History · Ch 8 — Peasants, Zamindars and the State — Agrarian Society and the Mughal Empire
A “little republic”?
A “little republic”?
The British officials who studied Indian villages in the nineteenth century often romanticised them as “little republics”. They imagined these communities as fraternal partnerships where everyone shared resources and labour collectively. This picture, however, was deeply misleading.
Far from being egalitarian, the Mughal village was marked by individual ownership of assets and sharp inequities based on caste and gender. A small group of powerful individuals — usually from dominant landholding castes — controlled village affairs. They exploited weaker sections, dispensed justice, and made all key decisions. The village was not a harmonious collective; it was a hierarchy.
The phrase “little republic” suggests equality and shared rule. In reality, the village was run by a handful of powerful men who held authority over others — it was a republic only for the few.
By the Mughal period, a cash nexus had already developed. Trade between villages and towns was common, and revenue was assessed and collected in cash, not kind. Artisans producing for the export market — weavers, for instance — received advances or wages in cash. Producers of commercial crops like cotton, silk, or indigo were also paid in cash. This means that even in the countryside, money was a routine part of economic life, not a later colonial imposition.
- Ownership: Individual, not communal.
- Inequality: Deep divisions by caste and gender.
- Power: Concentrated in a few hands — they exploited the weak and dispensed justice. …