IMPORTANT STAGE (ERA’S) OF INDIAN HISTORY
The Ancient Era
From the rise of the Indus Valley Civilization around 2600 BC, Indian history
can be seen as characterized by the growth of an ever-expanding urban civilization.
By Maurya time (circa 317—185 BC), Indian cities although technically less
advanced than the Indus Civilization cities were bigger and present on a much wider
part of the Indian subcontinent.
During the Maurya time the interconnections between India and the outside
world did intensify, while in India there was the building of a complex network of
new roads. The development of the urban world and the construction of an ever-
expanding road system did continue after the disappearance of the Maurya Empire.
First century BC the Silk Road in Central Asia was opened and the Indian
subcontinent became related to it.
During the first century CE, high sea voyages both between the Red Sea and the
West Coast of India and between the East Coast of India and the Malacca straits
became common.
The early sixth century witnessed not only the collapse of the Gupta Empire, but
also the disappearance of most cities in the Indo-Gangetic Valley.
The Maurya dynasty built a
The Medieval Era precursor of the Grand Trunk
Road from Patliputra to Taxila.
With the sixth century the downward trend that had already become apparent
during the Gupta ‘Golden Age’ reached its lowest point. At the time the
localization in the countryside of both the economy and the political power
became the dominant feature of the age.
By that time, most of the cities had disappeared in much of the subcontinent and
those still surviving were either religious centres or military headquarters.
This general picture is exactly like the one characterizing other parts of the
Ecumene, including Europe.
However, it shows some notable exceptions in the South, where the Pallavas of
Kanchipuram (end of the sixth—beginning of the eighth centuries) and the
Cholas of Tanjore (tenth–twelfth centuries) ruled on kingdoms where cities and
long-distance trade, particularly maritime trade, were important.
In the Cholas’ time, namely the sixth–eighth centuries, the surviving Byzantine
cities in Europe and the Near East—particularly, but not only Constantinople—,
the permanence of a still flourishing monetary economy and the still existing
currents of long distance trade that characterized the Eastern Roman empire
cannot be construed as changing the general situation in Europe.
The new phase became apparent with the rise and consolidation of the Delhi
sultanate in the thirteenth century.
In a region like the Indian subcontinent, where for climatic reasons it was not
easy to breed vigorous horses, this trade was started and carried out in order to
get the warhorses necessary to cope with the Mongol invasions.
From Balban (1246–1287) to Ala-ud-din Khalji (1296–1316) to Muhammad bin
Tughlak (1325–1351), the story of the Delhi Sultanate can be seen as a
continuous attempt at political centralization. Indeed, this effort at political
centralization, which reached its apex under Ala-ud-din Khalji, started to
experience increasing difficulties during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlak.
Due to the failure of Muhammad bin Tughlak’s policies, after his death a reaction
set in and expressed itself in the decision by his successor, Firuz Shah (1351–
1388) to give up the centralizing policy pursued by his predecessors.
Accordingly, in what remained the most extensive Indian state of the age, the
same socio-economic characteristics that had prevailed at the beginning of the
Middle Age started to reassert themselves.
Policy implemented by Firuz Shah played a crucial role in weakening the
Sultanate both politically and militarily.
After Firuz’s death, it resulted in the Sultanate’s inability to cope with Timur’s
invasion, which brought about the sack of Delhi and the virtual destruction of the
city (1398). as well as the collapse of the Sultanate.
Whatever power was still in the hands of the Delhi Sultans on the eve of Timur’s
invasion disappeared, leaving a situation in which the political and economic
power had largely gone back to the localities.
Ibrahim Lodi (r. 1517–26), the last Delhi Sultan, was forced to give up the
extraction of the land revenue in cash and go back to the payments in kind.
For a long time, historians have depicted what was the other main Indian state in
the fourteenth–fifteenth centuries, namely the Vijayanagara Empire, as a
centralized military monarchy.
In the late 1980s, however, Burton Stein— generally considered the foremost
authority on the subject—conclusively showed that even Vijayanagara was a
largely decentralized political structure, whose maharadirajas were nothing more
than feudal kings presiding over a set of powerful feudal lords.
The Early Modern Era
During Akbar’s reign (1556–1605) the land tax came to be paid in silver once
again. A number of great cities became the mainstay of the Empire. Akbar
centralized the power of the state, even if this centralization was not carried to its
final consequences.
Under Akbar’s third successor, Aurangzeb (1658–1707), that territorial over-
extension which began with the invasion of the Deccan in 1681 plus the fact that
the process of centralization of state power had been left unfinished by Akbar and
his successors were among the main causes that, in the following century,
triggered the process that was to end up in the break up of the Mughal Empire.
By the 1720s the Empire had become a kind of loose federation of independent
provinces, over which the imperial paramountcy was purely nominal.
Moreover, large swathes of the subcontinent had passed under the sway of the
Marathas. Like the contemporary Mughal Empire, the Maratha dominions were
not a unified imperial structure, but a loose confederation of independent
monarchies.
Various Indian states were continuously at war with one another resulted in the
historians characterizing the eighteenth century as an age of ‘decadence and
depravity’ or, to put it in less emotional terms, a dark period of political and
military anarchy (providentially interrupted by the rise of the colonial power),
plus economic collapse.
However, recent scholarship has conclusively shown that the two main features
of the century were:
(a) that many of the Indian states emerging in the eighteenth century did have a
degree of centralization well superior to the one that had characterized the
Mughal Empire.
The Late Modern Era The beginning of the late Modern Era coincides with the
establishing of the colonial hegemony, namely with the destruction first of Tipu
Sultan (Anglo-Mysorean war of 1799) and, soon afterwards, of Maratha power
(Anglo-Maratha war of 1803–1805).
We now know that colonial hegemony, far from being a blessing for India as
claimed by colonial historians put an end to the political and economic
developments of the eighteenth century and brought about a series of adverse
economic developments: monetary circulation declined economic depression set
in long-distance trade changed in nature and was politically manipulated in such a
way to cause a net export of wealth from India to Great Britain.
Summing up, differently from what was the case in the West, in India as in China
the beginning of the Late Modern Era was characterized by a process of
development.
In turn, this process of development was the natural result of the kind of world
system that had emerged at the turn from the early to the late modern era.
This new system, as already recalled, was characterized by the fact that, for the
first time in history, a well-defined geographical and geopolitical area was
militarily and, therefore, politically and economically dominant on the remainder
of the globe. This situation contributes to explain why, while the West grew, the
Rest declined.
During the beginning with the First World War. But, in India (as in China), the
turning point came only after the collapse of European power in Asia, following
the Second World War, and the rise of the bipolar world.
That was the time when India was finally able to get out of the situation of
economic stagnation that had characterized the first half of the twentieth century,
embarking on a period of growth that, beginning with the early 1980s, became
increasingly fast.
At that point, what we call the Modern Era will come to its end and historians
and intellectuals will have to create a new terminology. Although that moment is
not so far away, it is far away enough to allow us to close at this point our
discussion on deodorization in both world history and Indian history.
SECOND PHASE OF URBANIZATION
Agricultural surplus, the growth of crafts and trade, and the growing population
led to the emergence of towns in the Gangetic plains.
This is called the second urbanisation in Indian history after the first
urbanisation evident in the Harappan Civilization.
Different types of towns came into being:
Political and administrative centres such as Rajgriha, Shravasti, Kaushambi and
Champa ,Centres of trade and commerce such as Ujjain and Taxila ,Holy centres
such as Vaishali.
Janapadas to MahajanapadaS
Fig. Sixteen Mahajanapadas
Vedic period (900–600 BCE) witnessed the transition from a tribal polity based
on lineage to a territorial state.
The janas (People) who migrated eastwards began to settle down in various
regions.
The loyalty of the people shifted from jana (tribe or clan) to janapada (territory).
Janapada literally meant ‘the place where the tribe sets its foot upon.’ The
janapadas fought with one another for resources and political dominance.
All these elements were found in some of the mahajanapadas. The
mahajanapadas represented the emergence of territorial kingdoms that ruled over
people (jana).
Administration
The king headed the government aided by a centralised administration. The king was also the sovereign ruler.
The king levied taxes out of agricultural surplus and redistributed it and ensured maintenance of law and order
in a hierarchical society by force and coercion.
The mahajanapadas on the Gangetic plains were all monarchies. Vedic
orthodoxy was an established practice in these kingdoms.
The priestly class enjoyed a preeminent status in the mahajanapadas unlike in the
gana-sanghas.
The kingdoms were governed by kings and the administration was centralised.
The brahman priests provided legitimacy to the king through various rituals.
The kingship was hereditary and the succession was in most cases based on the
law of primogeniture.
The king was assisted by councils called parishad and sabha. The councils were
advisry in nature.
The king appropriated the agricultural surplus through land revenue apart from a
few other taxes.
The king raised revenue through taxes to maintain an elaborate administrative
structure and an army.
The richer landowners were called grihapatis. These landowners employed
labourers called dasas or karmakaras.
The smaller landowners were known as kassakas or krishakas. The society was
stratified on the basis of varna.
THIRD STAGE OF URBANIZATION
Urbanization in India began to accelerate after independence, due to the country's
adoption of a mixed economy, which gave rise to the development of the private
sector.
The population residing in urban areas in India, according to the 1901 census,
was 11.4%,[1] increasing to 28.53% by the 2001 census, and is now currently
34% in 2017 according to the World Bank.
According to a survey by the United Nations, in 2030 40.76% of country's
population is expected to reside in urban areas.
As per the World Bank, India, along with China, Indonesia, Nigeria, and
the United States, will lead the world's urban population surge by 2050.
Mumbai saw large-scale rural-urban migration in the 20th century. In 2018,
Mumbai accommodated 22.1 million people, and was the second-largest
metropolis by population in India.
Delhi has 28 million inhabitants and witnessed the fastest rate of urbanization in
the world, with a 4.1% rise in population as per the 2011 census of India.
Perspectives of Marx, Weber & Durkheim
Marx Theory
Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory proposed by Karl Marx in the
19th century, and Marxists are those who ascribe to the ideas of Marxism.
Karl Marx was a German philosopher interested in exploring the relationship
between the economy and the people working within the economic system.
Marx’s theory was strongly based on the struggles of the working class during the
Industrial Revolution in Europe. He explained how there are power relationships
between the capitalists and the workers, which are exploitative and would
eventually cause class conflict.
Marxist ideology predicts that there will be a proletariat revolution whereby
capitalism will end, to be replaced by communism.
Weber’s Theory
Max Weber is a german sociologist and political economist best known for his thesis
of the “Protestant ethic,” relating Protestantism to capitalism, and for his ideas
on bureaucracy.
Max Weber’s Theories
Weber’s Theory Of Rationalization
Weber coined the term rationalization to explain how society has shifted from reliance
on traditions and emotions towards reliance on rationality and science. He tied this
concept to the rise of modern capitalism (Turner, 2002).
Weber’s Theory Of Bureaucracy
Weber was very interested in the ways societies are organized through bureaucratic
organizations. He looked at bureaucracies and determined some key features of how
they tend to operate.
Firstly he argued that ‘Verstehen’ or empathatic understanding is crucial to
understanding human action and social change, a point which he emphasised in
his classic study ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’;
Secondly, he believed we could make generalisations about the basic types of
motivation for human action (there are four basic types) and
Thirdly, he still argued that structure shaped human action, because certain
societies or groups encourage certain general types of motivation (but within
these general types, there is a lot of variation possible).
Durkheim’s Theory
Emile Durkheim was a French social scientist who developed a vigorous
methodology combining empirical research with sociological theory. He is
widely regarded as the founder of the French school of sociology
Emile Durkheim adopted an evolutionary approach to sociology. This means that
he considered society to have developed from a traditional to modern society
through the development and expansion of the division of labor.
Durkheim viewed society as an organism, with different parts functioning to
ensure society’s smooth and orderly operation and evolution.
Scholars sometimes refer to Durkheim as a structural functionalist because he
considered society to be composed of structures that function together — in this
approach, he distinguished structure from function.
While Durkheim considered society to be composed of individuals, Durkheim did
not see society merely as the sum of individuals and their behaviors, actions, and
thoughts. Rather, Durkheim argued that society has a structure of its own, apart
from the individuals within it.
