LOCATING MUGHAL STATE FORMATION IN THE HIMALAYAN REGION: TWO REGIONAL CASE STUDIES (original) (raw)
The paper explores the expansion of Mughal political authority across the Himalayan region. The paper takes up two polities-the Parmars situated in the Central Himalayan region and the Kochs who were the rulers of Koch kingdom located in sub-Himalayan Bengal. Using these two regional case studies, this paper attempts to throw light on some of the strategies adopted by the Mughals to consolidate their imperial hold over smaller ruling elites of the Himalayan belt. The strategies examined in this paper are diverseranging from policies of collaboration to use of coercion. Internal dissensions within these regional ruling houses and the constant pressure exerted by the superior economic and military resources of the Mughals also contributed in convincing some Parmar and Koch rulers to acknowledge Mughal supremacy. Thus, the aim of this paper is to investigate the gamut of complex negotiations that shaped the trajectory of Mughal relations with local rulers of Garhwal and Koch Behar. An understanding of these relations would help in giving a coherent idea of the interactions between the Mughals and local ruling houses (both within and outside the Himalayan region), vital to any discussion on the nature of Mughal state formation. The final part of the paper argues that Mughal ambitions of consolidating their political authority over the Himalayan region was also dependent on their ability to reach out and win the support of the varied local social groups existing below the ruling elite. This paper contends that the failure of winning the support of such groups made it all the more difficult for the Mughals to exercise complete political authority over various localities in the Himalayan region. The concluding portion of the paper makes it evident that Mughal state formation in the Himalayan region and beyond needs to be evaluated in terms of the relations of the Mughals with the various local ruling houses as well as with numerous local social groups comprising of peasants, artisans, merchants, religious preachers, to name a few, all of whom existed as co-sharers of imperial sovereignty.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Khoj, 2021
Abstract: Interpretation of Muslim state in India is always remaining a colonial scholarship. Muslim rule in India is narrated as "Oriental despotism" in which a large number of Hindus were the victim of genocides. Monolithic agenda of religious confrontation was introduced by commissioned historians who organized and re write the scattered past of oriental worlds. James Mill divided Indian past into Hindu, Muslims and modern British India. Hindus were the custodians of the Vedic culture. Muslim conquered this land by force and ruins the temples and worshipping places. Muslims permanent hostility towards other communities was not possible in medieval times. After many shocks of conquest Muslims prepared to find a via media for those who were living around them. Muslim interacted with other communities like Hindus, Buddhist even Christian and create a congenial environment. Muslims and Hindus had closer relation as compare to other communities. It is hardly impossible to exaggerate the extent of Muslim influences over Indian life in every sphere. From state formation to the selection of nobility- from economic life to domestic one, even in the marriages, foods, festivals and fairs, Muslim shared their cultural Influences with other communities. This paper is an effort to dilute this image that Mughals were more orthodox towards other communities in India and developed a theocratic state. This research will also highlight the Mughals sense of "Unity in diversity".
Mughal Authority: The View from Below
2020
This chapter views Mughal authority from below, in terms of the entangled relations between the state and social forces. It looks at the state as an activity, ceaselessly reproducing itself in and through complex layers of relations with the local power relations. Looking at the state from the vantage point of the localities, it argues that the state was largely undifferentiated from the networks of social relations. State–society relations were molded by the use of pen and paper, but scribal literacy was intertwined with oral tradition and performative practices. Literacy was not just an instrument of state control, but was also appropriated by social actors to participate in the rule structure. The ordinary subjects negotiated with the state, and incessantly modified the system of rule through such devices as petitions, complaints, handbills, etc. that were routinely presented at the local qazi’s courts.
Crossing the Sutlej River: an examination of early British Rule in the West Himalayas
The challenges entailed in establishing political authority over the mountainous terrain of the Himalayas became particularly pronounced in the modern era, as large-scale centralized states (e.g. British India, Gorkha Nepal) extended their rule over remote parts of the mountain chain. In this novel political setting, the encounters of the representatives of greater powers with their counterparts from subordinate polities were often fraught with clashes, misunderstandings and manipulations that stemmed from the discrepancy between local notions of governance and those imposed from above. This was especially apparent along British India's imperial frontier, where strategic considerations dictated a cautious approach towards subject states so as to minimize friction with neighbouring superpowers across the border. As a result, the headmen inhabiting frontier zones enjoyed a conspicuous advantage in dealing with their superiors insofar as 'deliberate misrepresentations and manipulation[s]' of local practices allowed them to further their aims while retaining the benefits of protection by a robust imperial structure (O'Hanlon 1988: 217). This paper offers a detailed illustration of the complications provoked by these conditions by examining the embroilment of a British East India Company official in a feud between the West Himalayan kingdoms of Bashahr and Kullu (in today's Himachal Pradesh, India) during the first half of the nineteenth century.
The present article seeks to re-evaluate the problem of the Central Asian military elite that emigrated to Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent in the sixteenth century during the foundation of the Mughal Empire. By reading the Tarikh-i Rashidi, the historical composition of Mirza Haydar Dughlat (d. 1551) and the main literary source for the period, modern scholars have developed two distinct historiographical strands of scholarship. Those mainly focused on Mughal India have used the text to argue for the absence of a meaningful political culture among the Central Asian elite. Others, mostly focused on Inner Asian history, have used the text for the opposite purpose of describing a fairly static "tribal" structure of Mirza Haydar's world. I, on the other hand, will abandon the imprecise and essentially meaningless concept of "tribe" and will rather argue that Mirza Haydar instead chronicles the perspective of "aristocratic lineages" whose world was collapsing in the sixteenth century and who had to adjust themselves to changing conditions that saw the alliance of monarchs and servants through "meritocracy" both in their homeland as well as the new regions to which they moved.
4. Imperial Sovereignty in Mughal and British Forms
History and Theory, 2017
Azfar Moin's recent work on millennial sovereignty in Mughal India prompts a consideration of the evolution of sovereignty in modern South Asia more broadly. Although the sovereign principles of the Mughals differed from those of the British Indian empire, which ultimately succeeded it, these empires shared important similarities in their linking of sovereign authority to visions of a cosmos in immanent interaction with human affairs. This article explores these similarities and differences and speculatively considers their implications for both similarities and differences in Mughal and British principles of statecraft. These similarities and differences provide an important backdrop for thinking about the meanings attached to popular sovereignty in modern India as well.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.