Oriental Despotism was a British theory used to justify the colonisation of India, portraying it as a barbaric society ruled by authoritarian despots. The theory claimed that rulers controlled land, irrigation, economy, and bureaucracy, while ignoring popular voice. This view relied on biased assumptions, many of which were later shown to be entirely baseless. The theory was shaped by British assumptions and biases emerging from late 18th-century Oriental studies, based on limited Sanskrit texts.

Historians such as James Mill portrayed Indian kings as absolute owners of land, denying existence of private property. British feelings of cultural and scientific superiority reinforced views of India as metaphysical and backward. Karl Marx and Mill further reduced Indian history to stereotypes, assuming aridity and bureaucratic control of irrigation. These unexamined beliefs were widely accepted by colonial administrators and historians, making Oriental Despotism a dominant but flawed framework for interpreting Indian history.

The theory of Oriental Despotism was later challenged as a myth once deeper studies of Indian polity emerged. British officials such as Warren Hastings rejected the idea of inherently despotic Indian rulers. Texts such as the Ain-i-Akbari and Arthashastra revealed structured governance and ideals of statecraft, contradicting claims of lawlessness. The assumption that irrigation required a centralised bureaucracy was also disproved, as evidence shows irrigation was often locally or provincially managed. Similarly, land ownership was not purely royal; private and communal ownership also existed, limiting royal power and undermining the argument of Oriental Despotism argument.