Changes

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century'' ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century'' ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>

==Bibliography==

==Bibliography==