Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:34:21.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EARLY COLONIAL INDIA BEYOND EMPIRE*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2007

JON E. WILSON
JON E. WILSON*
Affiliation:
King's College London
*
Department of History, Kings CollegeLondon, wc2R 2LS[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since 1947, the relationship between Indian society and the British empire has provided the most important frame of reference for scholars writing about the history of modern India. India is often treated merely as an exemplar of the colonial condition. As a result, scholars have failed properly to examine modern India's participation in global processes of historical change, and been reluctant adequately to ‘provincialize’ Europe. This review argues that historians need to move beyond this imperial frame of reference if they are to explain the transition to, or characteristics of, British rule in the subcontinent. Placing modern India in a broader comparative context allows one to see how the colonial subcontinent participated in an uneven but broadly comparative set of processes which occurred across Asia as well as Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There are, for example, important parallels between the process of active state-, economy-, and culture-formation occurring in France, Germany, and India in the nineteenth century, for example. This comparative approach would not denigrate the importance of ‘colonialism’ as an analytical category. It might, though, allow historians to produce a more satisfying interpretation of the difference between colonial and non-colonial states and societies.

Type
Historiographical Reviews
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 951 - 970
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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.)

References

1 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, NY, 1979). For the emergence of the ‘post-colonial’ paradigm, see Robert J. C. Young's Postcolonialism: an historical introduction (Oxford, 2001), and Robert J. C. Young, White mythologies: writing history and the West (London, 1990).

2 Persuasive examples are Uday Singh Mehta, Liberalism and empire: a study in nineteenth-century British political thought (Chicago, IL, 1999); Elizabeth Buettner, Empire families: Britons and late imperial India (Oxford, 2004); Taylor, Miles, ‘Queen Victoria and India, 1837–1861’, Victorian Studies, 47 (2004), pp. 264–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finn, Margot, ‘Colonial gifts: family politics and exchange of goods in British India, c. 1780–1820’, Modern Asian Studies, 40 (2006), pp. 203–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Finn, Margot, ‘Law's empire: English legal cultures at home and abroad’, Historical Journal, 48 (2005), pp. 295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar. India and the East India Company figure prominently even in a volume on a period associated usually with Britain's Atlantic empire, Kathleen Wilson, A new imperial history: culture, identity and modernity in Britain and the empire, 1660–1840 (Cambridge, 2004). For one of the few non Indo-centric instances of the new imperial history see Sarah Stockwell, ed., The Blackwell companion to the history of the British empire (Oxford, 2007), and for a critique of the dominance of India in post-colonial writing see Rajan, Balachandra, ‘Excess of India’, Modern Philology, 95 (1998), pp. 490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Nicholas B. Dirks, The scandal of empire (Cambridge, MA, 2006).

4 In particular Partha Chatterjee, The nation and its fragments: colonial and postcolonial histories (Princeton, NJ, 1993), and Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincialising Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference (Princeton, NJ, 2000). Note how both books are exclusively concerned with India, yet neither refers to the subcontinent in its titles.

5 C. A. Bayly, The birth of the modern world, 1780–1914: global connections and comparisons (Oxford, 2004), pp. 1–3.

6 For an important critique of this approach, see Talal Asad, Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity (Stanford, CA, 2003), especially p. 216.

7 For a variety of different positions in these debates see C. A. Bayly, Indian society and the making of the British empire (Cambridge, 1988); Nicholas Dirks, Castes of mind: colonialism and the making of modern India (Princeton, NJ, 2001); Marshall, P. J., ‘Britain and the world in the eighteenth century: iii, Britain and India’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 9 (2000), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ali, M. Athar, ‘Recent theories of eighteenth-century India’, Indian Historical Review, 8 (1987), pp. 102–10Google Scholar.

8 Seema Alavi, ed., The eighteenth century in India (Delhi, 2002); P. J. Marshall, ed., The eighteenth century in Indian history: evolution or revolution? (Delhi, 2003).

9 Richard B. Barnett, Rethinking early modern India (New Delhi, 2002).

10 Alavi, ed., The eighteenth century in India, p. 38.

11 Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Mughal state, 1526–1750 (Delhi, 1998), p. 70.

12 Irfan Habib, The agrarian system of Mughal India, 1556–1707 (2nd edn, Delhi, 1999); W. H. Moreland, The agrarian system of Muslim India (Cambridge, 1929); Frank Perlin, ‘The problem of the eighteenth century’, in Marshall, ed., Eighteenth century, p. 53.

13 Irfan Habib, ‘The eighteenth century in Indian economic history’, originally published in Leonard Blussé and Femme Gaastra, eds., On the eighteenth century as a category of Asian history: Van Leur in retrospect (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 217–23.

14 Muzaffar Alam, The crisis of empire in Mughal north India: Awadh and the Punjab, 1707–1748 (Delhi, 1986); Singh, Chetan, ‘Centre and periphery in the Mughal state: the case of seventeenth-century Punjab’, Modern Asian Studies, 22 (1988), pp. 299–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The political economy of commerce: southern India, 1500–1650 (Cambridge, 1990).

15 C. A. Bayly, Rulers, townsmen and bazaars: north Indian society in the age of British expansion, 1770–1870 (Cambridge, 1983), a chapter from which is printed as ‘The rise of the corporations’, in Marshall, ed., Eighteenth century, pp. 138, 164–5.

16 Hatekar, Neeraj, ‘Farmers and markets in the pre-colonial Deccan: the plausibility of economic growth in traditional society’, Past and Present, 178 (2003), p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Andre Wink, Land and sovereignty in India: agrarian society and politics under the eighteenth-century Maratha Svarajya (Cambridge, 1986). For a discussion of these different arguments see Alam and Subrahmanyam, The Mughal state, p. 31.

18 Farhat Hasan, State and locality in Mughal India: power relations in western India, c. 1572–1730 (Cambridge, 2004), p. 126.

19 Ibid., pp. 91–109.

20 Ibid., p. 126.

21 Muzaffar Alam, The languages of political Islam: India, 1200–1800 (Chicago, 2004), p. 184.

22 Ayesha Jalal, ‘Negotiating cultural modernity and cultural difference: Indian Muslim conceptions of community and nation, 1878–1914’, in Leila Tarazi Fawaz and C. A. Bayly, eds., Modernity and culture from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, 1890–1920 (New York, NY, 2002), pp. 230–61. For an analogous instance of cultural ‘regionalization’ in Bengal, see Calkins, Philip B., ‘The formation of a regionally oriented ruling group in Bengal, 1700–1740’, Journal of Asian Studies, 29 (1970), pp. 799–806Google Scholar; Curley, David L., ‘Kings and commerce on an agrarian frontier: Kalketu's story in Mukunda's candimangal’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 38 (2001), pp. 299–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the concept of ‘regional patriotisms’ see C. A. Bayly, The origins of nationality in South Asia: patriotism and ethical government in the making of South Asia (Delhi, 2001).

23 Chatterjee, Kumkum, ‘History as self-representation: the recasting of a political tradition in late eighteenth-century India’, Modern Asian Studies, 34 (1998), pp. 913–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Subramaniam, Lakshmi, ‘Banias and the British: the role of indigenous credit in the process of imperial expansion in western India in the second half of the eighteenth century’, Modern Asian Studies, 27 (1987), pp. 473–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a critique of Subramaniam's argument about an ‘Anglo-Bania order’ in Surat see Torri, Michelguglielmo, ‘Trapped inside the colonial order: the Hindu bankers of Surat and their business world during the second half of the eighteenth century, Modern Asian Studies, 25 (1991), pp. 367–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Kumkum Chatterjee, Merchants, politics, and society in early modern India: Bihar, 1733–1820 (Leiden, 1996).

25 Marshall, Eighteenth century, p. 13.

26 Michael J. Braddick, State formation in early modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000); also the essays collected in Michael J. Braddick and John Walter, eds., Negotiating power in early modern society (Cambridge, 2001).

27 David Eastwood, Government and community in the English provinces, 1700–1870 (London, 1997); Joanna Innes, ‘Central government interference: changing conceptions, practices and concerns, 1688–1840’, in José Harris, ed., Civil society in British history (Oxford, 2003), pp. 39–60, and Innes, Joanna, ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century English social policy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 40 (1990), pp. 63–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also the essays collected in John Brewer and Eckhart Hellmuth, Rethinking Leviathan. The eighteenth-century state in Britain and Germany (Oxford, 1999).

28 For this overly narrow and now widely criticized military-fiscal account of the British state see John Brewer, The sinews of power: war, money and the English state, 1688–1783 (London, 1989).

29 Asma Ahmad, ‘The British Enlightenment and ideas of empire in India, 1756–1773’ (Ph.D. thesis, London, 2005); Philip J. Stern, ‘“One body corporate and politick”: the growth of the English East India Company-state in the later seventeenth century’ (Ph.D. thesis, Columbia, 2004).

30 Elliott, J. H., ‘A Europe of composite monarchies’, Past and Present, 137 (1992), pp. 48–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Beik, William, ‘The absolutism of Louis XIV as social collaboration’, Past and Present, 188 (2005), pp. 195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Scott, William, ‘The pursuit of “interests” in the French Revolution: a preliminary survey’, French Historical Studies, 19 (1996), p. 813CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, Eugene Nelson, ‘The French Revolution and the politics of government finance, 1770–1815’, Journal of Economic History, 55 (1995), pp. 227–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Elliott, ‘A Europe of composite monarchies’, p. 57.

34 Michel Foucault, ‘Governmentality’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, eds., The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality (Hemel Hempstead, 1991), pp. 87–104.

35 Ian McBride, ‘The nation in the age of revolution’, in Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer, eds., Power and the nation in European history (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 248–72.

36 For one attempt to place Asian history in a broader ‘Eurasian’ context see Lieberman, Victor, Transcending East–West dichotomies: state and culture formation in six ostensibly disparate areas’, Modern Asian Studies, 31 (1997), pp. 463–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For comparisons between Mughal India and other west Asian states see Alam and Subrahmanyam, The Mughal state, ‘Introduction’, pp. 5–12.

37 Rudolf Vierhaus, ‘The Prussian bureaucracy reconsidered’, in Brewer and Hellmuth, Rethinking Leviathan, pp. 149–66.

38 For the role of new forms of property in redefining British politics, see Paul Langford, A polite and commercial people: England, 1727–1783 (Oxford, 1992), and Hilton L. Root, The fountain of privilege: the political foundations of markets in old regime France and England (Berkeley, CA, 1994). For one discussion of the incorporative flexibility of eighteenth-century British political society, Ian Christie, Stress and stability in late eighteenth-century Britain: reflections on the British avoidance of revolution (Oxford, 1984).

39 For example Travers, T. R., ‘“The real value of the lands”: the British, the Nawabs, and the land tax in Bengal’, Modern Asian Studies, 38 (2004), pp. 517–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Travers, T. R., ‘Ideology and British expansion in Bengal’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 33 (2005), pp. 7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 David Lieberman, The province of legislation determined: legal theory in eighteenth-century Britain (Cambridge, 1989).

41 Prasannan Parthasarathi, The transition to a colonial economy: weavers, merchants and kings in South India (Cambridge, 2001), p. 135.

42 David Washbrook, ‘Land and labour in late eighteenth-century South India: the golden age of the pariah’, in Peter Robb, ed., Dalit movements and the meanings of labour in India (Delhi, 1993).

43 Margret Frenz, From contact to conquest: transition to British rule in Malabar, 1790–1805 (Delhi, 2003), pp. 3, 104, 151.

44 Sudipta Sen, Distant sovereignty: national imperialism and the origins of British India (New York, NY, 2002).

45 Radhika Singha, A despotism of law: crime and justice in early colonial India (Delhi, 1998).

46 Braddick, State formation, pp. 427–37.

47 See the essays in Arthur Burns and Joanna Innes, eds., Rethinking the age of reform: Britain, 1780–1850 (Cambridge, 2003).

48 Ian J. Barrow, Making history, drawing territory: British mapping in India, c. 1756–1905 (Delhi, 2004), p. 183.

49 Ibid., p. 13.

50 Matthew Edney, Mapping an empire: the geographical construction of British India, 1765–1843 (Chicago, IL, 1997); Raj, Kapil, ‘Colonial encounters and the forming of new knowledge and national identities: Great Britain and India, 1760–1850’, Osiris, 2nd ser. 15 (2000), pp. 119–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kapil Raj, Relocating modern science: circulation and the construction of knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650–1900 (Basingstoke, 2007).

51 Manu Goswami, Producing India: from colonial economy to national space (Chicago, IL, 2004), p. 73.

52 Ibid., p. 216.

53 Gauri Visvanathan, Masks of conquest: literary study and British rule in India (London, 1989); Sorkin, David, ‘Wilhelm von Humboldt: the theory and practice of self-formation (Bildung), Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (1983), pp. 55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Daniel J. Hulsebosch, Constituting empire: New York and the transformation of constitutionalism in the Atlantic world, 1664–1830 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2005); Jacobson, Stephen, ‘Law and nationalism in nineteenth-century Europe: the case of Catalonia in comparative perspective’, Law and History Review, 20 (2002), pp. 307–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 G. W. Hegel, Elements of the philosophy of right, ed. Allen W. Wood (Cambridge, 1991); Kalidas Nag, ed., The English works of Rammohun Roy (6 vols., Calcutta, 1945–51), i, pp. 1–37.

56 Catherine Hall and Leonore Davidoff, Family fortunes: men and women of the English middle class, 1780–1850 (2nd edn, London, 2002); Chakrabarty, Provincialising Europe, pp. 117–48; Malavika Kasturi, Embattled identities: Rajput lineages and the colonial state in nineteenth-century north India (NewDelhi, 2002).

57 Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, Egypt in the reign of Muhammad Ali (Cambridge, 1984).

58 For these debates and later arguments about the relationship between province and centre in post-revolutionary America see Jack P. Greene, Peripheries and centre: constitutional development in the extended polities of the British Empire and the United States 1607–1788 (Athens, GA, 1986).

59 For a recent discussion see P. J. Marshall, The making and unmaking of empires: Britain, India and America, c. 1750–1783 (Oxford, 2005).

60 Wilson, Jon E., ‘“A thousand countries to go to: peasants and rulers in eighteenth-century Bengal”’, Past and Present, 189 (2005), pp. 81–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Travers, ‘“The real value of the lands”’.

61 Peter Mandler, ‘Nation and power in the liberal state: Britain, c. 1800–1914’, in Scales and Zimmer, eds., Power and the nation in European history, pp. 354–69.

62 G. W. F. Hegel, ‘On the English reform bill (1831)’, in Lawrence Dickey, ed., Hegel: political writings (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 234–70.

63 Reddy, William M., ‘Sentimentalism and its erasure: the role of emotions in the era of the French Revolution’, Journal of Modern History, 72 (2000), pp. 109–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 For the development of these themes in early colonial Bengal, see Jon E. Wilson, The domination of strangers: modern politics in colonial India, 1780–1835 (Basingstoke, forthcoming).

65 ‘Government of India’, 10 July 1833, in Lady Trevelyan, ed., The works of Lord Macaulay (8 vols., London, 1866), viii, p. 142.

66 Wilson, The domination of strangers, ch. 5.

67 Chatterjee, The nation and its fragments.

68 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, ‘Frank submissions: the Company and the Mughals between Sir Thomas Roe and Sir William Norris’, in H. V. Bowen et al., The worlds of the East India Company (Rochester, NY, 2002), pp. 69–96; Kapila, Shruti, ‘Race matters: orientalism and religion, India and beyond, c. 1770–1880’, Modern Asian Studies, 40 (2006), pp. 1–43Google Scholar.

69 For arguments about the comparability of Indian and European religion, see P. J. Marshall, The British discovery of Hinduism in the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1979), and Rosane Rocher, Orientalism, poetry and the millennium: the chequered life of N. B. Halhed (Delhi, 1983).

70 For the relationship between Napoleonic administrative centralization and European identity see Woolf, Stuart, ‘The construction of a European world-view in the Revolutionary-Napoleonic period’, Past and Present, 137 (1992), pp. 72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 John A. Davis, ‘The many faces of modernity: French rule in southern Italy, 1806–1815’, in Michael Rowe, ed., Resistance and collaboration in Napoleonic Europe: state formation in an age of upheaval, c. 1800–1815 (Basingstoke, 2003), pp. 74–89.

72 T. C. W. Blanning, The French Revolution in Germany: 0ccupation and resistance in the Rhineland, 1792–1802 (Oxford, 1982).

73 For the rigid application of an abstract model of the market, for example, see David Hall-Matthews, Peasants, famine and the state in colonial western India (Basingstoke, 2005).

74 E. M. Collingham, Imperial bodies: the physical experience of the Raj, 1800–1947 (London, 2001); Jon E. Wilson, The domination of strangers, ch. 2; Buettner, Empire families.

75 Wilson, Jon E., ‘The anxieties of distance: codification in early colonial Bengal’, Modern Intellectual History, 4 (2007), pp. 7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the existence of dialogue in other institutional spaces see Dodson, Michael, ‘Re-presented for the pandits: James Ballanntyne, “useful knowledge” and Sanskrit scholarship in Benares during the mid-nineteenth century’, Modern Asian Studies, 36 (2002), pp. 257–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Michael Dodson, Orientalism, empire and cultural nationalism in India, 1770–1880 (Basingstoke, 2007).

76 See for example Rabindranath Tagore, Greater India (Madras, 1921), and M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Cambridge, 1910; here 1997 edn). For an argument about Indian notions of reason see Gyan Prakash, Another reason: science and imagination of modern India (Princeton, NJ, 1999).

77 Some of these themes are tackled in the essays by Shruti Kapila and Andrew Sartori in the special edition of Modern Intellectual History on ‘A new history of ideas for India’, 4 (2007).

78 Guha, Ranajit, ‘Not at home in empire’, Critical Inquiry, 23 (1997), pp. 482–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Subrahmanyam, ‘Frank submissions: the Company and the Mughals’.

80 Chakrabarty, Dipesh, ‘Postcoloniality and the artifice of history: who speaks for “Indian” pasts?’, Representations, 37 (1992), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.