to organize fairs and Hindu festivals. In 1679 Aurangzeb re-imposed Jaziya Tax which
alienated Hindus further from his
rule and led to discontent and Hindus revolt led to decline of Mughal empire.
Ishwari Prasad in his book India in the 18th century agreed with Jadunath Sarkar that the 18th c
began with the accession of imbecile
kings and degenerate nobles who were unable to maintain the Mughal empire that was in the
process of dissolution. He compared
Europe and India and emphasised that in 17-18th Century Europe was on the path of progress under
Enlightened despots and saw
Industrial revolution while India was backward and did not even have printing press that can led to
spread of information among
masses.
Thus, we can see that in 18th century Mughal empire was politically weakened due to Aurangzeb's
policy and the docile and incapable
Mughal emperors.
Apart from the above historians who saw 18th century as a period of political and economic decline,
there are the revisionists who
saw it as a period of Continuity.
C.A. Bayly was the pioneer of the ‘revisionist’ approach. In his work Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars,
he focused on several
developments. First is the emergence of Mercantile organizations and its involvement in the Mughal
revenue system as a class of
intermediaries. Second is the rise of the class of Gentry comprising of scribes, accountants and other
service groups that migrated
into other regions when Mughal empire was facing a setback and settled in small towns called
Qasbahs. These intermediaries were
termed as ‘Portfolio Capitalists.’
Karen Leonard in ‘Great Firm Theory of the Decline of Mughal Empire’ focused on how the
communities of the bankers called
sahukars, shroffs and mahajans in the ‘great firms’ played an important role in the decline of the
empire. She argued, that these
indigenous banking firms were inevitable allies of the Mughal state, and that the nobles and imperial
officers ‘were more than likely
to be directly dependent upon these banking firms. It was in 18th century when the centre
weakened the resources of these 'great
firms' were diverted away from Mughals to other political areas which led to the nobles on path of
Bankruptcy and decline.
Thus by 1750 the bankers controlled the collection of land revenue through provision of credit or
cash. Therefore, it was with the
increasing control of banking firms over revenue that led to fall of Mughal Empire.
Muzaffar Alam- The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab 1707-1748, pointed
out that despite the
decline of Mughal Empire in Delhi the region like Awadh saw economic prosperity as a result of
commercialization. As the positions
of jagirdars weakened, zamindars in Awadh became powerful and refused to comply with Mughal
officers. These zamindars became
powerful locally and therefore 18th century is not only of decline but of regional growth as well.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, we can conclude that the decline of Mughal empire started with Aurangzeb’s policies.
There were two categories of
historians the one who viewed it in terms of decline and the other who saw it in terms of continuity.
The Dark Ages theory was
supported in terms of political and economic decline and the breakdown of Mughal Empire. But the
decline is mostly confined to
Delhi and the other regions under Mughal Rule.
But there are other regions such as Awadh and Punjab that showed the signs of economic
independence and development even in 18 th century