Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 5
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    ROY, TIRTHANKAR 2013. Rethinking the Origins of British India: State Formation and Military-fiscal Undertakings in an Eighteenth Century World Region. Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 47, Issue. 04, p. 1125.

    Denault, Leigh 2012. Engaging Colonial Knowledge.

    Harrington, Jack 2010. Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India.

    Bayly, C.A. 1998. The first age of global imperialism, c. 1760–1830. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 28.

    Peabody, Norbert 1996. Tod's Rajast'han and the Boundaries of Imperial Rule in Nineteenth-Century India. Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 30, Issue. 01, p. 185.


The Company Army and Rural Society: The Invalid Thanah 1780–1830

  • Seema Alavi (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 28 November 2008

Historians have generally explained the consolidation of Company power in terms of the superior fiscal base which it came to acquire in north India. Bayly argues that in the eighteenth century the ‘commercialisation of royal power’, begun under the Mughals, extended to meet the needs of military organization and growing bureaucratizationof the numerous small polities that succeeded the Mughals. He argues that in this perio Indian merchant capital was redeployed in the search for greater control over labour productivity through control over revenue collections of all sorts; and the unified merchant class met in the new qasbahs and the small permanent markets (ganjs) attached to them. It was here that theinfrastructure for Europea trade in, and ultimate dominion over, India was constructed.1 The efficiency and wide scale on which the Company could exercise and extend the pre-colonial practice of military fiscalism2 has provided another explanation for the dominant position it came to occupy more specifically, in south India.3 Yang highlights the role ofthe Indian elite in facilitating the Company's revenue collection and thereby contributin to its political dominance and stability in the Saran district of Bihar. He constructs a model of'limited Raj', to explain the a free flow of revenue. He analyses the dynamics ofthis 'limited Raj' by explaining its functioning at the lowest level where the power of the colonial state tapered off and the landholders' system of control took over. Yang argues that these two control systems collectively sustained British rule in the region.4 More recently the Company's superior power in north Indian politics has been explained in terms of its exclusive right to violence. R. Mukherjee, analysing the 1857 mutiny, arguesthat 'British rule in India, as an autocracy, had meti meticulously constructed a monopoly of violence. The revolt of 1857 shatteredthat monopoly by matching an official, alien violence by an indigenous violence of the colonised

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

B. Stein , ‘State Formation and Economy Reconsidered’, part I, Modern Asian Studies [henceforth MAS] 19, 3 (071985), pp. 387413.

R. Mukherjee , ‘“Satan Let Loose upon Earth”, the Kanpur Massacres in India in the Revolt of 1857’, Past and Present 128 (08. 1990), pp. 92117.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Modern Asian Studies
  • ISSN: 0026-749X
  • EISSN: 1469-8099
  • URL: /core/journals/modern-asian-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *