Introduction
The characterisation of eighteenth-century India as an era of pervasive political collapse and predatory statecraft stems from the conventional 'Dark Age' historiography associated with historians like Jadunath Sarkar and Irfan Habib. Conversely, revisionist scholars like C.A. Bayly and Muzaffar Alam emphasise regional dynamism and the rise of sophisticated successor states. Tipu Sultan's Mysore epitomised this paradox: while it established an institutionalised, mercantilist military-fiscal state, persistent interstate warfare inevitably forced it to adopt predatory resource extraction.
Tipu Sultan: Transcending the 'System of Plundering'
Unlike contemporary polities that relied heavily on fragmented revenue farming and decentralised coercion, Tipu attempted to construct a rationalised, centralized administration:
- Institutional Modernization: Tipu curtailed the intermediary authority of traditional palegars (poligars) in the Mysore core, fostering a direct administrative relationship with the peasantry managed by state-appointed provincial governors (Asafs), exhibiting early features of a Ryotwari settlement.
- Mercantilist Statecraft: Transcending rudimentary extraction, the state actively engaged in domestic production and overseas trade. Tipu established a Commercial Board, maintained strict state monopolies over commodities like sandalwood, pepper, and silk, and dispatched diplomatic-commercial embassies to Muscat and Pegu.
- Military Innovation and Global Diplomacy: Tipu modernised his army with iron-cased artillery rockets and European-drilled infantry. He also cultivated ideological linkages beyond conventional feudal lines, famously establishing links with the French Jacobin Club and planting a Tree of Liberty at Srirangapatna.
Reproduction of the Crisis: Predatory Statecraft and Structural Limits
Despite progressive features at the core, the structural demands of constant conflict compelled the Mysore state to reproduce many aspects of eighteenth-century predation:
- Military-Fiscal Squeeze: Confronting four Anglo-Mysore Wars alongside regular clashes with the Marathas and the Nizam, Mysore operated under immense fiscal strain. Meeting high military expenditures necessitated exorbitant taxation on agrarian producers, blurring the boundary between regularised revenue assessment and predatory extraction.
- Coercion in the Peripheries: While administration remained relatively stable within the Mysore heartland, expansion into peripheral territories—such as Malabar, Coorg, and Mangalore—witnessed heavy-handed subjugation, punitive deportations, and aggressive interventions. In these frontier regions, governance reverted to naked fiscal and territorial extraction.
- Authoritarian Centralization: Aggressive elimination of traditional intermediaries provoked deep resistance from local elites, including Nairs and Palegars. Lacking hegemonic consensus, the state frequently relied on armed force and coercion to enforce compliance.
Conclusion
Tipu Sultan represented the zenith of the eighteenth-century military-fiscal state. While his mercantilist initiatives and institutional centralization directly challenged the narrative of unmitigated eighteenth-century plunder, geopolitical encirclement and perpetual war structurally trapped his regime into the very cycle of predatory extraction he strove to overcome.