I was reading the famous History of British India written by James Mill in 1817 (one of the earliest attempts at writing a comprehensive work of Indian history), and came across some very interesting - and no doubt controversial - passages that I would like to share:
In his book, Mill attempts to "rank" or compare Indian civilization (what he calls "Hindu civilization") to other civilizations throughout world history, based on a number of different factors. One of the criteria that Mill uses for this comparison is political cohesion and long-term stability of state formations. In the excerpts above, Mill states that it is perfectly possible - and indeed, expected - for a people who have passed just a "small number of stages in the career of civilization" to create large and enduring state formations. Mill gives the ancient Persian empire, Chinese empire, and Ottoman empire as examples of such state formations. However, Mill clearly states that the formation of such empires is not proof in and of itself that an exceptionally high standard of civilization (which Mill would associate with utilitarianism and the promotion of the greater well-being of Man) was reached, but merely proof that a particular people had "passed but a small number of stages" in the career of civilization. For instance, Mill indicates that the Russians, whom he believes to be a "barbarous" people with a tyrannical and primitive government, are nonetheless further advanced than people like the Native Americans, because the former had created a large and powerful state while the latter had never created such a state in their entire history. In other words, the ability to form enduring states is, according to Mill, a necessary condition for attaining higher civilization, but not a sufficient condition in and of itself.
Mill associates more primitive peoples with more primitive (less stable and less robust) political structures that are unable to last for extended periods of time. To quote Mill directly, "Among uncivilized nations, however, it is most common to find a perpetual succession of revolutions, and communities in general small." He associates such a primitive state with early medieval Europe, when it required men of exceptional abilities like Charlemagne to keep states together, in the absence of which the state would collapse. He also draws a direct comparison with the empires established by the Mughals and by Sevagee (Shivaji), which both proved unable to effectively bind various communities to the center. As Mill notes, the empire of Aurangzeb collapsed almost immediately after his death, while the Maratha empire soon "broke into several different governments, the owners of which hardly acknowledged even a nominal homage to the throne of Sevagee." Mill also speculates that, in the absence of the British conquest of India, the Maratha "empire" would have soon disintegrated into its constituent elements.
Mill published his work 200 years ago, but since then, research on Indian political history has largely confirmed his assertion that the history of India was largely composed of "such an alternation of communities, and occasional and temporary extensions of power in particular hands." Ironically, the greatest support for this thesis comes from the comprehensive historical research and history-writing done by Indian nationalist historians like R.C. Majumdar. In his massive, monumental tomes on Indian history, covering every single dynasty (large and small) that had ruled in any part of India in its entire history, R.C. Majumdar (and other nationalist historians like him) were providing support for James Mill's original thesis on Indian history, whether they knew it or not.
Although the topic of Mill's work is specifically India, we can take his observations and apply them generally throughout the whole world. For example, we see from an examination of world history that the Middle East formed the earliest states and empires, and thus, can be associated with the birth of civilization. This was followed by the powerful states of China, as well as those of the Classical West. Ancient states also emerged in India, but no ancient state in India was able to create an enduring imperial formation comparable to Han China or Rome (the closest equivalent, the Mauryan empire, lasted for hardly a century and had just three major kings). However, Indian states were themselves far more advanced than the political formations that existed in Southeast Asia, or those that existed in much of Sub-Saharan Africa, where tribalism and pre-state configurations remained prevalent in many areas until modern times. In this way, we can create a framework for measuring the relative "advancement" of any particular people on the ladder of civilization.
I would be interested to hear what other members have to say about the controversial observations made by James Mill.
In his book, Mill attempts to "rank" or compare Indian civilization (what he calls "Hindu civilization") to other civilizations throughout world history, based on a number of different factors. One of the criteria that Mill uses for this comparison is political cohesion and long-term stability of state formations. In the excerpts above, Mill states that it is perfectly possible - and indeed, expected - for a people who have passed just a "small number of stages in the career of civilization" to create large and enduring state formations. Mill gives the ancient Persian empire, Chinese empire, and Ottoman empire as examples of such state formations. However, Mill clearly states that the formation of such empires is not proof in and of itself that an exceptionally high standard of civilization (which Mill would associate with utilitarianism and the promotion of the greater well-being of Man) was reached, but merely proof that a particular people had "passed but a small number of stages" in the career of civilization. For instance, Mill indicates that the Russians, whom he believes to be a "barbarous" people with a tyrannical and primitive government, are nonetheless further advanced than people like the Native Americans, because the former had created a large and powerful state while the latter had never created such a state in their entire history. In other words, the ability to form enduring states is, according to Mill, a necessary condition for attaining higher civilization, but not a sufficient condition in and of itself.
Mill associates more primitive peoples with more primitive (less stable and less robust) political structures that are unable to last for extended periods of time. To quote Mill directly, "Among uncivilized nations, however, it is most common to find a perpetual succession of revolutions, and communities in general small." He associates such a primitive state with early medieval Europe, when it required men of exceptional abilities like Charlemagne to keep states together, in the absence of which the state would collapse. He also draws a direct comparison with the empires established by the Mughals and by Sevagee (Shivaji), which both proved unable to effectively bind various communities to the center. As Mill notes, the empire of Aurangzeb collapsed almost immediately after his death, while the Maratha empire soon "broke into several different governments, the owners of which hardly acknowledged even a nominal homage to the throne of Sevagee." Mill also speculates that, in the absence of the British conquest of India, the Maratha "empire" would have soon disintegrated into its constituent elements.
Mill published his work 200 years ago, but since then, research on Indian political history has largely confirmed his assertion that the history of India was largely composed of "such an alternation of communities, and occasional and temporary extensions of power in particular hands." Ironically, the greatest support for this thesis comes from the comprehensive historical research and history-writing done by Indian nationalist historians like R.C. Majumdar. In his massive, monumental tomes on Indian history, covering every single dynasty (large and small) that had ruled in any part of India in its entire history, R.C. Majumdar (and other nationalist historians like him) were providing support for James Mill's original thesis on Indian history, whether they knew it or not.
Although the topic of Mill's work is specifically India, we can take his observations and apply them generally throughout the whole world. For example, we see from an examination of world history that the Middle East formed the earliest states and empires, and thus, can be associated with the birth of civilization. This was followed by the powerful states of China, as well as those of the Classical West. Ancient states also emerged in India, but no ancient state in India was able to create an enduring imperial formation comparable to Han China or Rome (the closest equivalent, the Mauryan empire, lasted for hardly a century and had just three major kings). However, Indian states were themselves far more advanced than the political formations that existed in Southeast Asia, or those that existed in much of Sub-Saharan Africa, where tribalism and pre-state configurations remained prevalent in many areas until modern times. In this way, we can create a framework for measuring the relative "advancement" of any particular people on the ladder of civilization.
I would be interested to hear what other members have to say about the controversial observations made by James Mill.
