| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - British Imperialism on the Subcontinent
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


British Imperialism on the Subcontinent

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: British Imperialism on the Subcontinent
    Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 00:32
This is mainly about the period from 1757 to 1858, or the Battle of Plassey to the Great Rebellion (also known as the Indian Mutiny).
I recently did some work on this and I'm interested to hear other opinions; so here are my questions:
 
To what extent did the British consciously set out to create an empire in India during this period?
 
How effectively did the British integrate themselves into the existing Mughal infrastructure?
 
Why did Mysore's efforts to form a united Indian alliance fail?
 
After the fall of Mysore how much of a threat did the Maratha pentarchy represent to British expansion?
 
How far can the Great Rebellion be said to represent a confrontation between the British and their Mughal predecessors?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 02:16
Quote To what extent did the British consciously set out to create an empire in India during this period?
Partly. The East India company found that it could earn more income from conquering regions that it ever could through trade alone. So there was some Empire building attitudes but they were always motivated by money, or securing the regions they already had.
There was also determined efforts to push the French and Dutch out of India by capturing their territories.
Quote How effectively did the British integrate themselves into the existing Mughal infrastructure?
Quite highly. The British slotted themselves (or were slotted) into the caste system. The East India Company was for all purposes an Indian Empire. It used Indian soliders on Indian land financed by Indian money. The officers may have originated from Britain, but they too were as Indian as the next guys - India is a diverse enough place that it can easily adpot another culture.
You could even argue the British Empire was more Indian than British.
Quote Why did Mysore's efforts to form a united Indian alliance fail?
The history of Mysore has been distorted by anti-colonialists in the 20th (and maybe late 19th) centuries. If you're Hyderabad or the Maharthas, there is no reason to be less suspicious of Mysore than of the Company. Hyderabad benefitted from the English, just as Mysore would have benefitted from the French.
Quote After the fall of Mysore how much of a threat did the Maratha pentarchy represent to British expansion?
Can't really answer that one.
Quote
How far can the Great Rebellion be said to represent a confrontation between the British and their Mughal predecessors?
The British used it as an excuse to depose the Mughals, but the Mughals were finished long before the rebellion. The Mughals didn't have a whole lot to do with it really.
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 13:35
I find myself in agreement with nearly everything you've said; although I think the Mughals were significant because they acted as the focal point, the rebellion can be seen as an attempt to restore the Mughal Empire, or at least the lose collection of independent states which it presided over in its twilight.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 14:34
I think Omar has it about right too. Especially the bit about the 'Indianisation' of the British administrators.
 
The community that developed had its own language, Hobson-Jobson, and its own cuisine, though I only know of one restaurant[1] that takes pride in serving fake Indian food, like kedgerees.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 20:29
The following might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dalrymple_%28historian%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Djinns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mughals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Mughal

Thanks gcle, never knew the source of the word POSH. Hopefully this hybrid cuisine don't use as much spice as typical Indian food. The most interesting Indian food I tried was in ISKCON Hare Krishna food places. The one in Culver City near Santa Monica serves an AYCE buffet and salad bar that almost uses no or negligible spice, considering the local clientele I guess, but the only other one I tried in Almaty, Kazakhstan, served by Sari wearing blond Russian beauties, were much more heavy on the spices, probably cooked by resident Indians there.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 23:08
I think that I have found the correct period, so I would ask any of you if you know anything worthwile concerning the "great hedge wall" that the Brit's built across India?

I certainly have a great deal of opinions concerning the importance of salt, in the past, both distant and near.

Edited by opuslola - 12 Apr 2011 at 23:14
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2011 at 06:27
Oh great...another w**ker devoted to "conspiracy cawking". However, since the nonsense above is posted as a question, begging for a response, then why not have the proper response put forth?
 
Keep your opinions (great deal or otherwise) to yourself. After all, you should keep watch on your own salt stores after imbibing one margarita too many, Opuslola.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2011 at 23:33
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

The following might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dalrymple_%28historian%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Djinns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mughals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Mughal

Thanks gcle, never knew the source of the word POSH. Hopefully this hybrid cuisine don't use as much spice as typical Indian food. The most interesting Indian food I tried was in ISKCON Hare Krishna food places. The one in Culver City near Santa Monica serves an AYCE buffet and salad bar that almost uses no or negligible spice, considering the local clientele I guess, but the only other one I tried in Almaty, Kazakhstan, served by Sari wearing blond Russian beauties, were much more heavy on the spices, probably cooked by resident Indians there.

Thank you very much, they seem to be rather interesting; I shall look into them further.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 02:27
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

I think that I have found the correct period, so I would ask any of you if you know anything worthwile concerning the "great hedge wall" that the Brit's built across India?
It was a customs line where tax was charged. Other than that I don't really know much about it. I don't think it was a real wall, just a border.
Wiki seems to know more than me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Customs_Line
 
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

The community that developed had its own language, Hobson-Jobson, and its own cuisine, though I only know of one restaurant[1] that takes pride in serving fake Indian food, like kedgerees.
There is a reasonable amount of food I think of as Anglo-Indian, but I wouldn't have a clue if thats a result of (post) colonial influence. I think there are something like 300,000 ethnic British still living in India. A lot left in the '50s during decolonialism but many didn't.
 
There is also a English style chinese food. You'll find it in Hong Kong and English speaking countries but nowhere else in China.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 14 Apr 2011 at 02:34
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 05:33
Great...Roy Moxham's travelogue taken as historical fact--or did no one take note that the Wiki article is short on primary sources and heavy on Moxham?
 
See item #2 here:
 
 
What next the Great Arc of India as the supreme act of exploitation?
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 06:01
What?
I think you need to explain yourself dear doctor instead of alluding to something only you know.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 15:25
Why the Great Arc of India was the massive trigonometic survey of the subcontinent that began in 1803 under William Lambton and continued under George Everest. Or haven't you ever wondered how Mt. Everest got its name? After all, who knows when some obscure librarian will set forth to maintain that such was the preliminary step for the formal occupation of all the territories mapped!

Edited by drgonzaga - 14 Apr 2011 at 20:54
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 16:35
I would agree in general with the above points. However just to add a few points:
 
The Mysore-Maratha-Nizam(Hyderabad) alliance failed not only to the existing distrust between these three formidable powers (since all had been engaged in various conflicts amongst themselves, e.g. the 1775 Mysore-Maratha war and the various Maratha - Hyderabad wars), but also due to active British attempts to dislocate the alliance by playing on this distrust. The East India Company's (EIC) most implacable enemy during  the period 1766 - 1799 was Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan of Mysore, so every attempt was made to isolate the Mysore state. For example in 1779-1780 Haider Ali was able to mobilise this alliance, initially with some success against the British, however the EIC were able to employ their 'divide and rule' (yes cliched I know) approach to weaken and ultimately break the alliance. Despite the collapse of the alliance Mysore continued to fight on with varying success until the Treaty of Mangalore in 1784 (for example  the battle of Permbakan when a 3,800 strong EIC force led by Colonel Balilee was destroyed by Haider/Tipu)
 
In fact  this policy was further nutured during the 1789-92 Third Anglo-Mysore War the British were able to form an anti-Mysore alliance alongside the Nizam and the Marahta Confederacy, which proved decisive in forcing Tipu to cede half of his dominion to the EIC.
 
The fall of Mysore weakened the position of the Maratha confederacy (ironically since they had a hand in its downfall) in the following ways:
  • The British were allowed to focus their resources on the Maratha hinterland since a major obstacle (post 1799) to their expansion in the South had been removed after the fall of Seringipatnam and the
  • The Nizam of Hyderabad had already accepted a Subsidiary Alliance Treaty with the EIC so Hyderabad was de-facto in the British sphere.
  • The Maratha Confederacy was already riven by internal conflicts between the Peshwa and the various Maratha chieftains (Scindia, Holkar etc), which the British exploited in both the Second and Third  Anglo-Maratha Wars. Despite this the Maratha's put up intense resistance to the EIC, especially in the Second Maratha War (battles of Assaye and Argaum)

The causes of the Great Rebellion of 1857 are multifarious, however in part it can be seen as an attempt by the remnants of the Mughal aristocracy (in Delhi/Lucknow)  and Maratha leadership (Kanpur/Jhansi) to resist the rule of the EIC, who had by now abandoned their partly faux 'love-in' with  aspects of Indian culture and started to impose a more tight-fitting Victorian Imperialist model.

The British used the aftermath of the Rebellion to proceed to destroy whatever remaining vestiges of Mughal authority remained, abolish the EIC and impose direct British Imperial control through the establishment of the Viceroyalty of India.
 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 22:52
I mentioned this earlier as an example of British Imperialism in India, but it seems it was either ignored or brushed off as un-important.

So, If any of you wish to comment, and expecially to recognize the effect of deliberate salt depravation upon millions of people, then please read this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hedge_of_India

Salt was often used as a weapon.

Further good information concerning Salt, can be found here;

"Common salt, made the world go round" Other salts made wars possible.

http://salt.org.il/frame_india.html

Perhaps this deserves a site of its own?

The twit.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 23:10
You know nothing of India and do not even grasp the fact that under the Mauryas there was a salt tax and such continued under the Moghul who imposed it at different rates according to religion. Nor are you familiar with the fundamental facts of the Salt Trade in the subcontinent. Neither the East India Company nor the successor Raj were introducing a novelty. Besides, individuals did not pay a "salt tax" but instead wholesalers and if we are to discuss monopoly and taxes then stick to specific time periods as well as discuss why this artifice was boom time for smugglers.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 00:33
Relax DrG. No need to react with affronted indignation at the drop of a hat.
Quote Why the Great Arc of India was the massive trigonometic survey of the subcontinent that began in 1803 under William Lambton and continued under George Everest. Or haven't you ever wondered how Mt. Everest got its name? After all, who knows when some obscure librarian will set forth to maintain that such was the preliminary step for the formal occupation of all the territories mapped!
So the point your making is that customs duties weren't an evil symptom of imperial occupation? You have a habit of speaking where you identify the point you want to make and then say everything except that. Leaving everyone else quite bewlidered!
 
Quote So, If any of you wish to comment, and expecially to recognize the effect of deliberate salt depravation upon millions of people, then please read this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hedge_of_India

Salt was often used as a weapon.
Salt has historically been taxed in India, the British continued this policy and increased the tax. Whether they increased the tax as a propotion of income is another question. Salt taxes were certainly perceived to be unjust by the 1930s.
 
 

 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 00:52
Yes Omar and the respected Ghandi worked very hard to remove it.

Thanks for your response.

Ron (the twit)

Edited by opuslola - 15 Apr 2011 at 00:52
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 00:55
As drgonzaga wrote above;

"Besides, individuals did not pay a "salt tax" but instead wholesalers and if we are to discuss monopoly and taxes then stick to specific time periods as well as discuss why this artifice was boom time for smugglers."

Thanks Mr. Know-it-all!

But it also contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Do you give a "groat" for them?

Signed,
The Twit!
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 02:25
Such unsubstantiated assertions are little more than hyperbole since a similar statement can be made that the Raj saved millions from hypertension! Gandhi also advocated that the Indian should weave his own clothing and not purchase textiles. Political rhetoric has little to do with reality and the annual floods of the Ganges killed far more people than any Raj, shall we then Blame the British for not building dams? 
 
One thing the British did that no one wishes to talk about is the fact that the Raj gave the subcontinent a sense of "nation" and a national identity as well as a common language with which to unify the state. But such positives are not the concern of the rhetorically driven polemicist disconnected from overall reality.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 03:56
You must well be mad to suggest that the deaths and other diseases caused by the over consumstion of salt, could anywhere equal the number of people who died from the lack of salt? Just how were these people to conserve their meats, or fish? You, sir, need some more training in relationships. And, you even went on to say the following;

"One thing the British did that no one wishes to talk about is the fact that the Raj gave the subcontinent a sense of "nation" and a national identity as well as a common language with which to unify the state. But such positives are not the concern of the rhetorically driven polemicist disconnected from overall reality."

Perhaps you should have stated those exact words to Ghandi?

I am sure he would have appreciated them? If, indeed he could have understood them?


I feel, old man, that I have finally gotten your "goat!", or at least to the "salt" of the problem.

Please yield now?

There will be no hard feeling, I hope?

Edited by opuslola - 15 Apr 2011 at 04:00
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 09:56
Doesn't look much like a "yielding" situation to me at all; in fact you don't seem to have postulated any counter argument to the objections other than a rather banal assertion.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 11:20
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

You must well be mad to suggest that the deaths and other diseases caused by the over consumstion of salt, could anywhere equal the number of people who died from the lack of salt? Just how were these people to conserve their meats, or fish? You, sir, need some more training in relationships.
And you need some training in common sense, let alone history.
Quote
And, you even went on to say the following;

"One thing the British did that no one wishes to talk about is the fact that the Raj gave the subcontinent a sense of "nation" and a national identity as well as a common language with which to unify the state. But such positives are not the concern of the rhetorically driven polemicist disconnected from overall reality."

Perhaps you should have stated those exact words to Ghandi?

I am sure he would have appreciated them? If, indeed he could have understood them?
Gandhi was certainly capable of understanding them, and would have agreed whole-heartedly. Gandhi is well known to have been an opponent of the partition of India, and keen to maintain the unity of the subcontinent, which as drgonzaga pointed out was largely due to the British. While he failed to achieve that, he did still work towards collaboration between the two countries, and in particular Indian assistance to Pakistan, for which he was assassinated by Hindu nationalists.
Quote
I feel, old man, that I have finally gotten your "goat!", or at least to the "salt" of the problem.
Please yield now?
Do try not to be a fool.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 11:39
To state that the Raj gave the subcontinent a sense of 'national identity' and a common language needs clarification. The Mughal Empire provided, especially from the time of Akbar onwards, a uniform approach to administration, including taxation and the Mansabdari system, and a common language, namely Persian (Hindustani/ Urdu becoming the lingua franca around the latter half of the 18th century), which was adopted in the courts of Hindu as well as Muslim nobility across the sub-continent. This was, in fact recognised by the British up until 1835, when the language of administration was finally changed to English from Persian since by then the EIC were firmly in control of most of the sub-continent. Many  of the Hindu's and Muslim sepoys who  rebelled in 1857 were demanding the restoration of the Mughal empire, so as such a common 'Hindustani/Mughal' identity/culture had already formed  in a large part of the sub-continent prior to the inroads of the EIC.
 
Mughal culture also affected the implacable enemies of the Mughal state such as the Maratha's, who also adopted a number of its structures and traits, such that even at the height of their power in the late 18th century during the time of Mahadji Scindia, the Maratha's did not claim to be usurpers but rather ruling 'in the name' of the Emperor, something which the EIC also did up until the period before the great rebellion of 1857.
 
It is correct to state that the idea of an 'Indian' national identity was indeed nurtured by 19th century concepts of nationalism imported from the 'west' however this identity was formed not by the Raj who were content for some time to rule over a sub-continent divided into princely states ruled by Nawabs and Maharajahs paying deference (and tax, ) to the British law and institutions, but rather by western educated  Indian intellectuals/leaders (B. Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah) who adopted it's basic principles but in opposition to the idea of the Raj itself, and these nationalist made reference to the 1857 rebellion, which though not 'national' in any modern sense of the term, represented the most important act of resistance against the colonialist rule of the time.
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 13:15
Even at its largest extent the Mughal Empire did not cover the entirety of the subcontinent, it remained a very regionalist insititution with different regions enjoying varying levels of autonomy; what is more it remained an empire (ie made up of disparate parts), there was never a true sense of a pan-Indian identity. It is true that much of this continued on into Company and then British India, the Princely States being a notable example. However the British provided a unity that the subcontinent had never known before (and which it has not known since), their power was near absolute in a way which the Mughals', particularly in the later stages of their empire, was not. While the British obviously did not consciously nurture an Indian national identity they created the conditions in which a political idea of India could come into being. Without the Raj, India would not have come into being.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 16:14

^ Yes, good points. My point about Mughal culture and the Persian language, though, are that it was quite pervasive in the regions that the Mughals ruled and was also adopted to a certain extent by it's opponents (such as the Marathas, Afghans) since the latter were still nominally subject to the authority of the Emperor (even when they sought to overthrow or at least weaken this authority).

True, there was no common Indian identity, since nationalism was an alien concept in the sub-continent until the arrival of the Raj and western education/ideologies, however there was a common 'reference culture' and administrative style of government that was introduced by the Mughals that became adopted by the various regional rulers and potentates, however weak the rule of Delhi/Agra became.
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 16:33
Some examples of this are that the Nawab of the Carnatic and Hyderabad in the far south still gave their allegiance (however nominal in later periods) to the Mughal emperor, Rajputs served in the Mughal hierarchy and became integrated into the Mughal Mansabdari system. So the Mughals gave the sub-continent:
 
A common language : Persian in administration and  Hindustani/Urdu as the lingua franca of the sub-continent which was mutually understandable by all religions, regions.
 
A common administrative structure - that was imitated by regional governors, nawabs and maharajah's and even rebel states
 
A common reference culture (manners, etiquettes, food, clothing, literature (poetry..) etc) - the Mughal culture developed in Delhi, Agra and Lucknow, that became widespread across the sub-continent.
 
An army composed of different regions/tribes/castes - including Mughals, Rajputs, Afghans etc...
 
The Mughals themselves were an eclectic mix of the descendants of Timur, intermarriages with Rajputs, etc..
 
So whilst the Mughals cannot be said to have developed a common national identity, they did develop a uniquely 'Indian' composite Indo-Islamic culture that was adopted across the sub continent.
 
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 18:39
It might be termed a regional rather than national identity.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
tayek1967 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tayek1967 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Apr 2012 at 10:50
Thanks friend, the east India company manage and serve allover  everything the purpose of mughol emperor. it was the source of entrance the power. solve more curiosity to share with u. good luck.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.