Explorations in Connected History: From Tagus to the Ganges
By Sanjay Subrahmanyam,
Oxford, Rs 575

The eight essays in Sanjay Subrahmanyam?s book address the history of pre-modern southern Asia. They focus on the four centuries that preceded British rule in India, which Subrahmanyam categorizes as the early modern period. As part of his ?connected history? agenda, the author attempts to integrate the history of India with the wider processes that occurred in Asia.

Subrahmanyam claims that it makes more sense to study early modern history of Bengal in conjunction with developments that occurred in coastal Burma and Thailand rather than with Gujarat. So, we need to rethink our notions of national history. In fact, the concept of India was non-existent before the 18th century. The so-called proto-nationalism of early modern period was indeed very local. And the large imperiums that straddled Eurasia did not encourage such circumscribed feelings of ?nationality?. Thus it makes sense to emancipate history from national boundaries. But, instead of focussing on micro studies, Subrahmanyam turns to the macro picture, that is, on the interactions between the large political formations.

Interactions between different imperiums were characterized by the idea of violence. Violence was inevitable, writes Subrahmanyam, because the concept of free trade was merely a fiction. One chronicler of Bijapur, Zain-al-Din, who wrote in the 1570, spoke of jihad against the Portuguese. In fact, Zain-al-Din advocated a sort of ?people?s war?. There was nothing uniquely Indian in such an attitude. One Ming official also noted the danger posed by the ship-borne cannons of the infidels who came for trade. The role of violence was indeed highlighted in the writings of the European chroniclers. One Portuguese chronicler wrote that honour and commercial gains required judicious use of force against the ?natives?. Such aggressive attitude of the Europeans was directed not only against the Indians. A Dominican priest writing in the 17th century justified the necessity of conquering south-east Asia for acquiring gold, silver, jewels, lead, tin, copper and so on.

In another essay, Subrahmanyam challenges M.N. Pearson?s assertion tat the pre-colonial Indian politics were indifferent to trade. In fact, the author asserts, the rise of Masulipatnam port was possible to a large extent due to solid backing provided by the Golconda elites. From the Portuguese documents it is evident that the Mughal Wazir Asaf Khan took great interest in the commercial proceedings of the European trading companies from 1620 till his death in 1641. In order to counter Portuguese supremacy in the sea, the indigenous politics followed a carrot and stick policy.

Subrahmanyam warns against accepting the view of a clear-cut struggle between the indigenous politics and the feranghis. The European trading companies did not present a united anti-Indian front. When fighting broke out in Goa between the Dutch and Portuguese, Asaf Khan agreed to aid the latter. And Shaista Khan, the governor of Bengal in the late 17th century got help from the European shipwrights for constructing a naval fleet which was used in the conquest of Chittagong.

Subrahmanyam?s deft handling of sources in various languages with new methodological interpretations offer rich insights about the historical processes that occurred within the Eurasian matrix in the ?Age of Columbus?.