| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 111.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 229 words from this article are provided below; about 553 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 111.2 | The History Cooperative

Farhat Hasan. State and Locality in Mughal India: Power Relations in Western India, c. 1572–1730. (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, number 61.) New York: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Pp. x, 144. $70.00.
Farhat Hasan makes two significant contributions to the history of Mughal India. On the one hand, he brings an interest in recent European scholarship on the nature of power in the early modern world and the relationship of state and society. On the other, he has mined three important but overlooked sources—two collections of documents and a diary—for the history of Cambay and Surat, two west-coast commercial centers in the Mughal province of Gujarat.	1
With this new scholarship in mind, Hasan suggests a new approach to the Mughal state. The two current interpretations, he argues, are static and synchronic, profoundly unsatisfactory. In the older view, the Mughal Empire was a centralized, bureaucratic leviathan penetrating into every corner of state and society. The newer paradigm, on the other hand, posits a patrimonial-bureaucratic empire, a Weberian model straddling the divide between the ancient patrimonial polity and the modern bureaucratic nation state. Drawing on both the theoretical work and the local evidence, Hasan introduces a new model that depicts Mughal power as an interaction between the imperial and the local, the outcome of daily struggles between Mughal officials and the local elite.	. . .

There are about 553 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.