Potentialities Of Capitalistic Development In The Economy Of Mughal India Analysis

In a 1969 article, the Aligarh historian Irfan Habib takes up a question that has gained much ground in recent years; the reason for differential routes taken by the socio-political, and especially economic histories of the ‘East’ and the ‘West’. While thus anticipating some later historiographical developments, the Marxist historian’s framing of the question remains very much within the paradigm of modernity; his article is entitled Potentialities of Capitalistic Development in the Economy of Mughal India. His work is remarkable in its questing of the simple presumption of a fundamental distinction between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ and even considering the possibility of capitalistic development in Mughal India. However, it continues to see
In addition, he adds that capital-intensity of Europe was a historically contingent characteristic, as opposed to being inherently natural. The other Europe-centric narrative that Pomeranz critiques is that which he attributes to Fernand Braudel, Immanuel Wallerstein, K. N. Chaudhari and, in a different way, Douglass North. They focus on institutions rather than levels of wealth. The progress of the West is attributed to efficient markets and property rights regimes that rewarded more productive ways of utilizing land, labour and capital. This, then, implies that economic development elsewhere was stifled by a state that was either too strong or too weak. Robert Brenner focuses on class struggle as a determinant of historical developments. Both North and Brenner consider institutionalist settings within which the great majority of people operate. Braudel considers international politics and Europe’s relations with other regions, while Wallerstein draws a distinction between the ‘feudal’ east and ‘capitalist’ west. Basically the focus of these approaches is on the combination of free labour, a large and productive urban population and pre-existing socioeconomic differences. However, Pomeranz points out that there is no reason to believe Western European economy had an advantage before 1800, so there is no reason to look for the ‘divergence’ before that time. Also, industrialisation was mostly limited to Britain, at least until 1860. The regions of Europe these scholars consider are no freer of Malthusian pressures than certain regions in Asia. If anything, Pomeranz remarks, Western European markets are further from perfect competition from