• By 1761, the Mughal Empire was weakened, allowing local powers to assert independence, but the symbolic authority of the Mughal emperor persisted.
• Bengal, Hyderabad, and Awadh emerged as successor states, founded by Mughal provincial governors with varying histories.
• Murshid Quli Khan in Bengal gradually gained autonomy through efficient revenue administration, breaking the traditional division of power.
• Bengal’s successful revenue collection system relied on powerful intermediary zamindars, leading to the rise of landed magnates.
• The period between 1717 and 1726 saw the emergence of powerful zamindars, merchants, and bankers in Bengal politics.
• The autonomy of Bengal continued with successors like Shujauddin and Alivardi Khan, but true independence came under Alivardi, marking a break with the Mughals.
• Alivardi faced challenges from Maratha invasions and Afghan rebellions but maintained control until his death in 1756.
• Siraj-ud-daula’s succession was marked by court factionalism, leading to the English East India Company’s involvement and the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
• The autonomous kingdom of Hyderabad was founded in 1724 by Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah I, initially serving as the Mughal wazir.
• Hyderabad became independent in 1740, acknowledging Mughal suzerainty symbolically while acting autonomously in wars, treaties, and appointments.
• Hyderabad faced succession wars, Maratha attacks, and French involvement, stabilizing under Nizam Ali Khan after 1762.
• The Hyderabadi administrative system incorporated local power structures into a patron-client relationship with the central power.
• Locally powerful traders, moneylenders, and military aristocracy played a crucial role in supporting the Nizam.
• The administrative structure in Hyderabad retained some Mughal features but underwent substantial changes, with power diffused widely.
• By the end of the 18th century, Hyderabad represented a relatively new political system with diverse participants from various social backgrounds.
• Saadat Khan, Mughal governor of Awadh in 1722, subdued local rebellions and established dynastic rule.
• Frustrated in court politics, Saadat Khan built a power base in Awadh, making the diwan’s office virtually independent.
• Reforms in Awadh included a new land revenue settlement, increased revenue demand, and granting jagirs to local gentry.
• Saadat Khan created a regional ruling elite with support from Indian Muslims, Afghans, and Hindus, maintaining communication with the imperial court.
• After Saadat Khan’s death in 1740, Awadh developed a semi-autonomous political system, reducing financial ties with the Mughal state.
• Safdar Jung, Saadat Khan’s son-in-law, succeeded him and further enhanced Awadh’s autonomy.
• Safdar Jung’s opportunities expanded after the deaths of Muhammad Shah and Nizam-ul-Mulk in 1748, leading to his appointment as wazir by Ahmad Shah.
• Safdar Jung’s self-aggrandizement led to his ouster in 1753, marking the visible secession of Awadh from the dwindling Mughal empire.
• Shuja-ud-daula, Safdar Jung’s son, maintained Awadh’s autonomy without formally defying the Mughal emperor’s symbolic authority.
• Shuja-ud-daula played a strategic role in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) as an independent partner in alliance with Ahmad Shah Abdali.
• Other states in the 18th century, like Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and Afghan kingdoms, emerged as rebels against the Mughal state.
• The Maratha state, founded by Shivaji in the 17th century, faced dynastic factionalism and Mughal pressure in the Deccan.
• Maratha civil war ended with Shahu’s victory in 1718-19, and power gradually shifted to the peshwas, becoming the source of authority.
• After Baji Rao’s conquests, Nana Saheb (Balaji Bajirao) became the supreme authority in the Maratha polity.
• During Nana Saheb’s rule, Marathas exerted influence across India, conducting raids, exacting tributes, and intervening in succession wars.
• Marathas reached their peak period of glory in the mid-18th century, gaining control over large parts of north India.
• Maratha depredations included raids on Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, and conflicts with the nizam’s territories in Konkan and Rajput kingdoms.
• Marathas brought the Mughal emperor under their protection in 1752 and intervened in Punjab, installing their candidate on the Mughal throne in 1753.
• Maratha mastery over north India was short-lived, as an Afghan invasion under Ahmad Shah Abdali dealt a significant blow to their influence.
• Third Battle of Panipat in 1761 marked the decline of Maratha power, with Abdali defeating Maratha forces under Sadasiv Rao Bhao.
• Factionalism among Maratha leaders increased after the battle, leading to internal conflicts.
• Raghunath Rao, Madhav Rao’s uncle, seized power but faced opposition from important Maratha chiefs.
• Raghunath Rao sought an alliance with the English, changing the trajectory of Maratha history.
• Maratha state’s confederacy structure, with power shared among chiefs like Bhonsles, Gaikwad, Holkar, and Sindhia, hindered centralized control.
• Factional rivalry among Maratha sardars intensified due to varied interests and local loyalties.
• Efforts to replace traditional vatan rights with a new system faced challenges, leading to continued existence of regional assemblies.
• Debate on Maratha state’s relationship with the Mughal system; seen as a rebel by some, while others argue it remained within the Mughal tradition.
• Marathas acknowledged Mughal emperor’s symbolic authority even in the 1770s, and administrative structures resembled the Mughal system.
• Maratha decline attributed to increasing English influence in the Deccan, and the efficient English army posed a significant challenge.

Sikh Panth in Punjab:

• Sikhism’s origins traced back to Guru Nanak’s teachings in the 15th century during Babur’s founding of the Mughal empire.
• Guru Gobind Singh transformed Sikhs into a military organization in 1699, establishing the Khalsa brotherhood.
• Sikh conflict with Mughals, especially during Aurangzeb’s reign, led to Guru Tegh Bahadur’s execution in 1675.
• Banda Bahadur continued Sikh revolt after Guru Gobind Singh’s death, establishing his own administration in Punjab.
• Internal dissension weakened Banda’s movement; execution in 1716 did not end Sikh power.
• Sikh rebellion persisted, with roving bands asserting independence despite Mughal efforts to control them.
• Sikhs gained significant control over Punjab; Ahmad Shah Abdali’s invasion in 1765 failed to subdue them.
• Power in Sikh polity became horizontally structured with misls (combinations based on kinship ties) holding territories.
• Ranjit Singh emerged as a prominent Sikh chief, repelling Afghan invasions and consolidating power in Punjab by 1809.
• Treaty of Amritsar in 1809 recognized Ranjit Singh as the sole sovereign ruler of Punjab, expanding his influence across the region.
• Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839 left a power vacuum, and the Sikh state faced challenges from internal conflicts and external pressures.
• Ranjit Singh’s administration in Punjab combined Mughal system and local traditions.
• Punjab’s trade flourished under Ranjit Singh’s rule, but land revenue remained the main income source, with 40% alienated as jagir.
• Local hierarchies and the centralized state coexisted delicately in a dualistic ‘national’ and ‘local’ governance system.
• Ranjit Singh balanced power between Sikh chiefs, central Punjab peasants, and non-Punjabi nobles.
• After Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, internal power struggles led to the decline of independent Sikh rule in Punjab.
• In the 18th century, the Jat kingdom of Bharatpur emerged as a smaller state, exploiting Mughal weakness.
• Jats revolted against the Mughal state, leading to the founding of Bharatpur by Gokla, Rajaram, and Churaman Jat.
• Suraj Mal consolidated Jat power but faced challenges, and the Jat state collapsed after his death in 1763.
• Afghan migration to India increased in the 18th century, leading to the establishment of small Afghan kingdoms like Rohilkhand and Farukhabad.
• The Rohilla kingdom suffered at the hands of neighboring powers, including the Marathas, Jats, Awadh, and the English.
• Principalities like Rajput kingdoms, Mysore, and Travancore gained independence by exploiting Mughal weakness.
• Rajput chiefs incorporated into Mughal structure as peshkashi zamindars, paying tribute to the emperor while enjoying autonomy.
• Complex power relations in Rajput states based on land ownership and hierarchical principles of service and loyalty.
• Rajput polities built on non-exclusive political relationships, allowing for rebellion as an accepted norm of political behavior.
• Mughal interference in Marwar succession led to a revolt by the Rather sardars, supported by Mewar, against the Mughal empire.
• Mewar’s support aimed at establishing pre-eminence in Rajput politics rather than fostering Rajput nationalism.
• In the 18th century, many Rajput clans asserted independence by loosening ties with Delhi and functioning as independent states.
• Sawai Jai Singh of Amber was a powerful Rajput chief who played a significant role in Mughal politics in the 18th century.
• In south India, Mysore’s emergence as a significant power in the mid-18th century was marked by Haidar Ali’s rise to political power in 1761.
• Mysore transformed from a Vijaynagara viceroyalty to an autonomous principality under the Wodeyar dynasty.
• Haidar Ali’s humble origin, military career, and political rise to prominence in Mysore.
• Haidar Ali modernized the Mysore army with French experts, creating an efficient infantry and artillery.
• The Mysore army adopted a European model with a clear chain of command through the system of risalas.
• Local warrior chiefs, deshmukhs, and palegars were subjugated to consolidate Haidar’s power.
• Haidar and Tipu introduced a land revenue system based on detailed surveys and classifications, imposing taxes directly on peasants.
• The Mysore state aimed to build and maintain a large army through “military fiscalism,” collecting taxes directly to mobilize resources.
• Tipu Sultan encouraged agriculture, repaired irrigation systems, and modernized the economy, including efforts to participate in oceanic trade.
• Mysore established a “state commercial corporation,” engaging in trade and establishing trading centers in India and overseas.
• Constant warfare overshadowed Mysore’s history due to territorial ambitions and conflicts with Marathas, Hyderabad, and the English.
• Tipu Sultan’s reign represented a discontinuity in eighteenth-century Indian politics, with a strong regional tradition and symbolic gestures of independence.
• Travancore, in the southernmost part of India, maintained independence from Mughal rule.
• Under Martanda Varma, Travancore expanded with a modern army and implemented a royal monopoly on trade for state development.
• Despite withstanding a Mysorean invasion in 1766, Travancore succumbed to British pressure and accepted a Resident in 1800.
• The internal social organization of Travancore, dominated by the Nair community, persisted until the second half of the nineteenth century.
• The major characteristic of eighteenth-century India was the weakening of the centralized Mughal empire and the dispersal of political power across regions.
• Mughal symbols and systems persisted with changes in content, and successor states made adjustments between central kingship and local loyalties.
• Regional rulers patronized diverse cultural and religious traditions, fostering a flourishing cultural life.
• Economic resilience was seen with continued trade, both internal and external, and the rise of revenue farmers and influential merchants.
• Indigenous bankers played a significant role, handling cash and operating extensive financial networks.
• There was a creation of new wealth and social power in the provinces, contributing to the decline of centralized Mughal power.
• Regions with considerable resources attracted European traders, sparking competition for mastery over the subcontinent.

• The English East India Company was established on December 31, 1600, through a royal charter as a joint stock company of London merchants.
• Its formation aimed to compete with Dutch traders in Eastern trade, securing a monopoly on all trade from England to the East.
• The Company, initially without a mandate for conquest or colonization, began trading in India from 1613 after obtaining permission from Mughal emperor Jahangir.
• Political expansion started in the mid-18th century, and within a hundred years, the Company had gained control over almost the entire Indian subcontinent.
• Until 1784, there was no conscious or consistent British policy for political conquest in India; territorial growth was driven by Company officials’ initiatives on the ground.
• The Company’s history in India needs to be understood in the context of developments in 18th-century Indian politics, where it responded to local developments and exploited opportunities.
• The imperial expansion, even after the 1780s, was motivated by the fiscal and military needs of the Company rather than trade interests.
• The use of force to promote trade was a consistent practice, and the Company’s fortunes were linked to royal prerogatives and interests.
• The relationship between the Crown and the Company was mutually beneficial, with loans and privileges exchanged for support.
• Territorial expansion was influenced by political changes in England, such as the Stuart monarchy’s restoration and Charles II’s aggressive commercial policy abroad.
• The Crown’s involvement in the colonization of India is evident in actions like handing over Bombay to the Company and defending Portuguese positions against Dutch aggression.
• The growth of the Madras Presidency and Calcutta Presidency was influenced by charters and support from London authorities.
• The Company’s aggressive stance in defense of trading interests against Aurangzeb’s threats in the 1680s underscores its early intent for territorial expansion.
• The eighteenth century marked the beginning of confident territorial expansion, with imperial expansion and the Company’s financial strength becoming interconnected.
• The relationship between the state and the Company was streamlined in the 1770s, with the Company agreeing to pay £400,000 annually to the state for its Indian territorial possessions.
• The Regulating Act of 1773 clarified the sovereignty issue, establishing the state’s rights over all territorial acquisitions overseas.
• London authorities later became averse to territorial expansion due to war expenses but still sought to benefit from the resources of the Indian empire without the cost of acquiring or administering it.
• The expansion of the British Empire in India in the second half of the eighteenth century was influenced by “gentlemanly capitalism,” characterized by an alliance between landed interests and financial power in London after 1688.
• Revenue became a central preoccupation of imperial policy, driven by the need to finance England’s growing internal and overseas trade.
• P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins emphasized the importance of Indian revenue resources in the discussion of imperialism.
• Aside from revenue and the Company’s trade, other significant factors played a role in territorial expansion in eighteenth-century India.
• The Company’s monopoly rights faced challenges, including defiance by “interlopers” conducting illegal trade between England and the Indian Ocean countries.
• Conflict arose in the eighteenth century due to parallel trading activities, involving Company employees and free merchants, leading to cheating, deceit, and illicit networks.
• Collusion between private traders, interlopers, and misuse of trading privileges exacerbated conflicts and eroded the Company’s profits.
• The misuse of dastaks, permits certifying duty-free goods, contributed to significant friction between the Company and local rulers, particularly in Bengal.
• Territorial expansion was a result of the interaction between pressures from the periphery and impetus from the metropole.
• Bengal played a crucial role in the Company’s trade structure, with its goods comprising nearly 60% of English imports from Asia by the early eighteenth century.
• Granting of rights and conflicts with Bengal rulers, such as Murshid Quli Khan, set the stage for the emergence of the Company as an imperial power.
• The outbreak of the Austrian Succession War in 1740 heightened hostilities between English and French companies in Bengal.
• The Battle of Plassey in 1757 marked the beginning of the political supremacy of the English East India Company in India.
• Post-Plassey, the “Plassey plunder” resulted in significant financial gains for the English army, navy, and individuals like Robert Clive.
• Plassey brought about a change in the structure of the Company’s trade, with a shift from importing bullion to exporting bullion from Bengal.
• Conflict with Mir Kasim and Mir Jafar ensued over trade privileges, leading to shifts in nawabs and the continued influence of the Company.
• The Battle of Buxar in 1764 further solidified English control, and the Treaty of Allahabad in 1765 granted the Company diwani rights over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
• The system of indirect rule, initiated in Bengal, became a key aspect of the Company’s imperial governance.
• Anglo-French rivalry in southern India set the context for expansion in the south, driven by the ambitious project of building a territorial empire.
• The Treaty of Allahabad in 1765 formalized the Company’s control over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, marking a significant step in the expansion of the British Empire in India.
• Pondicherry, the main center of French activity in India, was founded in 1674 and gained political prominence under the leadership of Dupleix, the distinguished French governor general.
• Dupleix, initially the governor of Chandernagore in Bengal, significantly increased French trade from this center within ten years.
• Dupleix intervened in Indian disputes, acquiring political control over vast territories, a technique later adopted and perfected by the English East India Company.
• The outbreak of the Austrian Succession War in 1740 escalated conflict between the French and English in India, particularly in the south.
• The first Carnatic War ensued with the French attacking Madras, and hostilities continued until the Treaty of Aix-La-Chappelle in 1748, restoring English possessions in India.
• The second round of conflict arose from succession disputes in Carnatic and Hyderabad, leading to the Second Carnatic War in 1752.
• French candidates initially succeeded, but the English, led by Robert Clive, emerged victorious, weakening French influence in the south.
• Dupleix’s policies, financial losses, and differences with the French government led to his recall in 1754.
• The outbreak of the Seven Years’ War in Europe in 1756 marked the third round of Anglo-French conflict in south India.
• Financial difficulties, internal conflicts, and military setbacks weakened the French position, culminating in the decisive Third Carnatic War.
• The Battle of Wandiwash in 1760 and the fall of Pondicherry in 1761 marked the end of French strongholds in India.
• The Peace of Paris in 1763 restored French factories and settlements in India but marked the decisive ascendancy of the English East India Company.
• The Anglo-French rivalry and the entry of Crown troops into India enhanced the military power of the English East India Company.
• The French East India Company was dissolved in 1769, eliminating the main European rival of the English in India.
• The Company’s relationship with Indian rulers involved diplomatic alliances to turn the balance of power in their favor.
• The Pitt’s India Act in 1784 briefly limited imperial expansion, focusing on protecting British possessions and promoting trade.
• Lord Wellesley’s arrival in 1798 marked a shift toward a more aggressive policy of conquest, culminating in the ‘Subsidiary Alliance.’
• Mysore, under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, appeared as a security threat to the English in Madras and Carnatic.
• Tipu Sultan’s control over trade in the Malabar coast and his ambitious territorial designs made him a significant danger to the English.
• Four rounds of battles between the Company and Mysore (1767-69, 1780-84, 1790-92, and 1799) preceded the final takeover of Mysore in 1799.
• The ‘Subsidiary Alliance’ system imposed on Mysore by Lord Wellesley marked the end of its independent state and further expanded English control in India.
• The Company’s cotton trade growth with China through Bombay from Gujarat raised concerns about Deccan’s security under the Maratha confederacy.
• Raghunath Rao’s succession dispute and Peshwa Narayan Rao’s death led him to seek British support, resulting in conflicts and inconclusive treaties.
• Maratha forces regrouped under Nana Fadnis, Sindhia, and Holkar, defeating the British at Wadgaon in 1779.
• The First Anglo-Maratha War ended inconclusively in 1782 through the Treaty of Salbai, aligning Marathas with the Company and against Mysore.
• Internal rivalry weakened the Maratha state; Nana Fadnis made the Peshwa powerless, leading to chaos and Peshwa’s suicide in 1795.
• Succession disputes continued, with Sindhia supporting the Peshwa, while Holkar’s army plundered Malwa.
• Wellesley’s arrival marked a shift in British attitudes toward Indian states; the Company formed a subsidiary alliance with Hyderabad and crushed Mysore in 1799.
• The Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-1805) saw battles and treaties, but Wellesley’s recall in 1805 shifted to a policy of non-intervention.
• Lord Hastings introduced the policy of “paramountcy” in 1813, allowing the Company to annex or threaten to annex territories to protect its interests.
• The Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1819) resulted in the British taking control of the Peshwa’s dominions, ending Maratha power south of the Vindhyas.
• In North India, the Company secured its position in Awadh through treaties, leading to annexation in 1856 due to political instability.
• The Sikh state in Punjab faced internal strife, and the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-1846) resulted in the annexation of Jalandhar Doab and Kashmir.
• The Second Anglo-Sikh War (1849) led to the full annexation of Punjab, completing British mastery over territories south of the Vindhyas.
• The Company’s expansion continued in the northeast, with the First Burma War (1824-1826) leading to the annexation of Assam, Nagaland, Arakan, and Tenasserim.
• Coorg was annexed in 1834, and Cachar in 1830, further expanding Company territories.
• The imperial expansion was driven by the perceived need for military strength to secure the Indian empire against internal and external threats.
• Russo-phobia post-Crimean War (1854-56) drove British expansion northwest.
• Lord Auckland’s First Afghan War (1838-42) aimed at indirect rule by restoring a deposed king; Lord Ellenborough took over Sind in 1843.
• Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) utilized the “Doctrine of Lapse” to annex territories from rulers without male heirs, including Satara (1848), Sambalpur, Baghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Nagpur (1853), and Jhansi (1854).
• The Second Burma War (1852-53) led to the annexation of Pegu.
• In 1853, Berar was taken from Hyderabad to secure subsidy payment for the Company’s army.
• By 1857, the Company had annexed about 63% of the Indian subcontinent, leaving princely states under indirect rule.
• Policies shifted to indirect rule after 1858, relying on Indian princes for loyalty to the British Raj.
• The link between commercial and political expansion is evident, with commerce driving conquest, creating possibilities of conflict.
• Private trade growth relied on British power, pressuring Indian rulers for immunities and concessions.
• Indian rulers’ rivalry and factionalism prevented a joint front against British power.
• The Company’s capacity to conquer an empire increased with the Anglo-French rivalry, the introduction of Crown troops, and the establishment of its own disciplined army.
• The Company’s obsession with stable frontiers motivated conquest, leading to a self-perpetuating and self-legitimizing process.
• Success depended on mobilizing greater resources than rivals, with Company soldiers better paid and fed.
• Control over revenue resources became vital for financing trade and conquests, leading to a progression from military ascendancy to direct annexation.
• Revenue considerations propelled the Company into administration, aligning with Cain and Hopkins’ notion of the primacy of revenue in British imperialism.
• The colonial state in India was shaped by ideologies and values of Georgian England, using state power to protect trade, property rights, and secure markets.
• Political debates in England informed modes of imperial governance in India.