The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 15 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Celebrating a Study of India’s Agrarian History
Open accessAbstract
International Development, Political Economy
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This special essay marks the fiftieth anniversary of Irfan Habib's *The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1556–1707)* by reviewing the book's scope, source base, reception, and the substantial changes made in its 1999 second edition. Moosvi argues the work remains a landmark whose revised edition has been under-noticed by reviewers despite its important reinterpretation of the village community.
Key findings
- Habib's 1963 book (454 pages) was widely acclaimed: Tapan Raychaudhuri called its publication one of the rare occasions that "stir the turbid and yet extensive waters of Indian historiography," and Percival Spear described it as "a brilliant achievement in breadth and depth by a still young scholar." Its novelty lay in an integrated scope covering production, consumption, trade, famine, agrarian rights, taxation and administration, and in a fundamental extension of the source base to Persian manuscripts, archival documents, travellers' accounts and modern official literature.
- Criticism was tempered: many Indian historians held that Mughal conditions were described "in much harsher terms than was warranted by the evidence," that the oppressive nature of the Mughal state was overstated; M. Athar Ali disputed excessive exploitation and peasant revolts, and J. F. Richards rejected the agrarian-crisis thesis "in toto."
- The 1999 second edition (548 pages, nearly 100 pages longer) retained the original structure except Chapter IV ("Village Community"), which was "entirely recast and greatly enlarged"; Habib states his views on the village community "changed substantially," no longer treating differentiation and internal oligarchy as signs of the community's disruption and decline.
- Chapter 9, "The Agrarian Crisis of the Mughal Empire," remained largely the same but added a caveat about "the universal propensity to contrast the grim present with a rosier past" and a new recognition of the rebelling peasants' ideological backwardness. The second edition drew almost no reviews (few in India, none abroad), though a paperback followed the next year and there have been at least eight reprints since.
Methods
- This is a historiographical review essay, not an empirical study; it analyses the content, reception and revisions of Habib's book rather than presenting new primary data.
- It draws on published reviews and responses (Raychaudhuri 1965; Spear 1965; Pignatelli 1964–65; Athar Ali 1966; Richards 1993) and on close comparison of passages from the 1963 and 1999 editions.
- Main analysis is qualitative: juxtaposing first- and second-edition passages, tracing Habib's engagement with Marxist historiography, and assessing the second edition's additions and omissions.
Limitations
- The paper states that the second edition "offers no improvement on the first edition" on gender, retaining "the unspoken assumption that one can ignore the treatment meted out to women as being outside the scope of agrarian history," despite Habib's own 2000 essay on medieval gender history.
- It also notes Habib's "avoidance of any direct debate with his critics," with Raychaudhuri's critique not directly addressed and absent from the Bibliography; the author herself calls these "trivial complaints."
- Evident from the text (not stated as a limitation by the author): the essay is explicitly celebratory and the author notes her own prior involvement, having been "perhaps the first to seek some modifications" to Habib's agrarian-crisis thesis (Moosvi 1985), which may colour the assessment.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 Sources not found · 12 No basis given · 4 Own interpretation · 3 Own result · 1 Not checked yet
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As I have already suggested, acclaim was tempered by criticism in the scholarly responses to ASMI.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data also show that there was no difference in such matters between the centre and the periphery of the empire.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The year 2013 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Irfan Habib's The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1556-1707) (Habib 1963; henceforth ASMI).”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 1963
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a spate of reviews, almost all favourable, in historical journals in India and abroad.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A very large amount of information has been added from a huge mass of new evidence, and practically all the evidence used earlier has been critically re-examined, and large portions of the text extensively rewritten.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, there was a fundamental extension of the source-base: Habib went to an impressive range of Persian manuscripts and archival documents, travellers' accounts and modern official literature, scouring them for all kinds of information.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An integrated study of all these phenomena and inter-relationships was absent from earlier work.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first was its extensive scope, its attempt to cover all aspects of agrarian life, production, consumption, trade, and famine, and to go on to such issues as the layers of agrarian rights of peasants and zamindars, and the state's taxation and administrative systems -all ending, finally, in an interpretation of the process of change within the agrarian order.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the Appendices to his book, Habib established the values of units of measures, weights, and money, which are essential for any statistical work on Mughal India.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 548-page reincarnation of ASMI is nearly 100 pages longer than the original edition.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There was a strong view, especially among Indian historians, that conditions in Mughal India had been described by the author in much harsher terms than was warranted by the evidence;”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Raychaudhuri 1965
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Athar Ali 1966
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The same argument is again put forward, with quotations from successive writers, that things were getting worse as compared to previous times (ibid., pp.371-73).”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was a matter of surprise to many that Irfan Habib did not let ASMI be reprinted or issued in a revised edition for as many as 36 years, so that the original edition of 1963 soon became a rarity.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More importantly, there is now an explicit recognition of the ideological backwardness of the rebelling peasants.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another grouse one could have is related to Habib's avoidance of any direct debate with his critics.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Very few journals in India, and none abroad, have cared to review it.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of journal reviews and reprints is a reliable indicator of a book's impact and readership.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The important new interpretation of the village community has gone largely unnoticed, not to speak of the numerous refinements introduced in the formulations of the first edition.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One aspect in which the second edition of ASMI offers no improvement on the first edition is on the question of gender.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The points raised by Tapan Raychaudhuri in his long critique, published in Enquiry (Raychaudhuri 1965), are not directly addressed, and his paper does not appear in the book's Bibliography.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Raychaudhuri 1965
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither of these two points is touched upon in the second edition of ASMI.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“While he is punctilious in acknowledging any contribution to the subject under consideration, in however minor a detail (for example, see the note on mawas; Habib 1999, p. 379), this courtesy is not always extended to scholars who tend to disagree with him on major issues.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Other critics, like M. Athar Ali and J. F. Richards, do appear in the Bibliography, but their views, as well as mine, on the agrarian crisis have not been deemed worthy of explicit notice in the book.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Athar Ali 1966
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Richards 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“His conclusion was that the economy had a large sector of commodity production and a high degree of monetisation, yet without any noticeable potentiality of capitalist development (Habib 1969b and1971).”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 1969b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Habib 1971
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“J. F. Richards, in his New Cambridge History of India volume, The Mughal Empire, after fairly accurately describing Habib's argument, rejected it in toto, but more on the basis of statements made ex cathedra than by demonstration from contrary evidence (Richards 1993, pp. 291-92).”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Richards 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The book was a revised and enlarged version of a D. Phil.thesis submitted in 1958 at the University of Oxford, where the author had gone on a Government of India scholarship from 1955 to 1958.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enabled him to establish many points of detail and meanings of technical terms, besides clarifying various modes of administrative practices, which had remained obscure or even unknown to his predecessors.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The thesis itself, however, is an attempt to describe the agrarian situation in Mughal times with a view to finding out how and where it would fit in a Marxist framework, rather than a direct application of the conventional Marxist framework to the historical situation.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In his preface he explains that this is due to limitations of space; he has offered his evidence, so let the reader decide between him and his critics (whom, in most cases, the reader is left to trace for himself).”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact, however, that the publishers issued a paperback edition the very next year of its publication, and that there have been at least eight reprints since then, suggests that the book has an increasing number of readers (despite the lack of translation of the revised edition into any of the Indian languages) and is bound to make its influence felt on Indian historiography.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of journal reviews and reprints is a reliable indicator of a book's impact and readership.
In the paper
“secondly, the sub-exploitation of women by men of the exploited classes was a major ideological means of binding the men to the existing social order.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It continues with the unspoken assumption that one can ignore the treatment meted out to women as being outside the scope of agrarian history.”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He made two important points in the essay: first, the exploitation of women in medieval India often took the form of assigning them some of the hardest forms of manual labour, such as flour-milling, carrying bricks, and spinning (which causes great strain to the fingers);”
§ Celebrating a Study of India's Agrarian History > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Habib 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of journal reviews and reprints is a reliable indicator of a book's impact and readership.
“Very few journals in India, and none abroad, have cared to review it.”
“there have been at least eight reprints since then, suggests that the book has an increasing number of readers”
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Davies, Colin C. (1965), "Review of The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1556-1707)
- by Irfan Habib, " History, Journal of the Historical Association, vol.
- Gupta, D. N. (ed.) (1995), Changing Modes of Production in India: An Historical Analysis, Hindu College, Delhi.
- Habib, Irfan (1969a), "Problems of Marxist Historical Analysis, " Enquiry, New Series, vol. 3, no.
- Habib, Irfan (1969b), "Potentialities of Capitalistic Development in the Economy of Mughal India, " Journal of Economic History, vol. 29, March.
- Habib, Irfan (1971), "Potentialities of Capitalistic Development in the Economy of Mughal India, " Enquiry, New Series, vol. 5, no.
- Habib, Irfan (1982), An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
- Habib, Irfan (1983), "Marx's Perception of India, " The Marxist, vol. 1, no.
- Habib, Irfan (1985a), "Studying a Colonial Economy -Without Perceiving Colonialism, " Modern Asian Studies, vol. 19, no.
- Habib, Irfan (1985b), "Processes of Accumulation in Pre-Colonial and Colonial India, " Indian Historical Review, vol. XI, nos. 1-2.
- Habib, Irfan (1987), "A System of Trimetallism in the Age of the Price Revolution", in J. F. Richards (ed.), The Imperial Monetary System of Mughal India, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
- Habib, Irfan (1995b), "Mode of Production in Medieval India, " in D. N. Gupta (ed.), Changing Modes of Production in India: An Historical Analysis, Hindu College, Delhi.
- Habib, Irfan (1999), The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1556-1707), second (revised) edition, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
- Habib, Irfan (2000), "Exploring Medieval Gender History, " paper presented at a symposium, Indian History Congress, Aligarh.
- Hobsbawm, Eric (1964), "Introduction, " in Hobsbawm, Eric (ed.), Karl Marx: Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, Jack Cohen (trans.), Lawrence and Wishart, London.
- Marx, Karl (1887), Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, Frederick Engels (ed.), Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (trans.), Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey & Co., London.
- Moosvi, Shireen (1985), "Scarcities, Prices and Exploitation: The Agrarian Crisis, 1658-70, " Studies in History, vol. 1, no.
- Moosvi, Shireen (1995), "Comments" (on Irfan Habib, "Mode of Production in Medieval India"), in D. N. Gupta (ed.), Changing Modes of Production in India: An Historical Analysis, Hindu College, Delhi.
- Moreland, W. H. (1929), The Agrarian System of Moslem India: A Historical essay with Appendices, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Pignatelli, Luigi (1964-65), "Review of The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1556-1707)
- by Irfan Habib, " East and West, New Series, vol. 15, nos. 1-2.
- Raychaudhuri, Tapan (1965), "The Agrarian System of Mughal India, " Enquiry, New Series, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring.
- Raychaudhuri, Tapan, and Habib, Irfan (eds.) (1982), The Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Richards, J. F. (ed.) (1987), The Imperial Monetary System of Mughal India, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
- Richards, J. F. (1993), The Mughal Empire, The New Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1.5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Spear, Percival (1965), A History of India, vol. 2, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
- Wittfogel, Karl A. (1957), Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study in Total Power, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Moosvi, S.
- Corresponding author
- Moosvi, Shireen
- Venue
- Review of Agrarian Studies
- Publisher
- Foundation for Agrarian Studies
- Published
- 2013-12-31
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 105-112
- ISSN
- 2248-9002 (ISSN-L)
- 2249-4405
- OpenAlex
- W2276604640
- Semantic Scholar
- ba481e04a2c8652e32671480ffb40f7b30f9ce3c
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ageconsearch.umn.edu
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Review of Agrarian Studies (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Review of Agrarian Studies (submittedVersion)
- The journal (submittedVersion)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Development › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Practices
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
- Keywords
- agricultural history, agrarian studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
