DDK HistoryF.p65 - CSIR

POSITIONS OF MERCHANTS 393
Robbers naturally infested every road, though no more a tribulation
than the tax-farmers. The Venetian ends with a curious observation
(4.409) “There our Italian proverb applies : ‘ The big fish eat the little
ones.” This was precisely the matsya-nyaya whose prevention was
considered the main duty of the state by the Arthasastra and the
Manusmrti. This letter to Colbert (Bernier 8 1269-330; trans. 200-
238) shows the reactions of a French bourgeois, who had studied the
philosophy of Descartes and Gassendi, to a decayed feudalism without
any real hereditary right. His own proto-bourgeoisie had come to terms
with the feudal lords for a while. The lit de justice was still a recent
memory in France, Louis XIV as seemingly absolute in his own way as
Aurangzeb. But the class basis and relations of production were totally
different. What the bourgeoisie appreciated most was that the merchants
in France paid tolls but no taxes on profits. The very fact that Colbert
could become intendant of finance shows the position of the emergent
class in France. The insecurity did not prevent the rise of rich
merchants in Indian port towns, which Bernier did not study. Viji
Vora (Mor C. 153-5) of Surat was reputed to be “the richest merchant
in the world”, with an undisclosed fortune of millions. In 1642, the
British factors at Surat tried to shake off his monopoly of trade, but he
still held it four years later; indeed, the British merchants had to rely on
him for financing long-term transactions, which he did willingly.
Nevertheless, he was summarily jailed in 1638 by the local governor —
who was summoned to the court of Delhi and removed from his post,
presumably by influence of the protectors who had received gifts from
the merchant prince, for there is no record of any trial anywhere.
Fatehchand, whose family came from Jodhpur and who had the
title of Jagat Sheth without official position in the feudal hierarchy,
completely dominated the bullion-market, exchange, and hence the
finances of Bengal, without control over any armed forces. The British
could get nothing done without his favour in the first half of the 18th
century. On the other hand, he found transactions with them so
regularly profitable that he gave them loans at a rate of interest below
the standard twelve per cent. Transport then cost an