Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T19:05:33.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Formation and Economy Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Burton Stein
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For too long, considerations of state formation in India have divided on the colonial threshold of history, and the British regime in the subcontinent has been treated as completely different from all prior states. The most important reason for this seems to be that the historiography of the British empire was created by those who ruled India; it was therefore a kind of trophy of domination. Other reasons include the vast and accessible corpus of records on the creation of the British colonial state, the recency of its emergence, and the foundational character of the colonial state for the independent states of the subcontinent. Continuity of the British colonial state with its predecessors is acknowledged only in the case of the Mughals owing, in part, to the prolonged process of separation of the Company's government from its Mughal imperial cover before the Mutiny. Thus, long after they had ceased as a governing regime, the Mughals were considered by contemporaries and subsequently by historians to be the old regime of India.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1985, pp. 387 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Lineages of the Absolute State (London: New Left Books, 1974), p. 359.Google Scholar

2Bayly, C. A.: Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars; North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar D. A. Wash-brook: ‘Some notes on market relations and the development of the economy of South India,’ unpublished paper presented to the Leiden Workshop on Comparative Colonial History, 1981; ‘Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial South India,’ Modern Asian Studies, vol. 15 (1981), pp. 649–721; ‘Commerce and credit in South India: the transition to colonialism, 1770–1830,’ unpublished paper presented at the University of Pennsylvania, South Asia Regional Seminar, 1984. Perlin, F.: ‘Of White Whales and Countrymen in the Eighteenth Century Maratha Deccan …,’ The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 5 (1978), pp. 172–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Proto-Industrialization and Pre-Colonial South Asia,’ Past and Present, no. 98 (1983), pp. 30–95;Google Scholar ‘Money-use in late pre-colonial India and the international trade in currency media,’ to be published in Imperial Monetary Systems in Early Modern India edited by John F. Richards, forthcoming; and his paper in the present collection of essays.

3This postulate was vigorously reasserted by Professor Irfan Habib at the ‘Cambridge Economic History of India Conference, Cambridge, April 1984.

4Bayly, , Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars, pp. 51–7.Google Scholar

5The Fiscal System of Renaissance France (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972).

6Ibid.., pp. 65 and 104.

7Ibid.., pp. 241–2.

8Ibid., p. 322.

9Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta, A History of South India (Madras: Oxford University Press, 2d edn, 1958), p. 297Google Scholar and Sources of Indian History with Special Reference to South India (Madras: Asia Publishing House, 1964), p. 79.Google Scholar

10Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 400ff.Google Scholar

11Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), ch. 2.Google Scholar

12Wilson, H. H., A Glossary of the Judicial and Revenue Terms … Relating to the Administration of the Government of British India (Reprint edition of original 1855: Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1968), pp. 52–6.Google Scholar

13Records of 1806 show that some 6 million acres were under cultivation in the Ceded Districts of which 2.6 million were inam holdings whose major types (accounting for 95 percent of all inam holdings) were: temple inams, 5 percent; personal religious inams, mostly to Brahmans, 30 percent; village headmen, 11 percent; village accountants, 13 percent; village servants, or āyagāru, 29 percent; and armed ‘peons’, 7 percent; IOLR, Munro Collection, F/151/106, ‘Statement of Enams’.

14Stokes, Eric, ‘Privileged Land Tenure in Village India’ in The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 51–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15‘The Peasantry of Tiruchirapalli District from the 13th to the 17th Century’, in Studies in Socio-Cultural Change in Rural Villages in Tiruchirapalli District, Tamilnadu, India, No. 1 Edited by Karashima, Noboru, Subbarayalu, Y., and Shanmugan, P. (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1980), pp. 23–7.Google Scholar

16Wilks, Mark, Historical Sketches of the South of India (Mysore edition of the original, London 1810 publication: Bangalore: Government Branch Press, 1930), vol. 1, pp. 213–20.Google Scholar

17First translated into English by SirJones, William and, in another translation, published in 1795 in a volume entitled, British India Analyzed; The Provincial and Revenue Establishment of Tippoo Sultaun (London: 1795, 2 v.).Google Scholar

18Madras. The Baramahal Records, Section 1, ‘Management’ (Madras: Government Press, 1907), Colonel Alexander Read, ‘A Sketch of Revenue Management in the Countries North of the Cavēri,’ p. 155.Google Scholar

19In Gleig, G. R., The Life of Major-General Sir Thomas Munro, Bart. and K.C.B.; Late Governor of Madras (London: 1830–1831), vol. 1, pp. 214–15, 220–2.Google Scholar

20Read, p. 151 where it is reported that preference was given to Hindus because they were better informed about local conditions and more experienced; āsaf is given as a Hindustani term.

21Select Letters of Tippoo Sultan to Various Public Functionaries. Translated and edited by Kirkpatrick, William, Colonel, East India Company (London: 1811)Google Scholar, Appendix ‘E’, ‘Commercial Regulations’, dated 25 March 1793 and 2 April 1794.

22Read, ‘Sketch of Revenue Management’, p. 155.Google Scholar

23Gleig, , Sir Thomas Munro, vol. 1, p. 221, letter dated 6 08 1799.Google Scholar

24Wilks, , Historical Sketches, vol. 1, pp. 392–3Google Scholar; and The Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Affairs of the East India Company, dated 28 July, 1812 Edited by Firminger, W. K. (Reprint edition, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969), vol. 3, p. 301.Google Scholar

25British Library, Wellesley Papers, Ad. Mss. 13629, pp. 166–7.Google Scholar

26Ibid., p. 168, letter dated 1 January 1801.

27Ibid., p. 182, letter dated 6 April 1801.

28His treatment of the ‘Vimlah’ (vēmulakōta) poligar drew this criticism. Munro's discussion of the actions of this poligar is found in The Fifth Report, vol. 3, p. 378Google Scholar, and criticism of him lasted until as late as 1808 as seen from a letter from Munro to Charles Grant, Chairman of the Court of Directors, 25 May 1809; IOLR, Board's Collections, F/4/261, no. 5826.

29In Gleig, , Sir Thomas Munro, vol. 1, p. 221.Google Scholar

30I am grateful to Dr Nicholas B. Dirks for his unpublished paper on this matter: ‘Terminology and taxonomy; discourse and domination: from old regime to colonial regime in South India,’ presented to the 12th Annual Conference on South Asia, University of Wisconsin, November, 1983.

31In Gleig, , Sir Thomas Munro, vol. 3, pp. 319–90.Google Scholar

32Weber, Max, Economy and Society Edited by Roth, G. and Wittich, C. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), vol. 2, p. 1056.Google Scholar

33Ingram, Edward, Two Views of British India; the Private Correspondence of Mr. Dundas and Lord Wellesley: 1798–1801 (London: Adams and Hart, 1970), pp. 5–14.Google Scholar

34Especially his: Guntur District, 1788–1848: A History of Local Influence and Central Authority in South India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).Google Scholar

35Weber, , Economy and Society, vol. 1, pp. 231–2.Google Scholar

36Ibid., vol. 2, p. 1055.

37The Peasant and the Raj where several essays treat this subject.