Article Interpretation Sanjay Subrahmanyam - Book Report/Review Example

? Article interpretation Article Interpretation Sanjay Subrahmanyam in this article believes that there is a relationship between trade and state building (page 750). He believes that there are two concepts that clearly dominate the recent discussions on traders and states in the western Indian Ocean. This was between the fifteenth and mid eighteenth centuries. The first idea was the Diasporas communities, and the second idea was state mercantilism (Sanjay, 1995, 756). The second idea, according to Sanjay Subrahmanyam applies, not to the narrow connotation that confines it to the European nation states of the early modern period, but to a broad and highly commonsensical way. According to him, historians have raised objections to these usages, first because they are “descriptive and not analytical” and second, they are not authentic native usage but rather “Western terminologies” (Sanjay, 1995, 751). He continues to say that he does not find these objections as fundamental. According to him if the later objection is to be taken seriously, then it leads to the unfortunate conclusion that Asian histories can only be written in Asian languages. The former perhaps fails to appreciate that these terms have a rather clear analytical meaning, even though they may pose a problem of precision when used as descriptive categories. In this paper, I will bring out Sanjay Subrahmanyam’s view about the merchant Diasporas and states in the Indian ocean ‘rim’, and its implications on understanding the early modern period in South Asia. Sanjay Subrahmanyam acknowledges that “indeed it is of considerable analytical interest that the two ideas of mercantilism and diasporas are somewhat in conflict” (Sanjay,1995,753). He believes that while the idea of diasporas bases on the notion of the mercantile communities autonomy and the existence of the equilibrium based on mutual indifferences between them and those who wield state power, the idea of state mercantilism rests on the notion that states can be active participants in the trade themselves. He continues to say that if states did indeed take such an interest in the trade, they could scarcely have been indifferent to the identity and interest of other participants in the world mercantile operations (Sanjay,1995, 754). He believes that the world trade in the Indian Ocean region changed considerably, and the increase of the presence of the Europeans is one of the aspects of the change (Wills 1993). Sanjay argues that it is true that the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries saw the expansion of a variety of forms of Islams on the shores of the Indian ocean and that Muslims mercantile communities comprised a growing presence whether in East Africa, India, or South east Asia (Pouwels 1987; Hourani 1951(Sanjay,1995,755). He describes the growth of a set of city-states which came to dominate the maritime world from Melaka in the east to Aden in the west. Their rise was associated with what has recently been called an age in commerce in the context of South East Asia. The lack of sufficient records from the fifteenth century made this matter be just comprehended (Reid 1988). He goes on to argue that although the greater part of the population of Melaka consists of Malays of the laboring class (including a substantial slave sector), there was a little doubt that these merchants had a high start in Melaka’s society. This fact is observed from the Hikayat Hang Tuah, a Malay prose epic celebrating Melaka’s Sultans (Thomaz 1988: 34; Overbeck 1986) (Sanjay, 1995, 757). The important thing to note according to Sanjay is that Melaka sultanate’s revenue base confirms that foreign trade was indeed the life blood of the kingdom. Characteristic feature of Melaka was the town’s well defined ethnic quarters (kampongs), inhabited by the leading trading communities (page 757). Most were the Gujarat who dominated Melaka politically as well until late fifteenth century. Aden emerged into the importance as a centre in the late ninth or early tenth century, several centuries before the rise of Melaka (Goitein 1954: Serjeant 1988). It was one of the three ports, others being Zafor and al-shir, where ships from India and South East Asia customarily made first landfall on the Arabian coast (Sanjay,1995, 758). Sanjay argued that the consolidation of Aden’s fortune is usually dated to Ayyubids in the twelfth century, but the structure of trade and state in the area somewhat obscure in the period becomes clearer during the rule of the Rasulid dynasty that succeeded. Of importance, evidence is a text of 1411-12, the Mulakhkhas al-fitar, which sets out in some detail the administration of the port, the native of the committee resident there, the extent of revenues and so on (Cahen and Serjeant 1957). This work indicates that Aden’s port duties provided a significant revenue source for the Rasulid Sultans at Tacizz (Sanjay, 1995, 758). Sanjay also argues that closer to Melaka and Aden in this respect was the East African sultanate of Kilwa, ruled over from the late thirteenth century by a family of Yemen sharrifs, the Mahdali (Pouwels 1987 but see also Ferrand 1928). In the case of Kilwa or its northern neighbors and rivals, Mombasa and Malindi (which emerged into prominence in the fourteenth century), there are no data on the fiscal foundations of the state. This is inspite of the links between the prosperity of these states and Indian ocean commercial triangle of Gujarat, the Red Sea and East Africa, which are often asserted (as in the importance of Kilwa, in the control of gold trade) (Sanjay, 1995, 761). Sanjay believes that there was the lack of trade opportunities for some states, states that occupied poorly monetized regions or that had little control over both maritime or overland routes were even with the best of intentions, never truly have been oriented in trade (page 761). He argues that certain institutions and values were identified that inhibited the development of some societies along the lines of Western Europe and that thus accounted for the “Rise of West” (page 751). He acknowledges that some writers argue that because states either preyed or neglected trade, they failed to harness its transformative potential, unlike the Western European counterparts. Ideological barriers restrained states bordering on the western, Indian ocean from seeking alliances with traders(Sanjay,1995, 753) But there are textual evidences that have been produced that show that a rather complex attitude existed in the area as much as in the western European and derived in the part even from doctrinal Islamic traditions. He argued that some writers thought early modern Asian traders were petty peddlers unable to compete with the mighty chartered trading companies and their sophisticated organization (Sanjay, 1995,753). He notes that economic historians have been skeptical. He argued that the companies could rarely compete with Asian traders in market, save when they could use violence without fear of retaliation (Sanjay, 1995, 753). Sanjay believes that, despite such evidences, there are still critics who are effective only to point out this or that weakness while leaving the larger formulation intact. He critically looks at the commercial policy of earlier sultans articulated, for example, by the contemporary writer al –qalqashandi was reversed to a limited extent in Barsbay’s time. In 1430’s sultan forbade the sale of pepper to European by anyone save his own official apparatus a policy that later rulers periodically revived. In early sixteenth century, the sultan Qanswah al- Ghawri was faced with the Portuguese threat to trade in the Red Sea, and once more saw a close link between mercantile profit and the well being of the Mamluk sate and responds strongly although without outstanding military success. This prolific if somewhat obtuse, writer accurately sums up the feelings of the Cairo based bourgeoisie of his epoch when he declares on Qansawh al- Ghawri’s death in 1516, that “each day of his equal, negative judgment passed somewhat earlier”, by the Frenchman, Jean Thenaud (Wiet 1960:84 Schefer 1884). Sanjay differs with the writer for blaming the sultan. He notes that rather than blaming the Portuguese for damaging Egypt’s commercial economy-surely, the simplest option for a writer in the early sixteenth century was to blame the sultan’s desire to exploit traders. The picture that emerges, we might add is not of a ruler who was in different to maritime commerce since the Hussein referred to above is none other than the celebrated Amir Mushrif who fought the Portuguese with such mixed success between 1506 and 1517 off the Indian coast and in the Red sea. However, a positive interest in the trade did not prevent the sultan from preying on merchants, be they Indians, Europeans or even as Thenaud reports- Jews based in Cairo (Schefer 1884:84) (Sanjay, 1995, 762). Not all the traders had the same mentality, even those in Gujarat. The will to political power was expressed by seeking a piece of action within a massive political structure. The sultanate of Gujarat for Ayaz and Gopi participated in the declining mughal state of Muhammed Ali. Mercantile minded elements had tried other means even seeking the mere structure of the sate of their own ends. A significant and relatively known form of a merchant republic can be found on the Kanara coast south of Goa. Sanjay argues that it was under various minor rulers, under whose chieftaincies the port held out an independent character (Sanjay, 1995, 768). The use of a marina time power was required to defend the kingdom’s economic interests in various points. The sultans never showed signs of wavering from protecting their interests. As Sanjay illustrates in page 761, the Mamluk’s way of approaching trade in the fifteenth century was by focusing on the idea of the sea power as an instrument of statecraft, and it was by no means alien to the rulers of Egypt, whose kingdom was vulnerable to attack from the Mediterranean, and the red seas during the period of the Circassian Mamluk’s (1382-1517). Bibliography Sanjay S. 1995. Imarat and Tijarat Asian:Merchants and state power in the West Indian Ocean London: Cambridge University press. Read More