The Marathas In the late 17th century Shivaji, a Maratha warrior from central west India, established a successful powerbase through adroit military campaigns. By the early 18th century the Marathas had evolved into a political confederacy whose nominal head was the Raja of Satara, but whose de facto leader was the peshwa based in Pune. By the 1750s Peshwa Nana Saheb was the most powerful ruler in India. He might have taken control of most of the subcontinent, but for his defeat at the hands of Afghan warriors at Panipat in 1761. Individual Maratha generals subsequently carved out kingdoms for themselves, among them Gwalior, Indore and Baroda. By 1818, however, the East India Company had gained control over all of these individual states. View Map : http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/maharaja/files/marathas.pdf

The Rajputs Claiming descent from the sun, moon or fire, the Rajputs spanned from Gujarat in the west, across the Thar Desert and to the foothills of the Himalayas. Many of the rulers of these ancient kingdoms entered into subsidiary alliances with the Mughals, but with the collapse of imperial authority in the 18th century they re-asserted their autonomy. However, they soon came into conflict with the Marathas, Sikhs and other emerging powers. In treaties with the East India Company, they secured protection of their borders in exchange for formal recognition of British supremacy. They also had to accept a Company presence in their court, in the form of a Resident or Agent who kept a close eye on their activities. In addition, many states had to pay sizeable tribute. View Map : http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/maharaja/files/rajputs.pdf

Tipu Sultan of Mysore Tipu's father was an army officer who in 1766 seized power from the Hindu ruling dynasty of Mysore. Tipu came to the throne in 1782 and transformed the state into a centre of military and economic power and artistic patronage. He adopted the tiger as his personal emblem and used tiger motifs on many of his possessions. A devout Muslim, Tipu Sultan saw himself as God’s instrument for driving the British out of India. The East India Company fought four wars against him, finally defeating him in 1799 at the Battle of Seringapatam with the assistance of the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Marathas. Tipu died during the battle and part of his kingdom was restored to its former Hindu rulers, but under British control. View Map : http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/maharaja/files/tipusultan.pdf

The Sikhs Over his forty year reign Ranjit Singh, the 'Lion of the Punjab', united the various Sikh clans to build a north Indian kingdom centred on the city of Lahore. A brilliant general and strategist, he successfully negotiated with surrounding powers – the Afghans, the Marathas and the Rajput chiefs of the hill states – and managed to halt the advance of the British into the region. He also promoted agriculture, industry, trade and the arts. Ranjit Singh's death in 1839 was followed by a bitter struggle for power. His son Sher Singh eventually seized the throne in 1841, but was murdered two years later. Ranjit Singh’s youngest son, the five-year-old Duleep Singh, was then placed on the throne. He held nominal authority until 1849, when the Punjab was annexed by the East India Company. View Map : http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/maharaja/files/sikhs.pdf

The Courts of Awadh As imperial authority declined, powerful Mughal governors established independent rule in various parts of the subcontinent. Awadh, in north central India, became an important refuge of Islamic court culture, with the cities of Faizabad and Lucknow developing into major centres of patronage. When Shuja-ud-daula, the third nawab, was defeated by British forces at the Battle of Buxar in 1764, the state entered into a subsidiary alliance with the East India Company, paying tribute in exchange for protection. The nawabs then set out to redefine their identity in the changed political climate. To establish a new style that marked an ideological separation from Mughal taste, they turned to European-inspired art and architecture. Despite this, relations with the British remained strained, and the state was annexed in 1856 on the grounds of alleged misrule. View Map : http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/maharaja/files/awadh.pdf

If the above comments are in support of the emergent powers post Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgirs death then the list should read Nizams of Hyderabad, Nawabs of Awadh followed by the Nawab Nazims of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as they were the new centre of power.

The Mughal State, 1526-1750 Edited by Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam , is one of the best reads on this issue.

@ Haider:Aurangzeb is just Aurangzeb in India and not 'Alamgir' .A bigot emperor that presided over the disintegration of the mighty and majestic Mughal Emire that changed India forever .He got blinded and later killed his brother and so also his infant nephew.There were unconfirmed rumours from Agra that he had committed incest upon his sister Jhahan ara which are difficult to believe because she is revered as a Sufi saint in India today. He got one of his personal Abbysinian lady body-guards pregnant too.A man guilty of fratricide and patricide is certainly not deserving of the title of Alamgir even though his reign brought the largest geographical area of the Indian sub-continent under the Mughal rule.More so because he abandoned the policy of sulah-kul (universal tolerance/brotherhood ) adopted by his great-grand-father Akbar the great and his father and grand-father ,which had given rise to a mighty empire where the defeated kings were not killed ,as was the practice in the preceding Afghan and Mameluke sultanates of Delhi, but were allowed to rule in their respective kingdoms so long as they accepted Mughal suzerainty.He tried his best to forcibly convert the crown prince of Jodhpur and his widowed mother to Islam, who was the son of the maharaja of Jodhpur (Jaswant Singh) who had faithfully served Mughals in several military campaigns across India..The story of the regent of Jodhpur Durgadas Rathore who used to bake bread on the edge of his lance seated on horseback (never taking rest at all) all along sheltering the crown prince until he got him anointed the Maharaja of Jodhpur again is legion in Rajput folklore . Even his self assumed title Aurangzeb (pride of the throne) appears farcical today given his deeds.His reign was the longest of any Mughal emperor but we need to objectively analyse it today. In earlier part of his reign he had given grants to Hindu temples too. It was only later that he became a hardened bigot

Corerection pls....the princess was Aalam Aara and not Jahan Ara and no she is not revered as any Sufi saint as her sister Jahan Aara is.

I like very much what you have posted RBSI...you may say I have strong reasons for doing so...inspite of those reasons, I cannot help jumping in whenever I get the chance and enjoying this pariticular period of Indian history. Digvijay I appreciate your comments on Aurangzeb...he was a bigot and a bigot ruler cannot in any context be exalted except by those who see eye to eye with his bigotry. I believe he undid all the good of his forefathers and his reign was not only a dark period for the Mughals but for the entire country.

Regarding Aurangzeb,No one in Maharashtra can forget how he tortured and killed Sambhaji Maharaj after he was captured.He perpetrated barbaric acts to torture and kill Banda Bairagi who was chief follower of Guru Govind Singh. He reintroduced dreaded Jiziya tax on non-muslims which his Grandfather Akbar the great had abolished.The way he treated his own children at various times was atrocious .He was a very insecure man who did not trust anyone and was blinded by his power and false sense of spreading Islam by all the means at his disposal.

It is also interesting to note how Aurangzeb treated three generations of Chhatrapati Shivaji. He kept Shivaji in captivity when he had gone to meet Aurangzeb in Agra. He captured SAmbhaji and he tortured and killed him . Sambhaji's son Shahu and his wife were in his custody for more than 20 years .They were treated well and no harm was done .Surprisingly Aurangzeb took keen interest in Shahu's upbringing and had become rather fond of him in his old age.

he might be just aurangzeb in India but world history proclaims him as Abul Muzzafar Mohyuddin Mohammad Aurangzeb Alamgir, Emperor of India. he was not the first to commit fratricide and patricide. His reign is open to review as any other kings is.

@Haider :Nobody is doubting his being an emperor.If you want to remember him with his various self-assumed titles well you are free to do so.Giving an example here of how the Baroda maharajah’s presence was announced. His Highness, Farzand-e-khas-Daulat-e-Inglishia-Shrimant Maharaja Sir Sayajirao lll Gaekwad, Sena khas khel shamsher bahadur Or the nawab of Bhopal: Major general His Highness Sikander Saulat, Iftikaar-ul-mulk, Haji Nawab Hafiz Sir Muhammad Hamidullah Khan Bahadur Or the Sikh Maharaja of Jind His Highness Farzand-I-Dilband Rasikh-ul-itkikaad-I-Daulat-e-Inghlishia Raja-i-Rajangan Raja Ranbir Singh Bahadur Am sure Aurangzeb being the emperor in his own right had even more elaborate titles by any day. Zahir-ud-Din Mohammad Babur had got the Kuthaba recited in his own name declaring that he ruled in his own name and not in the name of the Caliph in Turkey which was a very significant break from all his Sunni predecessors who were Sultans (one who rules in the name of the Caliph)

@RBSi...since you have not mentioned let me tell others that the above image is of the young Peshwa Madhavrao II aka Sawai Madhavroa who tragically comitted suicide and seated next to him is the legendary Maratha Nana Phadnavis

Kushwaha Sahab, the tittle of the last Nawab Nazim was: HIs Highness Muntizam ul Mulk Mohesin ud Dawla Nusrat Jung Nawab Feredun Jha Syed Mansur Ali Khan Nawab Nazim Bengal, Bihar & Orrisa. The "self conferred titles" was a norm all over the world. From the Roman Emperors to the European rulers ...Since the Emperor was alwys the highest office in the Kingdom naturally no one else had the authority to bestow titles upon him...so by default the Emperor himself had to confer titles to the highest office

..the title was not a personal ego trip but recognization of the office of the emperor...

By the way the titles of the Nawab Nazim was not self conferred but was bestowed by the then ruling Mughal Emperor Shah Alam the 2nd

Frank, thanx for the info on the above pic. I was wondering who the guy is.

@digvijay singh khushwa ------ u are wrong at every word. no one accept such history.

Well Mr Meerza I agree that the titles of most royalty were self assumed only, more so if they were emperors.I find the title of his highness itself demeaning because post 1857 and the Crown assuming charge the royalty of India were demoted to being mere princes.The use of the the title of knighthood ' Sir' before Syed in few occassions was something even more denigrating as being a Sadaat is a bigger honour than being a British monarch's knight.Don't you find it amusing that the surviving Indian royalty take great pride even today in their titles of yore because the then powers (Mughals and later the British) who bestowed these titles upon them, themselves today are history and the institution of monarchy stands de-recognised in India ? The British if anything added fuel to this fire of one-upmanship among the royalty and compounded this tussle further by adding gun salutes and by elevating several landed gentry and conferring the title of Raja on them.As for the Murshidabad royalty I guess it should be Jah and nor Jha pls recheck. The Cooch Behars had also been Nawab Nazims ? If anything the alliance between the family that took refuge in India during the reign of Aurangzeb from their exalted status of being caretakers of Hazrat Ali's mausaoleum had actually denigrated themselves (as per Syed standards) by accepting the hand in marriage of Dara Shikoh's daughter because Syed blood got diluted with Mongol/Mugha (read Sunni)l.So the second generation of the founder of the Najafi dynasty was not a Syed from both sides in his descent.

@ Mr Meerza :But the point being discussed here was Aurangzeb being called Alamgir. He is not addressed by that epithet or by that suffix in India which even you will vouch. As for most (not all) in our neighbouring country Aurangzeb alongwith Ghori and Ghazni shall always be celebrated because they were Hindu bashers and the sang-e-tamir (Bedrock if you may)of their nation is a belief in a falsehood that Hindus and Muslims are a separate qaum and that they cannot co-exist which has been proved wrong absolutely in India.

Agree wid every word u say.... well taking pride in your history is not a bad thing at all. Like how we pride in being a Sayed altho. the Imams a.s. are no more so in the same way the descendants of the erstwhile royals take pride in their roots..after all every next guy in town is not & cannot be the great grand son of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah or The Nawab Nazim or the Scindias, etc. So I guess being proud of your lineage is fine & whether it is recognized or not in Independent India is of little consequence. After all the de recognising of the Princely States was a calculated handiwork of the Congress leaders,in particular Nehru & Sardar Patel. The 1st Grand Dhoka by the govt. of Independent India. Yes sir, that was a spelling mistake, it is indeed "Jha" & not "jah", but a lot of us prefer to use the other spelling...don't ask me why ! Yes, a lot of landlords were given the stupid titles of Raja & Bahadur for no apparent reason!! It made the poor fellows happy & they readily gave away gifts including the produce of their fields to the Company Bahadur(another Bahadur!!) & the Viceroys. A perfect example is that of the Talukedars of U P who were freely given such titles & to whom was handed over the Mutawaliship (Trusteeship) of the Baradari (a property of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah) of Lucknow...Anyway this is all history is all about.....

Well that handiwork was single handedly carried out by Indira Gandhi. Nehru was not anti-monarchy but was rather ambivalent of their presence.It was her daughter who attempted to harvest India's royalty.As for Patel I believe he is un-necessarily credited with bringing about the merger of the erstwhile princely india with British India. It would have happened anyway.The princes were all erudite, foreign returned men-of-the-world who knew the fate the French royalty and more recently the Czar's family had met in a country which had the world's richest and the poorest existing side by side.They knew only too well the consequences of their not throwing in their lot with India or Pakistan as the Congresss was perfectly capable of orchestrating their ouster by brewing trouble in their kingdoms as it was riding a very high horse after independence.

u r absolutely right my Bro. & finally in 1968 Mrs Gandhi dealt the last most humiliating blow by stopping the Privy Purses ....

the history of almost all the native/foreign dynasties that ruled india/various regions of india right from the mid 8th century onwards is filled with senseless bloodshed, patricides, fratricides, debauchery and looting of the masses. be it the saga of the chauhans-tomars wrt delhi, the conflicts of the chauhans-gahadavalas, the debauchery of the slave dynasty, the patricides of the khaljis n tughlaqs, the drunken violence of the bahamani sultans, the overly extravagant lifestyle of the hampi vijayanagara kings, the patricide incidents in the sisodia family of mewar (the rana kumbha episode), the infighting among the rajput clans of mewar, marwar and amber, the bigotry of mughals (akbar being no exception - he maintained a harem of 400+ concubines), the religious fanaticism of shahjahan, aurangzeb, farukhsiyar etc, the ego of the later peshwas/heirs of the peshwas (the egoistical attitude of bhausaheb, the s/o balaji baji rao was an impt factor in the downfall of the marathas in the 3rd battle of panipat), the raghunath rao episode, the infighting among the peshwa and the maratha sardars (holkar, scindia, gaekwads) etc,the history of no other nation of the world is filled with as much bloodshed as witnessed in the indian history. since there was no proper chronicling system in place, most of these acts of violence have been lost/forgotten or erased by the perpetrators. it was the common man/the peasantry who bore the brunt of these debauchers and tyrants. people often cite that the condition of the peasant was bad during the british era. but what about the pre-brtish era? the massacres/harassment of the peasantry in the reign of the turks, the afghans, the mughals, the bahamanis, the hampi kings, the gajapathis, the north-western/western hindu kingdoms, the peshwas / maratha sardars (please refer to raids on northwestern, western, eastern and south india, concepts of chauth,sardeshmukhi on other regions, the pindaris) is indicated in various historical sources (some pronounced, the other vague). the common people i.e. the peasantry, the artisans, the common soldiers and other non-nobility, non-priestly classes have been mostly at the receiving end of any war, any battle, any raid. however, how many of them are remembered in our history books, our history chronicles? have they truly received the place that they deserve in our history sources?.... more emphasis is laid in our history lessons in the schools on kings and dynasties and not on the common people of those eras /situations faced by them.

@ nitin bhagawat --- also, banda bahadur was not murdered by aurangzeb but by farukhsiyar. it was guru tegh bahadur (f/o guru govind singh) who was beheaded on the orders of aurangzeb in chandni chowk area

Yes it was Tegh Bahadur who was beheaded at Chandni Chowk and that's why the Gurudwara built at the spot of his martyrdom is called Gurudwara Sis Ganj... gobind Singhs

Guru Gobind Singhs two sons were martyred though

@Paravathi; please do note that a large sweeping generalization over a span of 400 years+ is likely to be plain incorrect.

Digvijay, you have offended entire Pakistan by stating your view point. Free speech doesnt mean that you use public forums to air your whimsical views. You need to apoligize.

Syed, India strives to be true to its roots by placing a lot of value in free speech and discussion. This comes from the earliest times. Let there be debate, let the most compelling PoV win. Its a pity that Pakistan is now closed to it. In India a lot of Gandhians will rise up to say that a book tarnishing Gandhi-ji's image should not be banned while at the same time taking the book apart methodically to show how it is wrong.

Oh dear...whats brewing here ?

Nothing, promise :-)!!

Syed Haider : I dont see the need for such dramatic statements. No one is offending any people or country ...and each person is entitled to share his knowledge and opinion. Kindly do not politicize issues if you are keen to participate in discussions here. RBSI respects the people of all countries and has posted any number of books and prints on Pakistan... and lets not forget that India and Pakistan shared a common historical heritage till very recently.

RBSI: Im going to overlook your partisan views.

Syed Haider : A cursory scroll through the discussions and posts on RBSI would reveal that I am anything but partisan. And just to prove my point...I will not defend myself here...I will let you have your opinion.