Who was the last Mughal king? Change your Glasses please!
revisit & rethink
While writing last 300 years history South Asian historians often show their biases and try to narrate facts under numerous prides or prejudices like religious, sectarian, anti-colonial, pro-colonial, nationalist ones. If we read global history of those times we will observe a gradual shift from multi-national or multi-continental kingdoms towards comparatively small kingdoms based on geographical areas. They were moving toward Nation States yet constitutional monarchies & geographically associated units were like interim setups. Instead of Roman or Persian empires from 18th century we had British Empire, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Prussian Empire, French empire. Great Britain was formed in 1707 with the joint venture of England and Scotland. In South Asia or subcontinent we had similar phenomenon which started after the death of Aurangzeab Alamgieer in 1707. If we can change our anti-colonial & Nationalist (Indian nationalist) glasses and tries to analyze it with respect to increasing powers of geographical units we can well understand political situation of post-Alamgieer period. From Bengal & Maharashtra till the Punjab & Kabul regional powers gained semi Independence, fighting with one another and had no connection with Center. Sometimes we call them Muslim power, some time we call them Hindu power, sometime we call them Sikh power, yet in reality those were local power units. Just compare that struggle with American History of 18th century and you will feel similarities, same infighting was there. But with the passage of time they developed a loose federation first and then fought with others in US. But here in our lands after 142 year (from 1707-1849) rule of regional powers, British Empire enforced a centralist government and it was in their interest to use One nation Theory. They spread all negative things about that 142 years period and our historians are still following it knowingly or unknowingly. Just read history of Mughal power after Alamgieer, in less than 12 years 7 kings were removed till 1719 from Mughal throne. Delhi throne had no role in Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab and Kabul, as regional powers were strong enough. In 1738, Mughal King was under house arrest by Nadir Shah. Then Ahmad Shah repeated it after 10 years. Till mid-1760s, in wars of Plassi, Bengal (1757), Pani Pat , Punjab (1761), and Buksar (1864) Centre was useless & powerless while other powers had significant role. From 1867 till 1849, regions of Kashmir, Punjab, including NWFP & Laghman (FATA and Jalalabad) were either under Three kings of Lhore, semi independent or under Lhore Darbar. They had no link with Delhi at all. Britishers & French were raising infighting by helping different regional powers. Till 1799, except Punjab, Kashmir, Laghman, they captured areas from Maharashtra till Delhi. Grandfather of Bhadar shah zafar started taking pension from Britishers in 1803. You can well imagine what type of Mughal Empire was there? Bhadar shah zafar with the mercy of Britishers came into power in 1837. Just compare his power with Lord Bentinck or Charles Metcalf or Lord Auckland. Lord Macaulay mints are enough to understand who was in power. Was there any Mughal empire? Those who read about Mughals like akbar or Alamgieer can easily analyze it. But people like William Dalrymple are still On Duty.
From 1773, London had fixed the EIC and actual power was with empire. The piece is written to revisit our history. Read it now
While writing last 300 years history South Asian historians often show their biases and try to narrate facts under numerous prides or prejudices like religious, sectarian, anti-colonial, pro-colonial, nationalist ones. If we read global history of those times we will observe a gradual shift from multi-national or multi-continental kingdoms towards comparatively small kingdoms based on geographical areas. They were moving toward Nation States yet constitutional monarchies & geographically associated units were like interim setups. Instead of Roman or Persian empires from 18th century we had British Empire, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Prussian Empire, French empire. Great Britain was formed in 1707 with the joint venture of England and Scotland. In South Asia or subcontinent we had similar phenomenon which started after the death of Aurangzeab Alamgieer in 1707. If we can change our anti-colonial & Nationalist (Indian nationalist) glasses and tries to analyze it with respect to increasing powers of geographical units we can well understand political situation of post-Alamgieer period. From Bengal & Maharashtra till the Punjab & Kabul regional powers gained semi Independence, fighting with one another and had no connection with Center. Sometimes we call them Muslim power, some time we call them Hindu power, sometime we call them Sikh power, yet in reality those were local power units. Just compare that struggle with American History of 18th century and you will feel similarities, same infighting was there. But with the passage of time they developed a loose federation first and then fought with others in US. But here in our lands after 142 year (from 1707-1849) rule of regional powers, British Empire enforced a centralist government and it was in their interest to use One nation Theory. They spread all negative things about that 142 years period and our historians are still following it knowingly or unknowingly. Just read history of Mughal power after Alamgieer, in less than 12 years 7 kings were removed till 1719 from Mughal throne. Delhi throne had no role in Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab and Kabul, as regional powers were strong enough. In 1738, Mughal King was under house arrest by Nadir Shah. Then Ahmad Shah repeated it after 10 years. Till mid-1760s, in wars of Plassi, Bengal (1757), Pani Pat , Punjab (1761), and Buksar (1864) Centre was useless & powerless while other powers had significant role. From 1867 till 1849, regions of Kashmir, Punjab, including NWFP & Laghman (FATA and Jalalabad) were either under Three kings of Lhore, semi independent or under Lhore Darbar. They had no link with Delhi at all. Britishers & French were raising infighting by helping different regional powers. Till 1799, except Punjab, Kashmir, Laghman, they captured areas from Maharashtra till Delhi. Grandfather of Bhadar shah zafar started taking pension from Britishers in 1803. You can well imagine what type of Mughal Empire was there? Bhadar shah zafar with the mercy of Britishers came into power in 1837. Just compare his power with Lord Bentinck or Charles Metcalf or Lord Auckland. Lord Macaulay mints are enough to understand who was in power. Was there any Mughal empire? Those who read about Mughals like akbar or Alamgieer can easily analyze it. But people like William Dalrymple are still On Duty.
From 1773, London had fixed the EIC and actual power was with empire. The piece is written to revisit our history. Read it now
No comments:
Post a Comment