Economy and Culture in Pre-British India

Chapter Info (Click Here)

Book No. – 19 (Sociology)

Book Name – Social Background of Indian Nationalism (A.R. Desai)

What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)

1. Self-Sufficient Village Community

2. Indian Feudalism Vs. European Feudalism

3. Nature of Village Economy in Pre-British India

4. Nature of Urban Economy in Pre-British India

5. Nature of Village Culture in Pre-British India

6. Nature of Urban Culture in Pre-British India

7. Religio-Ideological Unity of Indian Culture

8. Absence of National Sentiment

Note: The first chapter of every book is free.

Access this chapter with any subscription below:

Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
Annual Plan (All Subject)
Sociology (Single Subject)
CUET PG + Sociology

LANGUAGE

Economy and Culture in Pre-British India

Chapter – 1

Harshit Sharma

Alumnus (BHU)

Self-Sufficient Village Community

The rise of national sentiment in India is linked to the growth of a unified national economy.
This unification resulted from the destruction of pre-capitalist production systems and the substitution of modern capitalist economic forms.
The British conquest of India played a crucial role in this economic transformation.
Before British rule, self-sufficient villages based on agriculture with primitive tools and handicrafts were central to the Indian economy.
The self-sufficient village had existed for centuries and survived political, religious, and territorial upheavals, including foreign invasions and dynastic changes.
The village community was impervious to external changes—it lasted through the rise and fall of kingdoms and various foreign rulers, including Hindus, Pathans, Mughals, Marathas, Sikhs, and the English.
The village population was primarily peasants.
The village committee, representing the village community, was responsible for land distribution among peasant families as holdings.
The holdings were cultivated by peasant families using collective labor and primitive tools.
Peasant families had hereditary rights to cultivate the land, passed down from generation to generation.
Peasant families were subject to collective restrictions and entitled to collectively managed services.
Village life required cooperation for municipal services, watch and ward, grazing grounds, woodlands, irrigation, and water supply.
Villages had systems for defending against marauders, protecting land and crops from wild animals, pests, and stray cattle.
Peasants cooperated to meet the revenue-rent demands of the overlord, whether a ruler or intermediary.

Indian Feudalism Vs. European Feudalism

Indian feudalism differed from European feudalism in that there was no private property in land.
In the Hindu period, land belonged to the village community and was not considered the property of the king.
The king or his intermediaries claimed only a share of the produce from the land, met by the village committee as the representative of the community.
The state had a right to a share paid in kind.
Under the Moslems, the existing tenures and tax system were adopted with some modifications.
The king and intermediaries (such as zemindars, tax-gatherers, jagirdars, and religious institutions) were not owners of the land.
Conflicts among rulers or between rulers and intermediaries or the village community were over the magnitude of the share of village produce, not over ownership of land.
Neither the king nor the intermediary expropriated the village community’s land or concerned themselves with methods of cultivation.
Major struggles in Indian history were focused on the exercise of rights over the village, not within it.
The conflict was between various lords for the right to collect payment from peasants, not to seize land.
In European history, conflicts were over the control of cultivation methods (e.g., forced labor, enclosure, and large-scale farming).
In India, conflicts were over income from peasants, with the village and peasantry being passive subjects of conflict.
The village and peasantry remained the booty over which rival powers fought.

Nature of Village Economy in Pre-British India

The structure of agricultural production in the Indian village remained uninterrupted for centuries.
Emperors or viceroys never challenged the customary right over village land by the village community.
Village agriculture produced mainly for local needs, with a portion surrendered to the lord (e.g., suba of Delhi Emperor, sardar of Poona Peshwa).
The village consumed almost the entire produce, including agricultural and industrial products, which were mainly produced for the village population.
Village population included industrial workers (smiths, carpenters, potters, weavers, cobblers, etc.) working primarily for local consumption.
The village also included menials, outcastes, and descendants of aboriginal populations absorbed into Hindu society.
Exchange of products was limited to within the village and very restricted in scope.
Shelvankar notes that exchange was not individual but collective, with the village community fulfilling the artisans’ needs through land or grain.
Artisans were not private producers but public servants employed by the rural community.
The village had no appreciable exchange relations with the outside world and lacked a formal market.
The economic life of the village was autarchic and almost self-sufficient.
Raw materials for artisans (wood, clay, hides, cotton) were locally sourced, with the village almost self-sufficient in terms of raw materials.
The village produced almost everything for local consumption, with surplus traded occasionally at weekly village fairs.
The agricultural and industrial techniques in the village were simple and low-level, with basic tools like the sickle, plough, spinning-wheel, and pit-loom.
The village had an unchanging economic life based on self-sufficiency, with occasional disruptions caused by invasions or droughts.
Karl Marx described these small Indian communities as self-sufficient, with production based on communal land and a blending of agriculture and handicrafts.
The surplus produced was mainly consumed by the village, and only a portion became a commodity, often collected as rent in kind by the state.
Villages had a simple division of labor, with roles like judge, tax-gatherer, teacher, and artisan performed by individuals supported by the whole community.
When population increased, new communities were formed on unoccupied land, maintaining the same economic structure.
The organization of production remained static, with the village community continuing its form despite political changes.
Caste determined the occupation of individuals, with occupations being hereditary.
The village economy limited the need for travel, and bullock-carts were the main means of transport.
The social institutions were collectivist, with the family, caste, and village community controlling individuals.
The state had limited involvement in the family and caste affairs, with Hindu law and customary regulationsgoverning these matters.
The individual was subordinated to the family, caste, and village panchayat, maintaining economic self-sufficiency in rural units.
By the end of the 18th century, the Indian social order was largely based on obligations to the family, caste, village panchayat, and guilds for trade and commerce.

Nature of Urban Economy in Pre-British India

A few towns emerged amidst the self-sufficient villages, categorized into three types: political, religious, and commercial.
Towns of political importance served as capitals of kingdoms and empires, with governments, courts, armies, and nobility. They also attracted musicians, artists, poets, and courtesans catering to rulers’ whims.
Religious towns like Benares, Mathura, Puri, Nasik were pilgrimage centers, with a population serving the needs of visiting pilgrims.
Commercial towns were located on sea coasts, navigable rivers, or trade routes, facilitating handicraft industries.
Indian handicrafts were advanced, with industries producing ships, textiles, metalwork, stonework, sugar, indigo, paper, woodwork, pottery, leather, dyeing, embroidery, glass, porcelain, ivory, and precious stonework.
Textile industry was the leading sector, producing cotton and silks highly admired internationally.
Urban industry catered to luxury needs, produced military equipment, constructed forts, palaces, temples, and iconic monuments like the Taj Mahal and Kutub Minar.
Urban industries divided into three categories: luxury goods, state/public needs, and localized industries (e.g., iron-smelting, saltpetre).
Urban workers were of two types: independent artisans (owning tools, working independently) and wage workers (employed by state/corporations).
Urban market was limited to luxury items, meeting the needs of aristocratic and wealthy classes, while villages met daily needs locally, limiting urban trade to specific zones.
Despite the existence of prerequisites for transformation (e.g., commercial capital, urban industry), pre-British India’s political and economic structure hindered the development of a dominant capitalist system.
Self-sufficient villages played a major role in hindering the rise of industrial and mercantile classes. The village’s equilibrium offered strong resistance to external disruption and maintained a stationary economic structure for centuries.
Feudal system and the village economy prevented the growth of a strong bourgeoisie capable of overthrowing the feudal regime or establishing a capitalist economy.
Public works and irrigation required state control, which kept the state firmly tied to towns, hindering the independence of towns from the feudal structure.
The inability of Indian bourgeoisie to mobilize the countryside or challenge feudalism led to a lack of capitalism and political power in India, inhibiting economic evolution.
The British bourgeoisie ultimately expropriated feudal princes and implemented capitalist transformation, marking it as the “only genuine social revolution in Indian history” as described by Marx.

Nature of Village Culture in Pre-British India

The majority of the Indian population lived in autarchic villages, isolated from external social, economic, and intellectual exchanges.
The villages were closed systems, with limited movement beyond the community, typically occurring only during fairs, pilgrimages, or marriages.
Economic life in the village was based on primitive agriculture and artisan industry, with very low productivity due to outdated techniques.
Villagers faced low labor productivity, limited surplus, and insufficient time for developing a high standard of living or culture.
Scientific knowledge and material production techniques were meager in villages, which contributed to their precarious existence, vulnerable to natural disasters like floods or crop failures.
The village mindset was shaped by superstition, religious mysticism, and worship of natural forces, leading to a sense of defeatism and frustration.
The caste system was seen as divinely ordained, with individuals docilely submitting to its rigid structures, stifling individual initiative, adventure, and rebelliousness.
The village population remained trapped in a narrow, superstitious, and stagnant social and intellectual existence, resistant to change.
Even when the entire country was unified under powerful rulers like Samudra Gupta or Akbar, it had little effect on the village life, which remained economically self-sufficient and governed by local caste and village committees.
The village continued to resist disruption from political upheavals, maintaining its autarkic nature and preventing the emergence of any national consciousness.
National consciousness requires a unified political and economic life, which was impossible as the villages remained isolated and disconnected from broader economic exchange.
Despite political unity under various monarchs, the economic and social structure of village life remained largely unchanged, preserving the autarchic village system.
Social festivals, religious gatherings, and local activities were part of village life, but these did not foster national unity or a broader social consciousness.
Religious changes, such as the rise of Buddhism, new interpretations of Hinduism (e.g., Shankaracharya, Vallabhacharya, Chaitanya, Ramanuja), and other sects, did not foster a national consciousness; rather, they modified the religious outlook of villagers.
Villagers identified with specific religious sects (e.g., Hindu, Buddhist, Vaishnavite, Shaivite) but did not develop an overarching Indian identity or sense of nationalism.
The rise of religious movements did not create a unified national sentiment, as they lacked the material basis of a unified national economy, advanced communications, and political unity.
Religious upheavals may have shifted ideological attitudes but did not lead to a nationalist perspective, which only emerged after the British conquest, which transformed the social economy of India.

Nature of Urban Culture in Pre-British India

Towns were economically and culturally more mobile, rich, and progressive compared to the isolated and stationary villages.
Towns were centres of government, hosting the monarch, court, and government, or were commercial hubs with connections to other towns and countries.
The town economy was more developed and differentiated to cater to the needs of the king, nobility, and wealthy merchants.
A significant portion of the land revenue from villages was spent in towns, boosting urban economic life.
Wealth in the kingdom, primarily generated from land revenue and merchant profits, was concentrated in towns, leading to prosperous economic activity.
Towns supported luxury industries such as the production of silk, cotton, metal and marble ware, luxury goods, and weapons.
The wealth of towns allowed the patronage of artists, philosophers, poets, musicians, sculptors, architects, and scientists.
A highly developed cultural and economic life flourished in towns, contrasting with the restricted life of the village.
Great philosophic and artistic movements emerged in towns, supported by aristocratic and merchant classes.
There was a constant movement of people to towns for military, political, trade, and cultural purposes, with interactions with other towns and foreign countries.
Scientific, philosophical, artistic, and religio-artistic cultures were concentrated in towns, with superstition dominant in villages.
Monarchs, whether Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim, patronized artists, scientists, and philosophers at their courts, creating a rich cultural environment.
Kings like Ashoka, Vikramaditya, Bhoj, and Akbar maintained courts with scholars and artists, such as Kalidas, Bana, and Tansen, who thrived under royal patronage.
Astronomers and scientists were supported by kings, with monarchs like Jayasing building observatories for their work.
Court historians wrote the historical records of the period, supported by the ruling kings.
Indian culture, both Hindu and Muslim, was deeply religious, with religion influencing law, literature, art, and architecture.
Hindu culture intertwined religion with law and literature, making religious themes central in artistic works.
Muslim culture also had a religious character, and even in the synthesis of Hindu and Muslim cultures, the religious element remained dominant.

Religio-Ideological Unity of Indian Culture

The culture of pre-British Indian feudal-agrarian society was predominantly mystical, influenced by the economically low, stationary, and socially rigid nature of society.
Changes in society were quantitative rather than qualitative, with the structure remaining relatively the same for centuries.
This led to a mystical worldview, where the focus was on the Ultimate Reality and the transcendence of the self through spiritual practices.
Society was ‘closed’, developing ideational traits, with defined views on needs, ends, and means of satisfaction, including specific moral, social, and aesthetic values.
The Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim cultures shared a worldview centered around Being, with an emphasis on the transcendent and the dissolution of the self in the Ultimate Reality.
The individual’s role was to observe customs and rituals, which controlled inner life, while society focused on spiritual realization and those leading spiritual culture.
This mystical worldview was prevalent in India before the influence of Western commerce.
Both Hindu and Muslim cultures thrived in towns, supported by the patronage of kings, nobles, and wealthy merchants.
Hindu monarchs and wealthy merchants funded the construction of temples in religious centers like Benares, Puri, Madura, and others.
Jain temples built by merchants like Vastupal and Tejpal at Delvada are notable for their beauty and architecturalexcellence.
Ashoka’s pillars, inscribed with ethical doctrines, highlight the flourishing of art during this period under royal patronage.
Muslim monarchs also supported art and culture, with grand mosques built in cities like Delhi, Agra, Lahore, and Ahmedabad.
The Mogul emperors, except for Aurangzeb, were passionate patrons of art, with examples like the Taj Mahal, Moti Masjid, and royal palaces demonstrating high levels of artistic development.
The town was the center of intellectual life, hosting philosophical duels and debates on religion and philosophy under the patronage of the monarch.
Saints, poets, architects, and travelers came from places like Central Asia, Turkey, Persia, and North Africa to India, enriching its culture.
Hindu culture spread to regions like Java, Bali, Sumatra, and other islands in the Eastern Archipelago, influencing their customs and life.
Seminaries for Hindu and later Muslim education flourished in various towns, contributing to intellectual life.
The towns of the pre-British period were hubs of rich, complex cultural life.

Absence of National Sentiment

The culture of pre-British India was not inspired by a national spirit, as such a concept did not exist at the time.
Even non-religious secular art was not national; it glorified the greatness of the monarch or eulogized their love for their spouse, such as the Taj Mahal.
This art reflected the interests of the aristocracy or religious communities (Hindus or Muslims), not of a national or new social class.
The consciousness of the townspeople, including the king, nobility, traders, and artisans, was not national consciousness.
The objective and subjective prerequisites for the emergence of a national culture were absent in pre-British India, such as a common economic, social, and state existence.
A national culture requires the welding of a community into a nation, which occurs through economic development, including the growth of productive forces, division of labor, and a rapid transport system.
The integration of the community through a common economic life accelerates the growth of a common language, consolidating the nation.
The nation develops the consciousness of a single economic existence, leading to the urge for independent state existence.
The national culture expresses the needs of development and aspirations for a free, richer social, economic, and cultural life, opposing forces that obstruct national progress, such as feudal remnants or foreign domination.
Capitalist economic forms that unify a community also contributed to the creation of the Indian nation, similar to the formation of modern nations in other societies.
The Indian capitalist society had a class structure, including a reactionary feudal admixture of princes and semi-feudal zemindars.
The new social classes—bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, peasantry, and proletariat—emerged from the new national economy and were integral parts of the new national society.
These new social classes felt the pressure of both feudal elements and imperialist rule on their development.
The culture of these new social classes became national in form but class in content, with the class-conscious workers’ culture becoming socialist in content and national in form.
The national culture of India included the cultures of various awakening nationalities, such as Bengalis, Gujaratis, Maharashtrians, and Karnatakis.
The national culture reflected the needs of the free development of these groups and the Indian nation as a whole, and could not exist in pre-British India.
Both the rich, complex, and elaborate culture of the feudal and wealthy merchant classes and the culture of the masses (folk art, fairy tales, and religious festivals) lacked a national form and scope.