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.