11-16-2006, 09:28 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"mansabdari system too was started with strong ties to imperial armies to get a buyin and loyalty of the able bodies - labor and conscripts. There are strong ties to military too. In other words, this sytem demands servility to the king. how is it better than zamindari system?"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The zamindari system was introduced by Britishers mainly for tax farming. It was exploited by the zamindars and corrupt British administrators, which resulted in the impoverishment of the farmers especially in Bengal, Orissa (mainly during the Company rule) and causing widespread famines. It destroyed a very vibrant economy to serve British capitalist interests.
The mansabdari system in contrast was very different in its aims. It was actually an extension of an initiative started by Sher Shah Suri in his brief rule. In India of those times, almost every adult male could wield a sword or musket and was always a part time soldier even if he may be a farmer or artisan otherwise. By late 1500, musket was affordable to the common Indian, in fact musket was far cheaper than a horse. India was thus a very militarized society. In such a circumstance the mughals found it very difficult to collect taxes as everywhere they encountered armed resistance (that was the funny thing about gunpowder, in 1400s and early 1500s it helped to centralise the governance, but by late 1500s and 1600s it was the reason was widespread decentralization resulting in near anarchy in 1700s). Mansabdari tried to asssimilate the armed populace into the system, so as to make the state governable. But it is medieval because it was in response to a feudal medieval society.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking of "events", should we not see which events benefitted whom, in what terms, the most and see if it is truly a watershed event? In my mind, the "modern" period evokes certain response, and that is, the "modern" was good for large segments of the society in India, some how, some where. What could be such a event(s), be it modern or medieval or present? See, why I am so confused... <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe another perspective of modernity is the emergence of national consciousness, for it bound together a Maratha with a Jat, a Sikh with a Tamilian, a Gujarati or Parsi with Bengali to believe that they have something in common. Throughout history we have seen that whenever there is a consolidation of power, the economy progresses, life standard of people improves, there is progess on every front, be it arts or science and establishment of a civilization. Over the past 200 years emergence of national consciousness in various parts of the world is what made modern nations. Though nationalism also has its negative consequences, because nations can harness better resources of war as they can for econmic progress and hence even single battles in World War I or II were far more bloody and devastating than entire campaigns in the 19th century.
The zamindari system was introduced by Britishers mainly for tax farming. It was exploited by the zamindars and corrupt British administrators, which resulted in the impoverishment of the farmers especially in Bengal, Orissa (mainly during the Company rule) and causing widespread famines. It destroyed a very vibrant economy to serve British capitalist interests.
The mansabdari system in contrast was very different in its aims. It was actually an extension of an initiative started by Sher Shah Suri in his brief rule. In India of those times, almost every adult male could wield a sword or musket and was always a part time soldier even if he may be a farmer or artisan otherwise. By late 1500, musket was affordable to the common Indian, in fact musket was far cheaper than a horse. India was thus a very militarized society. In such a circumstance the mughals found it very difficult to collect taxes as everywhere they encountered armed resistance (that was the funny thing about gunpowder, in 1400s and early 1500s it helped to centralise the governance, but by late 1500s and 1600s it was the reason was widespread decentralization resulting in near anarchy in 1700s). Mansabdari tried to asssimilate the armed populace into the system, so as to make the state governable. But it is medieval because it was in response to a feudal medieval society.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking of "events", should we not see which events benefitted whom, in what terms, the most and see if it is truly a watershed event? In my mind, the "modern" period evokes certain response, and that is, the "modern" was good for large segments of the society in India, some how, some where. What could be such a event(s), be it modern or medieval or present? See, why I am so confused... <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe another perspective of modernity is the emergence of national consciousness, for it bound together a Maratha with a Jat, a Sikh with a Tamilian, a Gujarati or Parsi with Bengali to believe that they have something in common. Throughout history we have seen that whenever there is a consolidation of power, the economy progresses, life standard of people improves, there is progess on every front, be it arts or science and establishment of a civilization. Over the past 200 years emergence of national consciousness in various parts of the world is what made modern nations. Though nationalism also has its negative consequences, because nations can harness better resources of war as they can for econmic progress and hence even single battles in World War I or II were far more bloody and devastating than entire campaigns in the 19th century.