Alien enemies

EXPLORATIONS IN CONNECTED HISTORY: MUGHALS AND FRANKS
By Sanjay Subrahmanyam,
Oxford, Rs 575

Sanjay Subrahmanyam is one of the few Indian historians who have overtaken the Western scholars in their own game of production and dissemination of historical knowledge. In Explorations in Connected History, which includes six of his articles published in journals not easily available in India, Subrahmanyam explores the tortuous relationship between the Mughals and the Europeans between 1500 and 1700.

In order to compare and contrast the fluctuating East-West relationship, Subrahmanyam introduces the concept of ?connected history? ? to link the disparate historical actors scattered over a wide area and construct a coherent narrative. It is distinct from comparative analysis which tends to emphasize why one party succeeded at the cost of the other. In the period which the book covers, neither the feranghis nor the Mughals managed to achieve their objectives. It was what in modern terminology is known as ?limited war? and what Subrahmanyam calls a ?contained conflict?.

The Mughals acknowledged the maritime supremacy of the European trading companies, and had to give concessions to the Franks to ensure the safety of the hajj pilgrims. On the other hand, the European companies, in order to break out from the narrow coastal enclaves, had to keep the Mughals in good humour.

The struggle between the Mughals and the Franks was multifarious and spanned a wide geographical base. The Portuguese were aware that if the Mughals were able to dominate India, then the balance of power on land would tilt in favour of the ?Mogors?. So, the Portuguese tried to aid the Deccani sultanates to stop Mughal expansionism south of the Narmada. At times, they also toyed with the idea of supporting those Mughal princes who had rebelled against the reigning Padshah. In reacting, the Mughals were able to bring pressure on the Portuguese pockets both on the east and Malabar coasts.

The Mughal state?s capability to conduct this kind of limited conflict declined from the first decade of the 18th century. And this ultimately paved the way for British colonialism in India. The last essay of the book is a brilliant counter-factual reconstruction of India under Persian domination. Subrahmanyam is obviously influenced by the ?What might have been if? type of history writing of Robert Cowley and other American historians. He argues that if, after the victory at Karnal, Nadir Shah had stayed in India, he could have been able to construct a strong centralized polity extending from the Fars to the Ganges. Such a mammoth state would have been able to resist the British till the mid-19th century. A protracted defence would have been very costly to the East India Company. In such a scenario, the Company might have taken the decision not to annex India.

Empirically and methodologically, Subrahmanyam?s collection makes a landmark contribution to Eurasian history. Through his masterly handling of non-Persian sources, he shows the complexities of Mughal commercial and foreign policies. He challenges M.N. Pearson?s view that the pre-colonial Indian polities were not interested in maritime affairs. Subrahmanyam also shows why the era before colonialism in South Asia cannot be called an ?age of collaboration?. Like Ptolemy, who linked the history of the Mediterranean with Central Asia, Subrahmanyam widens our horizon regarding the many links between Asia and Europe before the onset of colonialism.