Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:17:14.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

At Empire's End: The Nizam, Hyderabad and Eighteenth-Century India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

MUNIS D. FARUQUI
MUNIS D. FARUQUI*
Affiliation:
Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nizam-ul-Mulk (d. 1748) was a Mughal nobleman who founded the post-Mughal successor state of Hyderabad. Engaging the Nizam's long and varied career, this essay re-evaluates the Nizam's decision to abandon the Mughal imperial system. In so doing, it highlights the ways in which the Nizam's story contrasts with that of founders of other post-Mughal successor states. This essay also seeks to explore Hyderabad's early history, the unique challenges faced by the new state, and the inventive ways in which it sought to overcome them. Ultimately, this essay aims to broaden and complicate our understanding of India's political history in the late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 5 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See clauses 4, 5 and 6. Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah (Hyderabad, 1892), p. 40. See also Wasiyyatnama-i Asaf Jah, Salar Jung Museum and Library, Mss. Hist. 454, fols. 1a–5a; Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, Andhra Pradesh State Archives, Mss. Or. 1749, fols. 51a–54a.

2 Barnett, Richard B. (ed.), Rethinking Early Modern India (Delhi, 2002), 22.Google Scholar

3 Following the Khan's success in bringing grain to a starving and beleaguered Mughal army commanded by Aurangzeb's son, Prince Azam, a deeply appreciative emperor went so far as to pray: ‘As God Almighty has saved the honour of the house of Timur (sharm-i aulad-i Timuriyya) through the efforts of Feroz Jang (i.e. Ghaziuddin Khan), so may he guard the honour of his descendants until the Day of Resurrection (ta daur-i qiyamat)’. Khafi Khan, Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, ed. Khairuddin Ahmad and Ghulam Ahmad, Vol. II, Part I (Calcutta, 1860–1874), 319. For a slightly different rendition of the same, see Mir Abu Turab Ali, Hadiqat-ul-Alam, Vol. II (Hyderabad, 1892), 37.

4 Khan, Yusuf H., The First Nizam (Bombay, reprint 1963)Google Scholar; Chandra, Satish, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707–1740 (Delhi, reprint 2002)Google Scholar; Nayeem, M.A., Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 1720–48 A.D. (Bombay, 1985)Google Scholar; Umar, Muhammad, Muslim Society in Northern India during the Eighteenth Century (Delhi, 1998).Google Scholar

5 These arguments are laid out in my doctoral dissertation: Princes and Power in the Mughal Empire, 1569–1657 (Duke University, 2002).Google Scholar

6 Other high-ranking noblemen would similarly challenge Aurangzeb's sons. In 1693, for example, Zulfiqar Khan and Asad Khan temporarily imprisoned Prince Kambakhsh (Aurangzeb's youngest son) following bitter disagreements over military strategy during a campaign in the Deccan. Although Aurangzeb subsequently ordered his son released and even reprimanded Zulfiqar Khan for over-reaching, the Khan's reputation was not affected in any significant way. See Khan, Saqi Mustaid, Maasir-i Alamgiri, ed. Ali, Maulavi Agha Ahmad (Calcutta, 1870–1873), 354–359.Google Scholar

7 Beginning in 1683, Aurangzeb shifted his attention towards a long-standing imperial goal: the conquest of the Deccan. The emperor seemed assured of success especially following the conquest of the independent sultanates of Bijapur (1686) and Golkonda (1687), and the capture and execution of Sambhaji, the leader of the Maratha opposition (1689). Through the 1690s, however, the initiative increasingly slipped away from the Mughals. By 1700, the Mughals were trapped in a quagmire of their own making. Unable to crush the Marathas militarily, political prestige dictated that they stay an increasingly hopeless course as long as Aurangzeb was still alive.

8 During the 1705 siege of Wakinkheda, for example, the horse he was riding was blown apart by a cannon shot. How did he react? He called for a fresh horse and continued his inspection of the Mughal frontlines.

9 Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 73b.

10 Taali, Murad Ali, Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah Awwal (Hyderabad, 1944), 11.Google Scholar

11 For this and other marks of imperial favour, see Mir Abu Turab Ali, Hadiqat-ul-Alam, Vol. II, 49.

12 Ibid., Vol. II, 49–50.

13 See generally Richards, John F., ‘Norms of comportment among Mughal Imperial officers’ in Moral Conduct and Authority, ed. Metcalf, Barbara (Berkeley, 1984), 255–289Google Scholar.

14 See generally, Khan, Shahnawaz, Maasir-ul-Umara, ed. Ali, Maulavi Mirza Ashraf, Vol. I (Calcutta, 1888–1891), 346–350.Google Scholar

15 Aurangzeb, Ruqaat-i Alamgiri, ed. Majeed, Sayyid Muhammad Abdul (Kanpur, 1916), 31–32.Google Scholar

16 Mir Abu Turab Ali, Hadiqat-ul-Alam, Vol. II, 54. For a fuller discussion of the larger political context informing the Nizam's resignation, see Alam, Muzaffar, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748 (Delhi, 1986), 20–23, 58–63.Google Scholar

17 See generally, Lahori, Muhammad Qasim, Ibratnama, ed. Ahmad, Zahuruddin (Lahore, 1977), 162Google Scholar; Wazih, Mubarakullah, Tarikh-i Iradat Khan, ed. Mehr, Ghulam Rasul (Lahore, 1971), 129Google Scholar; Khafi Khan, Muntakhab-ul-Lubub, Vol. II, Part II, 689.

18 Ghulam Husain Tabatabai, Siyar-ul-Mutakherin (Lucknow, 1859–1860), Vol. II, 386. See also Iradut Khan, ‘Memoirs of the Mogul Empire’ trans. by Jonathan Scott in History of Dekkan, Vol. II, Part IV (Shrewsbury, 1794), fn. 2, 81.

19 The Nizam crushed multiple attempts by the Sayyid brothers to assert their control over the Deccan. The Sayyids' power rapidly disintegrated thereafter. See generally, Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, British Library Add. Mss 26244, fols. 152a–178a. See also Irvine, William, Later Mughals (Delhi, reprint 1996), 16–93Google Scholar. For a pro-Sayyid perspective, see Ghazanfar Husain's 1720 versified account, Jangnama-i Sayyid Alam Ali Khan, ed. Abdulhaq (Aurangabad, 1932).

20 Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fols. 178b–179a.

21 In a surviving letter to Emperor Muhammad Shah, he speaks about Muhammad Amin Khan's earlier betrayal (he should not have behaved in this manner) and claims he has earned the right to the wazirship. Just in case the emperor missed the urgency of the Nizam's demand, he concludes by saying that giving it to anyone else will cause ‘heart-burning. . . [and] we shall have to resign from the imperial service’. Cited in Yusuf H. Khan, The First Nizam, 117.

22 Among the key players seeking the Nizam's removal from the ambit of Mughal politics were Emperor Muhammad Shah, the emperor's foster-sister (Koki Jiu), Samsam-ud-daula (whose death at the Battle of Karnal in 1739 would be blamed on the Nizam), Raushan-ud-daula (a favourite of the emperor), and Qamaruddin Khan—the son of Muhammad Amin Khan and therefore cousin of the Nizam—who secretly desired (and ultimately received) the position of wazir. For more details, see generally, Junaidi, Muhammad Mahbub, Hayat-i Asaf, (Hyderabad, 1946), 187–209.Google Scholar

23 See generally, William Irvine, Later Mughals; Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707–1740, and a long line of Hyderabad-based historians from Yusuf H. Khan, The First Nizam, to those of the eighteenth century including Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi (Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, 1739), Vir Rai (Tazkira-i Asafiyya, 1752–1753), Abul Faiz Maani (Tarikh Futuhat-i Asafia, 1750s), Yusuf Khan Turani (Tarikh-i Fathiyah, 1754), Lala Mansaram (Maasir-i Nizami, 1785), and Munshi Ram Singh (Gulshan-i Ajaib, 1783).

24 See generally, Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707–1740, as well as earlier eighteenth-century historians like Rustam Ali (Tarikh-i Hindi, 1741–1742), Muhammad Mohsin Siddiqui, (Jauhar-i Samsam, 1740–1741), and the anonymous authors of Tawarikh-i Nadir Shahi (1740s?) and Risala-i Muhammad Shah wa Khan-i Dauran (1740s).

25 The best evidence of this can be seen in a recent slue of concise histories including: Jalal, Ayesha and Bose, Sugata, Modern South Asia (New York, 2004)Google Scholar, and Barbara and Metcalf, Thomas, A Concise History of India (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar. See also Ramusack, Barbara, The Indian Princes and their States (Cambridge, 2004), 25–26.Google Scholar

26 For a rare comparative approach, see Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748. Otherwise, for studies on Awadh, see Fisher, Michael, A Clash of Cultures: Awadh, the British and the Mughals (Delhi, 1987)Google Scholar and Barnett, Richard, North India between Empires: Awadh, the Mughals, and the British, 1720–1801 (Berkeley, 1980)Google Scholar. For the Punjab: see Singh, Chetan, Region and Empire: Punjab in the Seventeenth Century (Delhi, 1991)Google Scholar and Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748. For Bengal: see Chaudhury, Sushil, The Prelude to Empire (Delhi, 2000)Google Scholar and From Prosperity to Decline: Eighteenth Century Bengal (Delhi, 1995), Chatterjee, Kumkum, Merchants, Politics and Society in Early Modern India, Bihar: 1733–1820 (Leiden, 1996)Google Scholar, McLane, John, Land and Local Kingship in 18th Century Bengal (Cambridge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Marshall, P.J., Bengal: The British Bridgehead, Eastern India 1740–1828 (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar, and Shirin Akhtar, The Role of the Zamindars in Bengal, 1707–1772 (Dacca, 1982).

27 This is reflected in, for example, P.J. Marshall's introduction to The Eighteenth Century in Indian History. Although he is absolutely correct in highlighting the importance Mughal successor states attached to gaining the support of intermediate gentry and merchantile groups, he is (not surprisingly) forced to confine his comments to Awadh, Bengal and the Marathas. Hyderabad does not even make a cameo appearance. This lack can be attributed to the almost complete absence of scholarship on the early nizamate's evolving relations with almost all intermediate groups. See Marshall, P.J., The Eighteenth Century in Indian History (Delhi, 2003), 7–8Google Scholar. By contrast, even the statelet of Arcot, a subsidiary of Hyderabad along the eastern coast of south India, has received more attention. The best contemporary work is: Alam, Muzaffar and Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, ‘Exploring the Hinterland: Trade and Politics in the Arcot Nizamate (1700–1732),’ in Mukherjee, Rudrangshu and Subramanian, Lakshmi (eds.), Politics and Trade in the Indian Ocean World. Essays in Honor of Ashin Das Gupta (Delhi, 1998), 113–164.Google Scholar

28 See generally, Alam, Muzaffar, ‘The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal politics’ Modern Asian Studies, 32 (2), 1998, 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 40–41. See also Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, British Library Add. Mss. 26236, fols. 107a–b.

30 See generally William Irvine, Later Mughals; Yusuf H. Khan, The First Nizam; Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707–1740; Malik, Zahiruddin, The Reign of Muhammad Shah (Bombay, 1977)Google Scholar; M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 1720–48 A.D; and Muhammad Umar, Muslim Society in Northern India during the Eighteenth Century. For a more recent example, see Green, Nile, ‘Geography, empire and sainthood in the eighteenth-century Muslim Deccan’ Bulletin of SOAS, 67 (2), 2004, 207–225.Google Scholar

31 ‘Turan’ was a commonly used generic name to describe the regions north of the River Amu in Central Asia. See generally, Minorsky, V., ‘Turan’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. IV: II (Leiden, 1934), 878–884.Google Scholar

32 In this regard, the Nizam was following an old family tradition. Aurangzeb once noted that Abid Khan (the Nizam's grandfather) was among a small group of noblemen who when mounting guard duties, would offer coffee, breakfast, and dinner to their soldiers. At times of departure (waqt-i rukhsat), they would gift perfumes and betelnut. They would also send all manner of food to their soldiers' homes to alleviate complaints by the soldiers' dependents that the men alone were receiving generosity. Ruqaat-i Alamgiri, 23. See also Yusuf. H. Khan, The First Nizam, 8.

33 Yusuf H. Khan, The First Nizam, 125.

34 Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fol. 178b. The Nizam played a crucial role in enhancing this image by, for example, suggesting that his military conquests in South India were intended to complete Emperor Aurangzeb's goals. See Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 92a, fol. 99b.

35 This followed upon earlier, if slightly half-hearted, efforts—in 1713 to 1715—to strengthen his position in the Deccan. See Murad Ali Taali, Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah Awwal, 19–20; Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 184–186; Richards, John F., Mughal Administration in Golconda (Oxford, 1975), 269–271.Google Scholar

36 For an example, see Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707–1740.

37 For details, see generally M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 35–36. Having failed to transfer Mubariz Khan out of his governorship of Hyderabad between 1722 and 1724 (despite his best efforts), the Nizam sought to weaken Mubariz Khan by instituting inquiries into financial malfeasance (income from imperial crown lands, khalisa, were supposedly misappropriated). Shahnawaz Khan, Maasir-ul-Umara, Vol. III, 736.

38 John F. Richards, Mughal Administration in Golconda, 294.

39 Mir Abu Turab Ali, Hadiqat-ul-Alam, Vol. II, 128–130.

40 The Nizam's unwillingness to alienate any part of the former Mughal imperial apparatus in the Deccan is, perhaps, best attested by the kind treatment accorded to the defeated supporters of Mubariz Khan as well as the dead Khan's surviving sons. Most were reaccommodated into the emerging administrative institutions of Hyderabad. Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fol. 198a; Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 57b, fols. 61a-b. See also Bahadur, Akhtar Yar Jang, Tarikh-i Dakkan (Hyderabad, 1929), 316, 318Google Scholar; Bilgrami, Syed Hossain, A Memoir of Sir Salar Jung (Bombay, 1883), 5Google Scholar; Khan, Maulvi Abdul Rahim, Tarikh-i Nizam-i Urdu (Hyderabad, 1899), 43–44Google Scholar; John F. Richards, Mughal Administration in Golconda, 299; Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 239–240. One of Mubariz Khan's sons—Hamidullah Khan—eventually even married into the Nizam's family. Khan, Maulvi Abdul Rahim, Tarikh-i Nizam-i Urdu (Hyderabad, 1894), 43.Google Scholar

41 Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 65a.

42 Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 38.

43 Yusuf H. Khan, The First Nizam, 67; A.G. Pawar, ‘Some documents bearing on imperial mughal grants to Raja Shahu (1717–1724)’ Indian Historical Records Commission, Vol. XVII, 1940, 210–213.

44 Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 85b. For more on the Nizam's delicate balancing act, see the correspondence detailing his 1726 campaign in Karnataka. Although reliant on Maratha military support, he remained deeply mistrustful of their support—beh anha itimad-i dilli nabud. Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 138b.

45 Two of the Nizam's foremost commanders, Muhammad Ghiyas Khan and Iwaz Khan, warned that support for Sambhaji was inadvisable. After all, ‘To replace one tyrant (zalim) with another makes no sense; after all the wolf cub will grow to be a wolf’. Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fol. 199b. For more on the political manoeuvres to entice Sambhaji to the Nizam's side, see Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 122b.

46 M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 219; Malik, Zahiruddin, ‘Chauth-Collection in the Subah of Hyderabad in 1726—1748’ Indian Economic and Social History Review, 8, 1972, 395–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fol. 200a.

48 Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fols. 68b–69b.

49 This sentiment is echoed in a letter from 1736 where he asserts: ‘The operations against the Marathas cannot succeed; although Hazrat Khuld Makan (i.e. Aurangzeb) spent a great part of his precious life, poured immeasurable treasure and used his large forces against them (he failed). . . If I had the necessary strength to destroy them (i.e. the Marathas) and their homelands, I would not have asked for meetings, mutual consultations, and united action’. Selections of Musavi Jur'at's correspondence on behalf of the Nizam—‘Insha-i Musavi Jur'at’—have been translated by P.S.M. Rao. See 18th Century Deccan (Bombay, 1963), 140.

50 Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 38. For the historic importance of Marathi as the language of local administration across parts of western India, see generally Guha, Sumit, ‘Transitions and translations: Regional power and vernacular identity in the Dakhan, 1500—1800’ Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 24 (2), 2004, 24–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Marathi Modi script continued to be used alongside Persian in some revenue assessment documents from the early nizamate period. Nayeem, M.A., ‘Some aspects of land revenue system in the Deccan during the eighteenth century’ in (eds.),Nayeem, M.A., Ray, Aniruddha and Mathew, K.S.Studies in History of the Deccan: Professor A.R. Kulkarni Felicitation Volume, (Delhi, 2002), 194.Google Scholar

51 See Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fols. 18b-19a, fol. 83b., fol. 117a, fol. 123b.

52 Stewart, Gordon, ‘Burhanpur: Entrepot and Hinterland, 1650—1750’ in Gordon, Stewart, Maratha, Marauders, and State Formation in Eighteenth-Century India (Delhi, 1994), 173.Google Scholar

53 Prime examples being the brothers Dhodaji Shankar (d. 1783) and Nanaji Shankar (d. 1785) who reached positions of great honour during the reign of the Nizam's fourth son, Nizam Ali Khan (r. 1762–1803). Hassan, Syed Siraj ul, The Castes & Tribes of HE.H. The Nizam's Dominions (Bombay, 1920) 115Google Scholar. See also ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’ which states: ‘There are no objections to the Brahmin practicing the profession of wakil’. Cited in Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 442. The growing presence and importance of Marathi-speaking Brahmins in the state's administration marked a significant comeback following a loss of influence in the aftermath of the Mughal invasions and the collapse of the sultanates of Bijapur and Golkonda in the 1680s. See generally Stewart Gordon, ‘Kinship and Pargana in eighteenth-century Khandesh’ in Stewart Gordon (ed.), Maratha, Marauders, and State Formation in Eighteenth-Century India, 143–144. For the growing economic and, later, political importance of Marathi-speaking Brahmins at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, see generally Eaton, Richard M., A Social History of the Deccan, 1300–1761: Eight Indian Lives (Cambridge, 2005), 191–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 As of the 1970s, Nimbalkar's sumptuous mansion ‘Rao Rambha ki Deorhi’ was still standing in Hyderabad. H.K. Sherwani, ‘Deccan, the region of co-existence and integration’ Medieval India—A Miscellany, Vol. IV (Bombay, 1977), 148.

55 Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fol. 215b; Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 17b., fol. 99a, fol. 125a, fol. 128a.

56 The 10th clause of the Nizam's will is explicit in its condemnation of war as the primary means towards settling disputes. It states: ‘. . . as far as possible, it is better to not take the initiative in war. . . save yourself and your men as best as you can’. Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 42.

57 Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fols. 135b–136b.

58 Only those individuals who proved particularly recalcitrant—like Subbana Rao, the Valama Reddy chief of Gundugolanu—were defeated and killed. The Nizam's patience undoubtedly was affected by Subbana Rao's long-standing willingness to fight any assertion of authority by non-local, Hyderabad-based rulers. For Subbana Rao's poor prior relations with Mubariz Khan, see generally John F. Richards, Mughal Administration in Golconda, 280–283. The Nizam likely was also irritated by the strong support extended by Subbana Rao and his brother Appa Rao of Nuzvid to a 1725 rebellion by Kazim Ali Khan, faujdar of Bhongir, who remained an unapologetic loyalist of the now-deceased Mubariz Khan. Akhtar Yar Jang Bahadur, Tarikh-i Dakkan, 318; Yusuf H. Khan, The First Nizam, 137; Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 237–238.

59 The level of mistrust vis-à-vis the Afghans nevertheless remained high. This is indicated by an incident in 1735 when an Afghan chief was warned off by the Nizam's bodyguards when, during an interview, he drew his elephant too close to that of the Nizam. Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fols. 234b–235a. For other examples of the Nizam's suspicions regarding the Afghans, see Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 105b, fol. 106b, fol. 136b.

60 Ben Cohen, Hindu Rulers in a Muslim State, 1850–1949 (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, 2002), 70–71, 79. See also Makhan Lal Shahjahanpuri, Tarikh-i Yadgar-i Makhan Lal, ed. Maulvi Sayyid Burhanuddin Ahmad (Hyderabad, 18–?), 78–82; Saxsena, Ram Raj, Tazkira-i Darbar-i Hyderabad (Hyderabad, 1988), 39Google Scholar. For a contemporary Hyderabadi perspective on the subjugation campaigns of the Nizam, see Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fols. 202b–214b. For a contemporary Telugu perspective, see A.G. Pawar, ‘Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah I: From a Telegu Chronology’, Transactions of the Indian History Congress, 5th Session, 1941, 618–621.

61 ‘Mubariz Khan made no attempt to use the services and thus gain the loyalties of the Telegu nayaks. . . Instead he relied on fear to keep zamindars docile and caution to cause them to disgorge long-unpaid tribute and tax payments’. John F. Richards, Mughal Administration in Golconda, 301. According to Muhammad Qasim Aurangabadi, however, such policies proved a complete failure. Ahwal-ul-Khawaqin, fol. 215a. The Nizam did not remove all safeguards against possible future rebellion. Thus, for example, even as he maintained hostages from various Telugu clans at his court, he also strengthened his control over strategically important fortresses across the region. Akhtar Yar Jang Bahadur, Tarikh-i Dakkan, 340. See generally M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 57–62.

62 Makhan Lal Shahjahanpuri, Tarikh-i Yadgar-i Makhan Lal, 78; Bilgrami, Syed Hossain and Willmott, C., Historical and Descriptive Sketch of His Highness the Nizam's Dominions, Vol. II (Bombay, 1884), 438.Google Scholar

63 See Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 99b; M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 203, 205; Syed Hossain Bilgrami and C. Willmott, Historical and Descriptive Sketch of His Highness the Nizam's Dominions, Vol. II, 674, 727.

64 In the late 1740s, the Nizam warned Anwaruddin Khan—his local representative in Arcot—to avoid land confiscations as they spawn resentment and opposition. Lala Mansaram, ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’, cited in M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 93. A few years earlier (in 1743), he had similarly warned Khwaja Abdullah Khan (who had been appointed as governor of the Karnatak and Arcot) to continue patronizing people who had been formerly favoured by Saadatullah Khan (a previous strongman in the region who had actively cultivated Telugus, Tamils and Berads). Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 77b.

65 See generally, M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 198–202. The Telugu Kalpirata script continued to be used alongside Persian in some revenue assessment documents from the early nizamate period. See M.A. Nayeem, ‘Some aspects of land revenue system in the Deccan during the eighteenth century’, 194, 196–197.

66 Hyderabad's decision to eschew adopting Dakhani—the southern linguistic cousin of northern Hindavi—as its main administrative language highlights a determination to prevent tying the new state too closely with former (but now displaced) regional elites or state structures. It also enabled the state to maintain a critical connection to the Mughal imperial legacy. For the significance and also limits of Dakhani as a regional vernacular, see generally Sumit Guha, ‘Transitions and translations: Regional power and vernacular identity in the Dakhan, 1500–1800’ 23–31. For Persian's importance as a language of administrative authority in the Deccan, see p. 26.

67 Hyderabad's desire to maintain positive relations with its zamindars is attested by its unwillingness to issue inam (rent and service-free) grants to state-backed outsiders. As the Nizam stated on more than one occasion, giving such grants often causes zamindars to revolt. Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 65b. Such generally prudent policies would enable the state to slowly extend its tentative efforts in 1726–1727 at surveying the tax potential of the territories under its control. For similar accommodations in another ‘successor’ state, namely Awadh, see Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748, 212–219.

68 Interestingly, unlike the Marathas who consistently sought to disarm and settle the Bhils of western and central India, the early nizamate barely interfered in Bhil affairs following a successful subjugation campaign in 1726–1727. This enabled generally good relations to evolve. Indeed, the Bhils of the Sahyadri and Satpura mountains were to prove one of the critical bulwarks against Maratha incursions into the northwestern region of Aurangabad from the late 1720s onwards. See generally Syed Siraj ul Hassan, The Castes & Tribes of HE.H. The Nizam's Dominions, 66–67, 71. For contrasting Maratha-Bhil/Gond relations in the same period, see Sumit Guha, Environment and Ethnicity in India 1200–1999 (Cambridge, 1999), 108–130; Stewart Gordon, ‘Bhils and the idea of a criminal tribe’ in Stewart Gordon (ed.), Maratha, Marauders, and State Formation in Eighteenth-Century India, 152.

69 Hyderabad was not unusual in this regard; even the Marathas, avowed enemies of the Mughals, maintained administrative mechanisms and practices that were ‘suspiciously Mughal’. See Stewart Gordon, ‘The slow conquest: Administrative integration of Malwa into the Maratha Empire, 1720—1760’ in Stewart Gordon (ed.), Maratha, Marauders, and State Formation in Eighteenth-Century India, 60.

70 Most of this information is drawn from M.A. Nayeem's Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah.

71 Ibid., 19. The Nizam's correspondence with Muhammad Shah also inevitably refers to himself as a servant of the court (fidvi-i dargah) or the emperor (fidvi-i padshah). For some examples, see Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 17b, fol. 101a.

72 According to the ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’ ‘the Emperor's royal orders were never disobeyed’.” Cited in Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 444. Furthermore, the Nizam continued to receive all royal farmans (imperial order) with decorum and ceremony; he never failed to congratulate the emperor on birthdays, coronation anniversaries, and Eid; and he even kept the emperor informed of unfolding political and financial developments in the Deccan. See generally Zahiruddin Malik, The Reign of Muhammad Shah, 229, 233. For the Nizam's respectful tone and willingness to keep the Emperor informed about political and military developments in the Deccan, see examples of his correspondence in Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fols. 17b–19a, fols. 83a–84a, fols. 91a–91b, fols. 91b–93b, fols. 98b–99b, fols. 111b–112a, fols. 116a–117a, fols. 121b–124a, fols. 135a–139a.

73 Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 42.

74 By far the most common position, and best articulated by M.A. Nayeem. See generally, M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 15–23. Yusuf H. Khan's biography on the Nizam offers an earlier echo of this view. In it he claims that for all his difficulties with the Mughal court, ‘his loyalty to the Emperor remained unshaken’. The First Nizam, 132. See also Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 234–235.

75 Nile Green states that ‘Mughal conquests and the continuance of their imperial claim to the Deccan through the presentation of the Asaf Jahs as their viceroys, redefined the Deccan in ways that are easily blurred from a distance of centuries’. Nile Green, ‘Geography, empire and sainthood in the eighteenth-century Muslim Deccan’, 216. See also 207–208, 225.

76 Contrast this situation with that of the Punjab (and to a lesser degree Awadh) where imperial interference was an important destabilizing factor. See Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748, 15–16.

77 Ibid., 16–17.

78 The Nizam's continued interest in maintaining a hand on the pulse of the Mughal court is evidenced in his willingness to marry his son, Nasir Jang, to the daughter of one of Emperor Muhammad Shah's favourite noblemen, Zafar Khan Roshan-ud-daula, in 1730–1731; his acceptance of the post of mir bakhshi (imperial paymaster-general) in the aftermath of Nadir Shah's invasion; and his appointment of Ghaziuddin Khan, his eldest son, as his naib (deputy) at the Mughal court between 1740 and 1748.

79 Nile Green, ‘Geography, empire and sainthood in the eighteenth-century Muslim Deccan’, 216.

80 Even today some historians consider ‘restoring the Mughal conquests in the Deccan’ as among the Nizam's greatest achievements. See M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 230.

81 For references to the presence and importance of bankers (sahukars) or merchants at the Nizam's court, see Lala Mansaram, ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’, cited in Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 438, 440, 442. See also M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 89, 90; Omar Khalidi, ‘Business Rajas: The Gujaratis, Gosains, and Marwaris of Hyderabad’ Deccan Studies, 4(1), 2006, 54. The significance of maintaining good relations with sahukars even comes up in the 13th clause of the Nizam's last will. In it he states that the presence of both treasure and sahukars on one's side will cause extreme distress (parishan wa mutalashi) to an enemy and his army. Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 42. For a comparative discussion of Khatris in the Punjab, see Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748, 169–175.

82 Khafi Khan, Muntakhab-ul-Lubub, Vol. II, Part II, 972; Bilgrami, Ghulam Ali Azad, Rauzat-ul-Auliya, ed. Faruqi, Nisar Ahmad (Delhi, 1996), 113.Google Scholar

83 Munshi Ram Singh, Gulshan-i Ajaib, fol. 83b, fol. 94a, fol. 97b, fol. 104b, fol. 119b., fol. 130a.

84 Ibid., fol. 80b, fol. 97a, fol. 98a, fol. 98b, fol. 99b, fol. 110b, fol. 117b, fol. 118a, fol. 199b, fol. 124a, fol. 125b.

85 Ibid., fol. 112a, fol. 116b, fol. 117b, fol. 122b, fol. 124a, fol. 130a.

86 Ibid., fol. 92b., fol. 93b, fol. 95b.

87 Ibid., fol. 17b, fol. 18a, fol. 84a, fol. 116a, fol. 122a, fol. 122b, fol. 125b.

88 See generally, Nagar, Ishwardas, Futuhat-i Alamgiri, trans. Lokhandwala, M.F. and Sarkar, Jadunath (Baroda, 1995)Google Scholar, Bhimsen Saxsena, Tarikh-i Dilkusha, trans. V.G. Khobrekar (Bombay, 1972), and Khan, Bakhtawar, Mirat-ul-Alam, ed. Alvi, Sajida (Lahore, 1979).Google Scholar

89 ‘Two historical letters of the great Asaf Jah I’, trans. Jadunath Sarkar, Islamic Culture, 15, 1941, 341–342.

90 Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 40.

91 Among them were such Deccan-based luminaries as Shaikh Nizamuddin Aurangabadi (d. 1731)—who, it has been suggested, initiated the Nizam into the Chishti order—Sayyid Inayat Mujtaba, Sayyid Ahmad Gosfandalah (d. 1719–1720), Shah Janullah (d. 1727–1728.), Shah Daud, Sayyid Shah Abdul Qadiri (d. 1746), Shah Ghulam Muhammad, and Pirzada Sayyid Husain. For an instance of his patronage of the tomb of Shah Abdul Qadir (in Aurangabad), see Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fols. 59a-b.

92 See generally Nile Green, ‘Geography, empire and sainthood in the eighteenth-century Muslim Deccan’, 215.

93 According to the ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’, the first order of business at the Nizam's court entailed a daily review of charity grants. Depending on a person's need, cash grants were given for a daughter's marriage, for undertaking the hajj, or gaining an education. Rare was the occasion when thirty to forty thousand rupees were not granted in a single session. Cited in Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 439. See also instructions for regular calls to prayer to ensure full attendance in mosques and orders demanding that all qazis and (Muslim) district officials attend Eid prayers. Ibid., 444.

94 Ghulam Ali Azad Bilgrami, Khizana-i Amra (Lucknow, 1871), 38. See also Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 395.

95 This is indicated by the arrival of many imminent scholars from Bilgram—including Ghulam Ali Azad Bilgrami, Wasiti Bilgrami Hanifi Chishti and Azad bin Sayyid Muhammad Nuh Husaini—and Lucknow—particularly Maulvi Haidar Lakhnavi Farangi Mahali.

96 Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748, 116–117, 121–122.

97 Lala Mansaram, ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’, cited in Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 443. Following a different trajectory vis-à-vis the aimma class, the state of Awadh used loyalist zamindars to crush them militarily. See generally Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748, 117–133, 219–224, 241.

98 M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 197.

99 Lala Mansaram, Maasir-i Nizami, fol. 60a-b.

100 Tajalli Ali Shah, Tuzuk-i Asafiyah, 43.

101 Ibid., 41.

102 Ibid., 41–42.

103 Muttalib, M.A., Administration of Justice under the Nizams, 1724–1948 (Hyderabad, 1988), 66.Google Scholar

104 Ibid., 32.

105 For Hindu participation in the early history of Hyderabad's formation, see generally, Makhan Lal Shahjahanpuri, Tarikh-i Yadgar-i Makhan Lal, 66–76. For a snapshot view from the 1820s, see Makhan Lal Shahjahanpuri, Tarikh-i Yadgar-i Makhan Lal, 149–164; for the 1830s and early 1840s, see Ghulam Husain Khan, Tarikh-i Asaf Jahiyan (a.k.a Gulzar-i Asafia), ed. Muhammad Mehdi Tavassoli (Islamabad, 1999), 233–267. For short biographical notices of important Hindu-Hyderabadi figures between the eighteenth and the twentieth centuries, see Khan, Sayyid Iltifat, Nigaristan-i Asafi (Hyderabad, 1910), 90–106Google Scholar. For a post-eighteenth-century case study of a single caste group—the Kayasths—see Leonard, Karen, Social History of an Indian Caste: The Kayasths of Hyderabad (Berkeley, 1978).Google Scholar

106 Muhammad Mahbub Junaidi, Hayat-i Asaf, 428–429.

107 Lala Mansaram, ‘Risala-i Darbar-i Asafi’, cited in M.A. Nayeem, Mughal Administration of Deccan under Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah, 89.