Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as Seen From the Dutch East India Company Factory in Surat

Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as Seen From the Dutch East India Company Factory in Surat <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the current debate about early modern European perceptions of Asia, the rich documentation produced by the Dutch East India Company has been largely overlooked. The Surat factory, whose correspondence is extant from 1636, was in close connection with the centers of Mughal authority, and the factory here, unlike in some other Dutch outposts, was never allowed to be transformed into a fortified enclosure from which the "hatmen" could challenge the agents of the state with impunity. In published accounts of Asian government, including those written in Dutch, "despots" held sway over lands whose only law was the ruler's whim. But Company documents from Surat (and elsewhere in India) consistently depict local officials as manipulating for their own profit their control over European trade, often in flagrant disregard of trading privileges carefully negotiated with the Mughal court. The image of an all-powerful sovereign, though not altogether absent, is sometimes evoked as a way of explaining to Company superiors in Batavia (Djakarta) or Amsterdam why their servants in Surat could not do as they were bidden. But if Company men developed over time a credible local knowledge of Mughal government, they were no different from stay-at-home European Christians in their view of the Mughal realm's Muslim elites: in this age of continuing warfare between Christendom and Islamdom, a "faithless Moor" was always and everywhere the same.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Early Modern History Brill

Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as Seen From the Dutch East India Company Factory in Surat

Journal of Early Modern History , Volume 3 (3): 256 – Jan 1, 1999

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/asian-despotism-mughal-government-as-seen-from-the-dutch-east-india-olxEvOXkp9

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1385-3783
eISSN
1570-0658
DOI
10.1163/157006599X00260
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the current debate about early modern European perceptions of Asia, the rich documentation produced by the Dutch East India Company has been largely overlooked. The Surat factory, whose correspondence is extant from 1636, was in close connection with the centers of Mughal authority, and the factory here, unlike in some other Dutch outposts, was never allowed to be transformed into a fortified enclosure from which the "hatmen" could challenge the agents of the state with impunity. In published accounts of Asian government, including those written in Dutch, "despots" held sway over lands whose only law was the ruler's whim. But Company documents from Surat (and elsewhere in India) consistently depict local officials as manipulating for their own profit their control over European trade, often in flagrant disregard of trading privileges carefully negotiated with the Mughal court. The image of an all-powerful sovereign, though not altogether absent, is sometimes evoked as a way of explaining to Company superiors in Batavia (Djakarta) or Amsterdam why their servants in Surat could not do as they were bidden. But if Company men developed over time a credible local knowledge of Mughal government, they were no different from stay-at-home European Christians in their view of the Mughal realm's Muslim elites: in this age of continuing warfare between Christendom and Islamdom, a "faithless Moor" was always and everywhere the same.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

Journal of Early Modern HistoryBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.