world-economies and south asia 1600-1750

8/16/2019 World-Economies and South Asia 1600-1750

1/9

Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Fernand Braudel Center and Research Foundation of State University of New

York are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

Review Fernand Braudel Center)

Research Foundation of State University of New York

"World-Economies" and South Asia, 1600-1750: A Skeptical NoteAuthor(s): Sanjay SubrahmanyamSource: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter, 1989), pp. 141-148Published by: for and on behalf of theResearch Foundation of State University of New York

Fernand Braudel CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241119Accessed: 02-02-2016 23:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 128.97.227.216 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/rfsunyhttp://www.jstor.org/publisher/fbchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40241119http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40241119http://www.jstor.org/publisher/fbchttp://www.jstor.org/publisher/rfsunyhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/9

World-Economies nd South

Asia,

1600-1750:

A

Skeptical

Note

Sanjay

Subrahmanyam

Recently,

several

papers

have

emerged

rom he

world-systems

school,

urporting

o

ntroducento outhAsian

history

he on-

cept

f he

world-economy

s a

significant

nalytical

ool.The stated

aim

of some

of these

writings

s

relatively

odest;

or

xample,

m-

manuelWallerstein

n a recent

aper

merely

laims hat

by

using

a

world-systemserspectiventhe tudy f SouthAsia, the ssuesun-

derdebate

and

thereforehe

objects

ffurther

esearch)

an be made

sharper

1986:

esp.

28).

But other

writersmake

far

tronger

laims,

as is evident rom

recent

ssayby

a

conglomerate

omprising

avi

A.

Palat,

Kenneth

Barr,

James

Matson,

Vinay

Bahl,

and Nesar

Ah-

mad

(henceforth

eferredo

as

Palat,

et

al.).

Here,

we are informed

that he

world-systems

chool

s

in

the

process

f

providing

recon-

ceptualization

f

South

Asian

history,

s well s

an

agenda

or outh

Asian

history

1986:

171).

Dissatisfaction

s

expressed

ith he

urrent

state f hehistoriography,hichwearetold)uses nappropriatenits

of

nalysis

erived rom

olitical istory

or

he

tudy

f

inkages

hat

are farbetter lluminated

y

the

concept,

world-economy.

Palat et

el. set out

n

the

space

of

ess than

forty

ages

to address

five

ssues

n

SouthAsian

history.

hese are

(i)

the rise and demise

of

omething

alled South

Asian

world-economy

etween

600-1750;

(ii)

the

incorporation

fSouthAsia

into he

European

or

capitalist)

world-economy

n

the

second

half f

the

eighteenth

entury;

iii)

the

limitedndustrialization

fBritish

ndia,

n the atenineteenth

nd

early

twentiethenturies;iv) theemergencend success fthe ndianNa-

REVIEW, XII, I, WINTER,

I989,

I4I-48

141


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

142

Sanjay

Subrahmanyam

tionalCongress; nd (v) thePartition f ndia. The very act hat

group

fhistoriansould

even etout to

answer uch

n enormous i-

versity

f

uestions,

owever

entatively,

n

so

short

space,

may

eem

a

reflection

n the

present

tate

f the

historiography

n South

Asia.

As we shall ee ahead

though,

he

problem

s not o much hat he

his-

toriography

s

sparse

nd hence

ripe

for old

generalizations,

s that

the

world-systems

chool

s

unfamiliar

ith

mportant

ections

f t.

Surely

necessary

ondition or

reconceptualization

s a

familiar-

ity

with xtant

oncepts.

In thepresent ote, shall onfinemyselfotakingssuewith alat

et al.

(as

well

s with

Wallerstein)

n the

very

tility

f

world-systems

perspective

or he

understanding

fSouth

Asian

history

etween

600

and

1750.

I

shall focus

n

particular

n the

concept

f the world-

economy,

nd its

application

o South

Asia.

The

primary

ontention

is that his

pproach,

arfrom

larifying

ny

major

ssues,

erves

s

a

diversionary

ctivity,horing

p

dated

views nd

perpetuating

meth-

odology

hat

ubstitutes

uperficial

econdary

aterial

or uthentic

oc-

umentation.

any

of hose

resently

orking

n thefield

re

dissatisfied

with heuse ofunits uch s theMughal ndianeconomy

r the

Vi-

jayanagar

conomy.

owever,

o

replace

hese

with he

oncept

f he

world-economy.

s

simply

ubstitutinging

Log by

King

Stork.

Readerswould

ecall hat

Wallerstein

n

the wovolumes

ublished

up

to nowof

TheModern

orld-System

as few omments

o offer

n

South

Asian

or

even

Asian)

history

n

the

period

500 o

1750.Asia

s treated

as

being

outside

he

European

world-economy

n

this

period,

o

be

incorporated

n

the

post-1750

ra.

The fewremarks

hat re made

on

Asia

serve,

n

point

f

fact,

o

mislead ather

han lluminate:

hus,

the characterizationf Euro-Asian

rade

n

the

sixteenthnd

seven-

teenth

enturiess

remarkable

nly

for

eing

wide

off

he

mark.Wal-

lersteinsserts

hat

n

the ixteenth

entury,

uro-Asianrade

witnessed

a considerable

xpansion,

ut then

ontracted

n

the

eventeenth

en-

tury,

hereas

n

fact,

as

any

tudent

f he

period

knows)

he ixteenth

century

aw

only

limited

xpansion

n

Euro-Asian

rade

nd the ev-

enteenth

entury

farmore

rapidgrowth

1980:

17-18).

Wallerstein's

more ecent

ssay

n the

incorporation

f he ndian ubcontinent

nto

the

apitalist

orld-economy

1986)

does

not

particularly

eassure ne

on the xtentfhisgrasp f he

iteraturen South

Asian

history,

irca

1500 o

1750.

Still,

thas the

virtue f

consistency,

ontinuing

o assert




4/9

world-economies and south

asia,

1600-1750

143

that the ndiansubcontinentefore 750 was]a zone largely xter-

nal

to the

operations

f the then

Europe-basedcapitalist

world-

economy.

. .

1750-1850

was]

the

period

during

which

t,

along

with

many

ther

arts

f he

world,

as

ncorporated

nto he

world-economy

(1986:34).

In

the

period

etween

oughly

500 nd

1750,

we

may

on-

clude from

Wallerstein,

herewas

a

European

world-economy

nd

an

Asian

world-economy.

uro-Asianrade

nd the

Company

resence

in

Asian waters

epresented

he

meager

meeting

round

fthese

wo.

It

might

e

useful t this

oint

o consider

fwhat

his

Asianworld-

economymight aveconsisted.Wallersteins, after ll,notalonein

his use ofthe

term. ernand

Braudel,

n his three

olume

work,

Civ-

ilizationnd

Capitalism,

5th-18th

entury

1981,

1982,

1984),

also

makes

repeated

se

ofthe

term

world-economy

hile

dealing

withAsia

in

the

period

1500-1750.

We learn

from

imthat

n

this

poch,

the

Far

East taken

s

a whole

onsisted

fthree

igantic

orld

conomies:

s-

lam,

overlooking

he

ndian

Ocean,.

. .

India

. . .

and China

1984:

484).

However,

lsewhere

n the

same

work,

we also

encounter

men-

tion

fother

sian

world-economies,

ost

notably

he

Turkish

orld-

economy,ndaJapaneseworld-economy,hat eems ohave

ome

nto

existence

n the

1630's.

More

confusing

till

s

Braudel's

ssertion

hat

between

he

15th

nd

the

18th

enturies,

t s

perhaps

ermissible

o

talk

of

a

single

world-economy

roadly

mbracing

ll three -

hina,

India

and

the

slamic

world

1984:

441,

467,

484,

533,

passim.).

his

somewhat

mbarrassing

urfeit

f

world-economies

n

the

Asia

ofthe

period

500-1750

ay

rompt

he

eader

o

ask

what

world-economy

is

anyway.

ccording

o

K.

N.

Chaudhuri,

he

erm

whenused

in

the

sense

dopted

by

Fernand

raudel

ignifies

a well-defined

conomic

area under he nfluencefa central-placercentral egion with]

functional

nd

possibly

ierarchical

elationship

etween

he

enter

nd

peripheral

reas

1985:

230).

If

ndeed

we

accept

he

notion

f

single

world-economy

mbracing

he

slamic

world,

ndia,

and

China,

where

might

his

picenter

e?

Hard

pressed

or

n

answer,

iels

Steensgaard

has

recently

rovided

hree

andidates:

Melaka

from

400 o

1500,

Goa

from

500

o

1600,

nd

Batavia

from

600

o

1700

1987).

This absurd

characterization,

hich

onfuses

he

history

f

European

xpansion

n

Asia

with he

tructure

f

he

Asian

economy

n

the

period,

till

waits

a justificationn Loschianterms.1

A

second

ook

t

what

Braudel

erms

world-economies

n theAsian




5/9

144

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

context hows hat he ermlikemany thermodeworten)as ittle on-

tent r

utility.

e are

n

fact

ealing

with

erfectly

onventionalnits

the

Ottoman

empire,

he

Islamic worldof the Middle

East, India,

China,

the ndian

Ocean,

the

Trading

World

f

Asia,

and so on

-

and

glorifying

hemwith he uffix

world-economy.

as this larified

ny

issue?

To

return o Palat et

al.,

as wellas to

Wallerstein,

heir

otion f

the

world-economy

arries

ar

moredefinite

aggage.

First,

t s not

an

empire,

heother ort f

world-system

hat heir hesaurus d-

mits. n a world-economylaWallerstein,heremust e a core nd

a

periphery

plus

the

rag-bag

f

semiperiphery ),

nd above ll there

mustbe

unequal

exchange.

Unequal

exchange

s

defined,

ot n

the

rigorous

but

probably

ndefensible)

erms

fa

labor

theory

f

value,

but

somemore nchoate

oncept

f

monopoly, onopsony,

nd a con-

sequent

deviation romwhat

early

classicaleconomists

might

have

termed

just

rice.

ll

this

s

summed

p

in

thedefinitionhat

alat,

et

al.,

provide

f

a

world-economy :

unit hat involvesn

integra-

tionof

production rocesses

n a

hierarchical ivision f aborwithin

an

interstate

ystem1986: 174).Now,

f

ne s to follow hese

uthors,

such

n

entity

ame nto xistence

n

SouthAsia around

1600,

where-

as

previously

t had not

existed.

Regrettably,

ts

geographical

xtent

remains

ague.Apparently,

t ncluded he

ndian

sub-continent,

ut

the other

omponent arts

re

never

learly

elineated.

Moreover,

f

it s

referredo at times s the

SouthAsian

world-economy,

qually

it

appears

on other ccasions s

the ndian

Ocean

world-economy,

as

if

he

wo

weremuch he ame.So

much or ts

being

well-defined

economic

rea. Above

all,

it s

a

profoundly

ndo-centric

ntity:

he

principal

ausesfor tsrise

nd decline re

ocated

olely

n

ndia,

more

precisely

n

the

Gangetic

duab.

The rise f

his

world-economyby

he

arly

eventeenth

entury

is

explained

sing simplepolitical

vent: he

etting p

of

theDelhi

Sultanate.

According

o

Palat,

et

al.,

the

stablishmentf the

Delhi

Sultanate

n

the

mid-thirteenth

entury

et n

motion

series f

eco-

nomic

nd

political rocesses

hat ed

tothe

mergence

f

SouthAsian

world-economyy

the

early

eventeenth

entury.

he

rulers f

Delhi

apparently

laimed

larger

hare

f he

grarian

urplus

han

did

pre-

decessor

tates, r,

f

nothinglse,replaced

host f

ndividual axes

by

a

single

ax. This

is

a

change

hat s

for ome

reason

thought

o




6/9

world-economies

and

south

asia,

1600-1750

145

be of momentousmport. he surplus lass wasnaturally rincipally

resident

n theurban

reas,

nd used

the

grarian

urplus

o

fuel

raft

production.

rowing

manufactures

aturally

timulated

rade,

nd

translated

given

ome

heroically

nstated

hanges

lsewhere

n

Asia)

to

a

South

Asian

world-economy,

1986:

173-76,

assim.).2

his

world-

economy

ontinued

o function

uring

he

eventeenth

entury

nd

the

first

alf fthe

eighteenth

entury.

owever,

round

1750

the

nicely

traditional

ate of

Plassey)

the

ndian

subcontinent

tarts

o be

in-

corporated

which

may

be

read

as

colonized ).

he causes

ofthe

de-

miseof heSouthAsian oris the ndianOcean?)world-economyre

again

simple

nd

perfectly

rthodox.

uropean

ntrusion

accelerates

the

dismemberment

f

he

world-economy -

curious

elief,

iven

hat

in

the

erms

f

Palat,

t

al.,

the

world-economy

f

South

Asia did

not

even

xist

efore

he

European

ntrusion.3

ut

the

real

cause

ofthe

de-

mise

of

the

world-economy

s

another

raditional

hipping-boy:

he

jagirdari-ijaradari

risis

f he

ate

eventeenth

nd

early

ighteenth

en-

turies.

his

eads

to

the

subversion

f

peasant

griculture

in

Habib's

hyperbolic

hrase,

ited

with

pproval

y

Wallerstein

nd

Palat,

t

al.);

thedeath n 1707ofAurangzeb,hatmost lichéd

f

subcontinental

turning-points,

s

followed

y

political

ragmentation

hat

was si-

multaneously

process

f he

disarticulation

f he

South

Asian

world-

economy

Palat,

et

al.,

1986:

178).

For

historians

ho

profess

reat

disdain

for

raditional

olitical

istory,

alat,

et

al.,

are

quite

unspar-

ing

n their

ecourse

o

it.

The

central

roblem

with

he

thesis

s

it

stands

s that

ne

is

left

wholly

nconvinced

f

he

xistence

f

n

animal

alled

he

South

Asian

(or

Indian

Ocean)

world-economy

n

the

period

from

600

to

1750.

However,etus momentarilyhelve his ssue

and

first

onsider

he

methodological

trategy

dopted

by

Palat,

et

al.

To

explain

he

riseof

this

world-economy,

ecourse

s

taken

o

the

State

as deus

x

machina,

confirming

he

orthodox

iew

hat

tates

an

affect

ocieties

or

pen-

etrate

hem,

s

the

phrase

goes),

but

are

not

an

organic

part

of so-

cieties

t

all.

This

is

a

peculiar

orm

f

political

eterminism

hat

its

very

neasily

n

the

model

of

economic

nterlinkages

hat

he

world-

systems

chool

eems

o

espouse.

t

is

also

quite

simply

ncorrect,

s

well

s

misleading

s

an

approach

o

the

relationship

etween

tate

nd

society nd stateformationn general.4

Looking

now

o

the

rgument

oncerning

ow

he

world-economy




7/9

146

Sanjay Subrahmanyam

centered roundSouthAsia perished,neobserves hatneitherWal-

lerstein or

Palat,

et

al.,

take

ny

noteof

n

extensive

iterature

rep-

resented or nstance

y

he

writings

fC.

A.

Bayly

1983],

rank erlin

[1985;

1978;

1985],

Stewart ordon

1977],

nd more

recently

ndré

Wink

1986],

nd Muzaffar

lam

[1986])

on

the

eighteenth

entury.5

To sum

up

the

mport

fthis iterature

which

s

by

no meansmono-

lithic

though),

these

writings onvincingly

emonstrate

hat the

eighteenthentury-

ar rom

eing period

f he subversion

f

peas-

ant

agriculture -

as characterized

y

a

prosperous

nd at

times a-

pidly xpanding easant roduction.he decline f heMughal mpire

did not mean economic

haos,

any

morethandid

the

decline

f the

Vijayanagar

mpire

omewhat ver

century

arlier.

ll

this vidence

seems o

have

escaped

henotice

f

Wallerstein,

nd

Palat,

t

al.,

who

fall nto he onventional

rap

hat tems

rom

use of

purely olitical

units o

study

conomic

nterlinkages.

ar

from

roviding

recon-

ceptualization,

heir

writings

hus

reiterate

oaryhistoriographical

myths.

Moreover,

o return o the central

ssue,

that

f

the South

Asian

world-economy,

nd

of

the

xtent f

this

nit,

t s here hat hewhole

edifice rumbles.Wherewas the core and whatwas the

periphery

f

this

world-economy?

he

Greater

ndia

perspective

f

Palat,

et al.

might

ead

them

o believe hat he ndian

sub-continentas

indeed

the

core,

nd areas

such as Indonesia he

periphery.

here are

three

majorproblems

with hisview.

First,

t

does not

provide

n

adequate

characterizationf

xchange

etween hina nd

Southeast sia

Souza,

1986:ch.

I).6

Secondly,

t s

really

crudeform

f volutionism:

ndia

exported

extiles,

hichwere

higher p

on some scale of

achieve-

ment

hanthe

pepper, pices,

r

base and

precious

metals

produced

and

exported

rom

ndonesia.

But the

third

bjection

s the

most el-

ling

of ll: where n all

this s

unequal

exchange?

We

note he

discreet

silenceof

the

world-systems

choolon this

ssue,

and

suggest

hat

t

is

significant.7

To

sum

up

then,

what s

proposed

y

the

world-systems

rotag-

onists s a

trivialization

f

South Asian

history,

ased on

some mis-

conceptions

nd the

orthodoxies

f several

decades

ago.

That this

viewpoint

as

received ven

ome

imited

urrency

o far

mong

his-

torians f

SouthAsia

stems rom

desire

particularly

vident

mongSouthAsianistsnthe

West)

o

universalize

he

history

f he

region,




8/9

world-economies

and

south

asia,

1600-1750

147

as wellas to conceptualize t any price.The formers no doubta

laudable

end,

but it cannotbe

separated

rom he means used.

It

is

thebelief f at

least some ofthose

presently orking

n

the

field hat

South Asian

history

ill

be takenmore

seriously y

other

rea

spe-

cialists

f

sufficientumber

f

authentic

nd

high-quality

orks re

produced,

hich

appen

o throw

p problems

hat

eally

ave

broad

appeal

either

oncrete r

more ikely)

methodological.8

thers

re-

ferwhat eems

simpler ath

to universalization :

oarding

n

ex-

isting

andwagon.

his s

where he

dialectic

etween

nds

nd

means

mustbe perceived. he short-cuts bound to prove ongand diver-

sionary,

iven

he

ickety

hape

f hewheels

f

urrently

vailable

and-

wagons.

NOTES

1. The reference

s

naturally

o

the lassic

work f

August

osch

1954),

which orms he

basis for he

study

f hierarchical

market

tructures.

2.

This view f

manufactures

s determined

in

a

Quesnay-esque

ashion)

y

hedemand

ofthe

urplus-class

s criticized

n

Subrahmanyam

1986b:

ch.

VIII).

The

critique

ocuses

n

particularn Raychaudhuri1981).

3. Note too

the

unsatisfactory

iscussion

fthe

olonization

f

ndia,

where

escription

is confused

with

xplanation1986:

178-84).

4.

On

this

uestion,

ee

Perlin

1985)

and

Subrahmanyam

1986a).

5. To

this,

ne can add

numerous

ther

writings,

ut these

lone

should

uffice

o

make

the

point

lear.

This

particular

spect

of the

world-systems

chool

generalizations

ased

on

a

highly

ncomplete

nderstanding

f

even

econdary

material

is noted

albeit

n a tor-

tuous

fashion)

y

FrankPerlin

1986:

16-22).

6.

The

unwary

world-systems

heorist

may

well onclude

rom

ouzas

discussion

hat

Southeast

Asia

in fact

played

he

role of

periphery

o China's

core.

7. The

problems

resented

y

the

oncept

f

unequal

xchange

avebeen

noted

n the

context

f he

European

world-economyy

everal

f

Wallerstein's

ritics.

or

particularly

sharp

omment

though

erhaps

oo

simplistically

eo-classical

n the

lternative

t

presents),

see Klein 1982).

8. It s

mportant

ot o

employ

ouble

tandards

ere. t

s no

more

ncumbent

n

a south

Asianist

o

pose

problems

with

universal

ppeal

than t

is on

a historian

f,

ay,

medieval

France.

Of

course,

t is no

less so

either.

REFERENCES

Alam,

Muzaffar

1986).

The

Crisis

f

mpire

n

Mughal

orth

ndia.

Delhi: Oxford

Univ.

Press.

Bayly,

.

A.

(1983).

Rulers,

ownsmen

nd

Bazaars.

ambridge:

Cambridge

Univ.

Fress.

Braudel,

Fernand

1981,

1982,

1984).

Civilization

nd

Capitalism,

M-Wth

entury,

vols.

New

York:

Harper

&

Row.

Braudel,Fernand 1984). CivilizationndCapitalism,5th-18thentury,II: ThePerspectivef heWorld.

New York:

Harper

&

Row.




9/9

148

Sanjay

Subrahmanyam

Chaudhuri,

K. N.

(1985).

Trade nd Civilisation

n the ndianOcean.

ambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press.

Gordon,

Stewart

1977).

The

Slow

Conquest,

Modern sian

tudies, , 2,

Apr.,

1-40.

Klein,

R. W. Dutch

Capital

and the

European

World-

conomy,

n

Maurice

Aymard,

d.,

Dutch

apitalism

nd World

apitalism. ambridge:

Cambridge

Univ.

Press,

75-91.

Losch,

August

1954).

TheEconomies

f

Location. ew

Haven:

Yale

Univ.

Press.

Palat,Ravi,

et

l.

(1986).

The

ncorporation

nd

Peripheralization

f outh

Asia,

1600-1950,

Review, , 1, Sum.,

171-208.

Perlin,

rank

1978).

Of

WhiteWhale

and

Countrymen

n the

Eighteenth-Century

ara-

tha

Deccan,

Journalf

Peasant

tudies,

, 2,

Jan.,

172-37.

Perlin,

Frank

1985).

StateFormation

econsidered,

odern

sian

tudies,

IX, 3,

July,

415-80.

Perlin,

Frank

1986).

Comparative

istory,

r

Groping

Around

n

All

Fours,

unpubl.

paperpresentedo the nternational orkshopnRuralTransformationnAsia,Delhi,

October

2-4.

Raychaudhuri,

apan (1982).

Inland

Trade,

n

T. Rauchaudhuri

I.

Habib,

eds.,

The

Cambridge

conomic

istoryf

ndia,

,c.

1200-c.

1750.

Cambridge:

ambridge

niv.

Press,

325-59.

Steensgaard,

iels

1987).

The IndianOcean

Network

nd the

Emerging

World-bconomy

(c.

1550

to

1750),

n S.

Chandra,

d.

The

ndianOcean:

xplorations

n

History,

ommerce

and

Politics.

ew

Delhi:

Saçe,

125-50.

Souza,

George

B.

(1986).

The urvival

f

Empire:

ortuguese

rade

nd

Society

n China

nd

the

South

hina

ea,

1630-1754.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

Univ.

Press.

Subrahmanyam,

anjay 1986a).

Aspects

f

State

Formation

n South

ndia

and

South-East

Asia,

1500-1650,

ndian

conomic

nd Social

History

eview,

XIII, 4,

356-77.

Subrahmanyam,anjay 1986b).

Trade

nd the

Regional

conomy

f

ndia,

c.

1550 o

1650,

unpubl.

Ph. D. Diss., Univ. ofDelhi.

Wallerstein,

mmanuel

1974).

The

Modern

World-System,

:

Capitalist

griculture

nd

he

rigins

of

he

uropean

World-Economy

n the

ixteenth

entury.

ew

York:

Academic

Press.

Wallerstein,

mmanuel

1980).

The

Modern

World-System,

I:

Mercantilism

nd

the onsolidation

of

he

uropean

World-Economy,

600-1750.

New

York:

Academic

Press.

Wallerstein,

mmanuel

1986).

Incorporation

f

he

ndian

Subcontinent

nto

he

Capitalist

World-Economy,

conomic

nd

Political

Weekly,

XI, 4,

Jan.,

PE-28-PE-39.

Wink,

André

1986).

Land

and

Sovereignty

n

ndia.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

Univ.

Fress.

This content downloaded from 128 97 227 216 on Tue 02 Feb 2016 23:05:47 UTC

world-economies and south asia 1600-1750

Documents