ALIGARH MUSLIM

UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF LAW
SESSION: 2019-20

TUTORIAL ASSIGNMENT
SUBJECT: HISTORY-II

TOPIC: EMERGENCE OF THE

th
SUCCESSION STATES IN 18 CENTURY

SUBMITTED BY,
NAME: RUPESH KUMAR SINGH
CLASS: B.A. LL.B (2nd SEM.) SECTION: A
ROLL NO.: 19BALLB004
ENROLLMENT NO.: GJ9731

SUBMITTED TO,
NAME: DR. SK. EHTESHAM UDDIN AHMAD
(ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR)
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON
EMERGENCE OF REGIONAL POLITIES
BENGAL
AWADH
HYDERABAD
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 INTRODUCTION
With the gradual weakening and decline of the Mughal Empire, local and regional, political and
economic forces began to arise and assert themselves. During the 18th century, from the debris of
the Mughal Empire and its political system rose a large number of independent and semi-
independent powers such as Bengal, Awadh, Hyderabad, Mysore and the kingdom of Marathas.
Though practically the Mughal authority had declined, yet the symbolic authority of the Mughal
emperor continued, as it was still considered to be a source of political legitimacy. The new states
did not directly challenge his authority and constantly sought his sanction to legitimize their rule.
In many areas of governance these states continued the Mughal institutions and administrative
system.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE EMERGENCE OF

REGIONAL POLITIES
The earliest interpretation of 18th century is contained in Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar’s History of Bengal
Vol. II and The Fall of Mughal Empire Volum IV in which the 18th century was categorized into
pre-British period and the British period. He subscribes to the dark age postulate of 18 th century.
Historians like Athar Ali refers to the rise of successor states in the 18th century but feel that these
should be analysed within the frame work of Mughal decline. These polities are analysed as
preparing the ground for the metamorphosis from the Mughal imperial system to the British system.
The 18th century polities should also be seen in the context of continuity with the Mughal political
system and also changes introduced to suit the new political situation. Thus the 18th century reflected
the political transformation from Mughal decline to British colonialism. Satish Chandra produced
his magnum opus ‘Parties and Politics at the Mughal court 1707-1739’ in 1959. According to him
the end of Aurangzeb’s reign represented the beginning of 18 th century and this late medieval period
was marked by transition brought about by the break down of the Mughal imperial system. Another
important work was written by Irfan Habib titled ‘The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-
1707’, Habib is of the opinion that the political forces which emerged subsequently on the debris of
Mughal empire represented “reckless rapine, anarchy and foreign conquest.” Athar Ali is known
for his writings on administrative history of Mughal India lays emphasis on economic factors which
caused the weakening of the Mughal state edifice and paved the way for the establishment of
colonial rule. He tried to understand the decay of Mughal power in the wider context of socio-
economic and political vibrance in North western Europe in the 18 th century and regarded the
decline as a form of cultural degeration.

Athar Ali mentions three categories of state formations in 18 th century India:

 Successor states like Hyderabad, Awadh and Bengal which were part of the Mughal empire
and emerged due to the disintegration of Mughal empire. Their administrative structure
was a continuation of the Mughal model.
  The Maratha confederacy, Jats, Sikhs and Afghans rose to power as a consequence of the
crisis which had weakened the Mughal imperial structure.
 South Indian state of Mysore under Hyder Ali Khan and Tipu Sultan.

Out of all these states Bengal, Hyderabad and Awadh are termed as ‘succession states’. They are
called so because they arose as a result of assertion of autonomy by Mughal provincial governors,
who never formally severed their links with the centre, but virtually exercised autonomy in matters
of execution of power at the local level. Their emergence was a result of the decay of the central
power.
BENGAL
Taking advantage of the growing weakness of the central authority, two men of exceptional
ability, Murshid Quli Khan and Alivardi Khan, made Bengal virtually independent.The
province or the subah of Bengal gradually became independent of Mughal control after
Murshid Quli Khan became its governor in 1717. Altough he had been its effective ruler
since 1700 when Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had appointed him the diwan1of Bengal to
streamline its revenue administration. In 1710 Bahadur Shah reappointed him in this position
after a short break of two years. When Farruksiyar became the emperor, he confirmed
Murshid Quli in his position and also appointed him the deputy governor of Bengal and
governor of Orissa. Later in 1717 when he was appointed the governor or nazim of Bengal,
he was given the unprecedented privilege of holding the two offices of nazim and diwan
simultaneously. This helped Murshid Quli, who was already known for his efficient revenue
administration, to consolidate his position further. He did not of course formally defy Mughal
authority and regularly sent revenue to the imperial treasury. But he had began to enjoy a
considerable amount of autonomy within his own domain and initiated almost a dynastic rule.
The foundation of Murshid Quli's power was of course his very successful revenue
administration, which even in the days of political chaos elsewhere in the Mughal Empire
made Bengal a constant revenue paying surplus area. He had established a very efficient
system of revenue collection which was operated through powerful intermediary zamindars.
Murshid Quli sent his investigators to every revenue-paying area to make a detailed survey
and compelled the zamindars to pay in full and on time. For this purpose, he encouraged the
development of a few powerful zamindaris at the expense of smaller inefficiently managed
zamindaris, while refractory zamindars were punished and some of the jagirdars were
transferred to the outlying province of Orissa, their states being converted into khalisa or
royal land. Thus, Bengal became relatively free of major uprisings by zamindars. The only
three major uprisings during his rule were, first by Sitaram Ray, Udai Nararyan and Ghulam
Muhammad, then by Shujat Khan, and finally by Najat Khan. After defeating them Murshid
Quli Khan gave their zamindaris to his favourite, Ramjivan. He introduced the system of
revenue farming. Revenue farmers and officials were recruited from local zamindars and
merchant bankers.
He granted agricultural loans (taccavi) to poor cultivators to relieve their distress, as well as
to enable them to pay land revenue on time..His system of revenue farming led to increased
economic pressure on the zamindars and peasants who had to take loans for paying the
revenue as those who failed to pay revenue on time were punished severely this brought
powerful financiers and bankers into great demand. Due to this there was rise of a rich and
politically active class of moneylenders and bankers. A glaring example of this was the rise
of the banking house of Jagat Seth, who eventually became the treasurer of the provincial
government in 1730, with strategic control over the mint.
Murshid Quli Khan died in 1727. He had named his daughter's son Sarfaraz Khan his
successor. But Sarfaraz was ousted by his father Shujauddin Muhammad Khan (Murshid
Quli's son-in-law), who ruled Bengal till 1739. He was succeeded by his son Sarfaraz Khan.
In the same year he was ousted by his army commander Alivardi Khan who deposed and
killed him and himself became the Nawab.
It was Alivardi's reign, which marked a virtual break with the Mughals. All major
appointments were now made without any reference to the Mughal emperor and finally, the
1
treasurer
regular flow of revenue to Delhi was stopped. The major problems for Alivardi came from
outside: he had to face Maratha attacks and Afghan rebellion. Ultimately in 1751, Alivardi
came to terms with the Marathas by agreeing to pay chauth (one-fourth of the revenue) and
handing over Orissa. But in the meanwhile some rebel Afghan troops under the leadership of
Mustafa Khan had taken over Patna in 1748 and thus had posed another great challenge to his
authority. Alivardi eventually succeeded in putting down the Afghans and recovered Patna.
Alivardi died in 1756. He had nominated Siraj-ud-daula (his grandson) his successor. But his
succession was challenged by two other contenders for the throne, Shaukat Jung (Faujdar of
Purnia) and Ghaseti Begum (Alivardi's daughter). This resulted in intense court factionalism.
It destabilized the administration of Bengal, and the advantage was taken by the English East
India Company,
Murshid Quli Khan and the succeeding Nawabs of Bengal recognised that expansion of trade
benefitted both the people and the government. Therefore they encouraged all merchants,
Indian and foreign. They provided for safety of roads and rivers from thieves and robbers by
establishing regular thanas and chowkies. They prevented abuses in the customs
administration. At the same time, they made it a point to maintain strict control over foreign
trading companies and their servants and prevented them from abusing their privileges. They
compelled the servants of the English East India Company to obey the laws of the land and to
pay the same custom duties as were paid by other merchants. But they didn’t firmly put down
the increasing tendency of the Company to use military force or to threaten its use to get its
demands accepted. They continued to believe that a mere trading company could not be a
threat to their power. This thinking of the Nawabs proved very costly for Bengal. In 1757 the
English East India Company declared war on Siraj-ud-daula (nawab of Bengal at that
time).The two sides met for battle at Plassey. Siraj-ud-daula was defeated by the Company in
the Battle of Plassey. He was forced to flee but was captured and killed later. The victory at
Plassey transformed the Company from a mere trading institution to a political force in
Bengal.
AWADH
Awadh emerged as an autonomous state under Saadat Khan. He was appointed the Mughal
governor of Awadh in 1722. At the time of his appointment, many rebellious zamindars, local
chieftains and rajas had raised their heads in the province. They refused to pay the land
revenue, organized their private armies, erected forts and defied the Imperial Governmnet. He
successfully subdued them and in appreciation, the Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah
conferred on him the title of Burhan-ul-Mulk. Soon after this, Saadat Khan returned to Delhi
as he aspired to play an important role in imperial politics. Having failed in this he decided to
build up a power base in Awadh. The Mughal decline provided him the desired opportunity
to establish his own authority in Awadh.
The problem of refractory zamindars in Awadh was solved in time. They were won over
through various concessions. Most of the defeated zamindars were not displaced, rather they
were usually conformed in their estates after they had submitted and agreed to pay land
revenue regularly. He carried out a new land revenue settlement in 1723, with it the revenue
demand increased by more than half. The jagirdari system was reformed, with jagirs being
granted to the local gentry, while a rich flow of trade kept the province affluent. He took
steps to prevent peasants from the oppression of zamindras. This resulted in the creation of a
new regional ruling elite, who became Saadat's main support base. His troops were well-paid,
well-armed and trained. Also his administration was efficient.
Saadat Khan kept the communication channels open with the Mughal court. He constantly
expanded the frontiers of the Awadh subah, but never without the formal approval of the
Mughal emperor. However, by the time he died in 1739, Awadh had emerged as a virtually
autonomous state, with vastly reduced financial commitments, but no formal separation with
the Mughals.
He was succeeded by his nephew Safdar Jung, who was simultaneously appointed the wazir2
of the Mughal Empire in 1748 and granted in addition the province of Allahabad. He brought
a long period of peace to the people of Awadh. He suppressed rebellious zamindars and made
an alliance with the Marathas to protect his dominion from their incursions. He was able to
win the loyalty of Rajput chieftains as well. He also carried on warfare against the Rohelas
and the Bangash Pathans. He entered into an agreement with the Maratha Peshwa according
to which the Peshwa was to help the Mughal Empire against Ahmad Shah Abdali, but this
agreement failed. Safdar Jung organized an equitable system of justice as well. Safdar Jung
died in 1754 and was succeeded by his son Shuja-ud-daula.
Shuja-ud-daula also successfully maintained the autonomy of the Awadh subah without ever
formally defying the symbolic authority of the Mughal emperor. He maintained his power
within his own domain. He joined the Afghan invader Ahmad Shah Abdali in the third battle
of Panipat (1761) to see his local opponents, the Marathas, humbled and weakened. In
Awadh his autonomy and power remained unchallenged till his encounter with the English
East India Company in the battle of Buxar (1764).
The prolonged period of peace and of economic prosperity of the nobles under the
government of the above mentioned Nawabs resulted in the growth of a distinct Lucknow
culture around the Awadh court. Lucknow soon rivalled Delhi in its patronage of the arts and
literature.

2
prime minister
HYDERABAD
The state of Hyderabad was founded in 1724 by a powerful noble at the imperial court in the
post- Aurangzeb era, Chin Quilich Khan, who eventually took the title of Nizam-ul-Mulk
Asaf ]ah. He played a leading role in the overthrow of the Saiyyid brothers in 1720, and was
rewarded with the viceroyalty of the Deccan. From 1720 to 1722, he consolidated his hold
over the Deccan by suppressing all opposition to his viceroyalty and organizing the
administration on efficient lines. Nizam-ul-Mulk acted as the wazir of Mughal emperor
Muhammad Shah from 1722 to 1724. He soon got disgusted as the Emperor frustrated all his
attempts of reforming the administration. Therefore, he decided to go back to the Deccan
where he could safely maintain his supremacy. Here, he laid the foundation of the Hyderabad
state which he ruled with a strong hand.
In Hyderabad, Mubariz Khan, the Mughal governor of Deccan, was ruling almost as an
independent king. In 1723 the nizam defeated Mubariz and the following year he took over as
the subadar of Deccan and consolidated his power around Hyderabad. Though, the actual
independence of the state of Hyderabad may be dated from 1740 when finally the nizarn left
north India to settle there permanently.
He never openly declared his independence from the central government; coins were minted
in the name of the Mughal emperor; whose name also figured in the khutba. But in practice
he acted like an independent ruler. He waged wars, concluded peace, conferred titles and
gave jagirs and offices without any reference to Delhi. He consolidated his power by
establishing an orderly administration in the Deccan on the basis of the jagirdari system
along the Mughal pattern. He made attempts to rid the revenue system of its corruption. He
subdued the refractory zamindars and showed tolerance towards the Hindus, a great example
of this was that Puran Chand, a Hindu, was his diwan. He was also able to keep the powerful
Marathas out of his dominion.
But after his death in 1748 Hyderabad began to experience a series of crises. While Maratha
depredations continued to be a major source of trouble, a war of succession ensued between
his son Nasir Jung and grandson Muzaffar Jung, the advantage of which was taken by the
French under Dupleix. Muzaffar emerged victorious from this contest with French support.
He gave handsome monetary rewards and territorial concessions (French got territories near
Pondicherry as well as the famous town of Masulipatam) as reward to the French. But his
problems did not end as in the subsequent years, the Marathas, Mysore and the Carnatic-all
settled their territorial scores against Hyderabad. The situation improved only after 1762
when Ali Khan became the Nizam. His reign lasted upto 1803. He settled border disputes
with his neighbours. During his long reign Hyderabad got the much desired political stability.
The administrative system of the state of Hyderabad did not try to destroy the indigenous
power structures within the territory, but sought to incorporate them into a "patron-client
relationship" with the central power. The locally entrenched semi-autonomous rulers were
allowed to govern their inherited territories in return for an annual tribute or peshkash paid to
the nizam. The locally powerful traders, moneylenders and the military aristocracy also
played a crucial role in the Hyderabad polity, by providing valuable financial and military
support to the nizam. Under this new administration, the old Mughal institutions were not
totally thrown out, but they underwent substantial changes. Land revenue was collected
through powerful intermediary revenue farmers; but unlike the Mughal practice, there was
very little attempt to keep them under control. The jagirs under this new system became
hereditary and the mansabdari system retained only few of its Mughal features. There was
also a remarkable change in the composition of the nobility: while the older military
aristocracy retained some of its power, some new men with expertise in revenue and financial
management rose from lower ranks. On the whole, power remained widely diffused in the
administrative structure of the state of Hyderabad.
CONCLUSION
The major characteristic of eighteenth-century India was there the weakening of the
centralized Mughal Empire and a dispersal of political power across the regions. The
succession states continued Mughal institutions and also inherited some of their weaknesses.
None of these states was able to arrest the economic crisis which had set in during the
seventeenth century. All of them remained basically rent-extracting states. While their rulers
prevented any breakdown of internal trade and even tried to promote foreign trade, they did
nothing to modernize the basic industrial and commercial structure of their states. This
largely explains the failure of these states to consolidate themselves or to ward off external
attack.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 B. Chandra, History of Modern India (Orient Blackswan Private Limited, Hyderabad,

2020).
 S. Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India (Orient
Longman Private Limited, New Delhi, 2004).