The Eighteenth
Century in Indian History – Evolution or Revolution? Edited by P.J.
Marshall, Oxford
University Press, 2003
A Short History of Aurangzib by Prof. Jadunath Sarkar,
Orient BlackSwan, 2009
Clive
of India by Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Barrie & Jenkins, 1975
The Eighteenth Century is generally considered to be the
decisive interface between Medieval India and Modern India when Mughal rule
dissolved itself in a heap and British conquest started to slowly seep in. Just
before this process could be completed, there was an interregnum of nearly 50
to 60 years when there were a number of intermediate states which tried to fill
in the vacuum created by Mughal collapse.
What was the political system prevailing during this
interface? Why did none of the
indigenous groups replace Mughal rule? Was India
in definite decline that
domination by a militarily superior power such as that of Britain became
inevitable? There are those who argue
that India – in agriculture, commerce and
trade - did perform well during this interregnum (C.A. Bayly, for example) despite
the absence of a unified state of the kind we know today.
What were the groups which came into being after the
mughals? Prof. Irfan Habib distinguishes
these into two groups. The first group
was the one created by mughal officials, the Nazimates of Deccan, Bengal and
Awadh, the second by opponents of mughal power, primarily the Marathas, Jats
and Sikhs. Prof. Habib contends with
support of data, that these states did not show a noticeable degree of economic
growth over the seventeenth century.
Prof. Habib significantly compares the trajectories of India
and China during the same period. He contends that by remaining unified, the
Qing Empire delayed colonial assault and
altered not just its history but also of East Asia. China protected Japan from Western domination
and helped it to make the Meiji
Restoration of 1868 and its evolution into an independent capitalist power. When we compare the performance of China and
India in recent times, it may perhaps help us to keep this important difference
in mind. He also shows with the help of statistical
data the scale of economic drain of
India and its impact on unemployment of artisans and service providers. India was exploited to the extent of what in
other countries would have been their national savings, not just for a short
period but for as long as one and half centuries and more! The effect of this drain on India continues to
persist even today.
The History of Aurangzeb is a shortened version of Prof.
Sarkar’s own five volume study of the same title. Aurangzeb represented the last effective
ruler of the mughal dynasty, which was established by Babar. His was the longest reign of the dynasty
(1658-1707) of nearly 60 years. What kind of a man was he? Prof. Sarkar portrays the man as follows, “He
was free from vice, stupidity and sloth.
His intellectual keenness was proverbial, and at the same time he took the
business of governing with all the ardour which men usually display in the
pursuit of pleasure........ In private
life he was simple and abstemious like a hermit. No terror could daunt his heart, no weakness
or pity melt it. Of the wisdom of the ancients which can be
gathered from ethical books, he was a master.”
The stories of many battles and wars fought by Aurangzeb and
the consequences of them towards weakening of mughal rule, especially his long
and tortuous wars against the Deccan kingdoms of Bijapur and Golkonda, have been narrated in detail in this book. Perhaps the decisive battle of his life was
the one against his own brother, Dara
Shukoh for the mughal throne. Dara was
in the mould of his great-grandfather, Akbar in his embrace of a pantheistic
philosophy and in his search for a meeting ground between Hinduism and
Islam. He had studied New Testament,
writings of Muslim Sufis and the Vedanta.
He had written many books, including a Persian translation of the
Upanishad.
With all these admirable qualities, Dara’s greatest failing
was his lack of first-hand experience in handling political problems, indeed his
poor political management. He could
never learn the arts of war and government, pass the tests of danger and
difficulty, which were crucial ingredients to any aspirant for power in
those times. Prof. Sarkar’s sketch of
Dara and his inadequacies which disabled him from ascending the mughal throne
has an aura of authenticity during contemporary times. “Dara’s unrivalled
wealth and influence were not likely to develop moderation, self-restraint or
foresight in him, while the fulsome flattery which he received from all must
have aggravated the natural pride and arrogance of an heir to the throne of
Delhi. Dara was a loving husband and a
devoted son; but as a ruler of men in troubled times, he must have proved a
failure. Long continued prosperity had
unnerved his character and made him incapable of planning wisely, daring boldly
and achieving strenuously, or, if need be, of wresting victory from the jaws of
defeat by desperate effort or heroic endurance.
He never learnt by practice how to guide the varying tides of a battle
with the coolness and judgment of a true general.” Substitute Rahul Gandhi in the place of Dara,
you have all the reasons for his recent failure; especially his inability to
dare boldly and achieve strenuously.
Nirad C. Chaudhuri was
an unashamed admirer of the British – their language, culture and their
colonial rule of India – and it shows in all its nakedness in this biography of
a man who had sawn the seed of British rule over India. Mr.
Chaudhuri justifies his apologia of Clive in his introduction to the volume
itself. Criticising the ‘moralizing’ criticism at home of Clive’s
actions to enrich himself at the cost of the Company, Chaudhuri says, “Great
historical phenomenon could arise out of very corrupt conditions and
high-handed or dubious actions. If
there was to be any moralising on the life of Clive it should have been at this
level, accompanied by a forceful and vivid presentation of the realities of
politics and history.” Further he says,
“A truly historical biography of Clive today should exclude criticism or
apology altogether, and present him as he was, and his age, too, as it
was. The story must be told as if the
writer was watching the events as realities present before his eyes, but with a
detachment which the passing away of the empire should make possible.” Dubious
history and dishonest scholarship!
The conquests of Clive have been achieved by following the
same methods of his more illustrious predecessor, Aurangzeb – by
treachery, straight-forward aggression
and simple bribery. The lives of the man
who presided over the collapse of the mughal dynasty and the man who
inaugurated British colonialism in India deserve serious
study and careful reflection for two reasons, firstly, we don’t allow
our rulers to divide us on any grounds whatsoever and send the country into chaos and
confusion and secondly, in the process allow outsiders to fish in the resultant
troubled waters.
Posts
