‘Soldier of Misfortune’: Comte de Modave’s view of India in 18th century

Salil Misra

In its long history, India has always attracted a large number of outsiders, not just rulers and conquerors, but also traders and travellers. Some of them left important accounts of Indian society and polity. It all started with Megasthanese, the ambassador from Greece, who made some profound observations on India in his book ‘Indica’, over 2,000 years ago. Since then, there has been a long chain of observations by outsiders on India. Being outsiders, they noticed some distinctive features, which would not have been noticed by Indians. These observations contain crucial insights for historians trying to understand the country’s past. They actually constitute important source material for creating historical knowledge.

The book under review contains the observations and memoirs of Comte de Modave, a French army officer-cum-businessman-cum-policymaker, who came to India in 1757, 1764 and in 1772, when he lived here till he died in 1777. Modave was an extremely perceptive observer of realities and came in contact with a large number of people in India, both the elite and the commoners. He created a detailed mass of information about India. His observations remained somewhat unknown to people till they were published in French in 1971. His memoirs have now been translated into English and admirably annotated by historian GS Cheema. The book, in two volumes, is a mine of useful information about 18th-century India and is, therefore, of great relevance for professional historians. Modave has written his travel accounts with rich descriptions of cities such as Patna, Banaras, Faizabad, Delhi and Hyderabad. He has written about people and communities, religions and rituals, agriculture, trade and commerce, and about kings and queens. In short, Modave has cast his glance on political, economic and social history. Common people are as much on his radar as kings.

How did Modave form his impressions about Indian society and people? His opinions and observations were generally based on three sources. Modave inherited the insights offered by his predecessors, who came to India before him. In particular, he relied a great deal upon the impressions left by Charles Bernier, who came to India exactly a century earlier. Interestingly, Modave often found that India had not changed very much during the period between Bernier and him. Secondly, Modave formulated his ideas on the basis of his observations, encounters, and experiences during the long periods of his journeys from Calcutta to Patna and from Faizabad to Delhi. Thirdly, he also imbibed and internalised the general stereotypical ideas that were prevalent during his times. Many shibboleths about India find a mention in his records. To take an example, Modave writes at one place: “Unlike us Europeans, [Indians] are not curious to learn. There are perhaps, not even twenty people in Hindustan who have any detailed knowledge of the history of their own country. Those heading the affairs try to tackle the problems and situations that arise according to their interests and without any reference to the past, and any real understanding as to how the vicissitudes of the past have changed the picture.” Now, this is clearly a part of Europeans’ entirely mistaken view of Indian history. These notions were subsequently critiqued and repudiated by professional historians. There are many such references which make Modave’s account about India interesting, but not always reliable. Many such instances have been pointed out by GS Cheema, the historian-translator, in his notes at the end of the text.

India in the 18th century, as Modave saw, was politically divided into three zones – regions still under Mughal control, those that had passed into British hands, and areas that were somewhat autonomous under local rajas and chieftains. Interestingly, Modave observed greater prosperity not in the centralised zones, but in areas that were relatively free from centralised control, either of the British or of the Mughals. Manufacturing, textiles, farming, animal husbandry, all produced great wealth there.

On the whole, Modave understood India, particularly the parts he visited, as a land of unfulfilled potentials. The soil was extremely fertile, capable of generating prosperity. There was no dearth of wells, canals and other water bodies to irrigate the fields. But, in Modave’s view, what obstructed the great Indian potential from being realised was the absence of individual ownership. This gave no incentive to the farmers to try and harness the best results from their fields. This, of course, is an extremely debatable issue and many professional historians have subsequently written on this.

Modave provides some important clues on perhaps the single-most important question in the entire history of modern world. Why was it that the modern world came to be so comprehensively dominated by Europe, when there were no indications of such domination in the period prior to 16th century? Why was it that large Asian civilisations such as India, China and Egypt lagged far behind in the race for global supremacy? Why was Europe selected by history as the leader of modern world? In Modave’s view, the explanation lay not so much in economy but in the technology of warfare, recruitment and organisation of the army, military strategy, and coordination among different branches of the army. Evidently, the Europeans were far superior to Indian princes in all these respects. Indians, and other Asian powers, were absolutely no match for the vastly superior and efficient European armies. The military conquests then paved the way for a comprehensive economic domination. Modave’s explanation may not provide the entire clue to the riddle of “European supremacy”, but it certainly contains an important dimension of it.

Modave’s memoirs contain extremely rich accounts of the India of that time. These may not always be accurate, but are both interesting and illuminating. However, belonging as they do to their own times, his accounts are not expected to contain any reference to India of today. But, importantly enough, they do. To take one example, after highlighting Aurangzeb’s fanaticism and intolerance towards Hindus, Modave made an interesting observation in his description of the city of Banaras: “Aurangzeb raised a monument here, which seems to contradict his reputation for bigotry and intolerance. It is a large courtyard… On one side, there is a mosque, and on the other a temple with a large basin with running water for the ablutions prescribed by the law of Muhammad and the institutions of Brahma. This monument to tolerance is a proof that for reasons of state, Aurangzeb kept a careful balance between bigotry and superstition.” Sometimes, accounts of the past can give us important clues to the present as well.

This is an extremely useful book not just for scholars but for everyone interested in India’s past. It is rich with information on 18th-century India and constitutes an important window for a rich panoramic view of India’s past.