An early view of the English settlement at Calcutta
History Of Europe
A short time before the Bill Of Righhts
The execution of King Charles I on January 30th, 1649, was the defining moment of the English Revolution. The King was beheaded, the institution of monarchy was abolished and the House of Lords disbanded.
James II’s principal objectives were the conversion of England to Roman Catholicism and the establishment of the monarchy on the model of Louis XIV’s. By 1678 James’s Roman Catholicism had created a climate of hysteria in which the fabricated tale of a Popish Plot to assassinate Charles and put his brother on the throne was generally believed. From 1679 to 1681 three successive Parliaments strove to exclude James from the succession by statute. He admitted Catholics into his large army and into the universities.
Bill of Rights became one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain.
In the Glorious Revolution, William III of Orange (William was a Dutch by birth) landed with his army in England on November 5, 1688. James II attempted to resist the invasion. He then sent representatives to negotiate, and he finally fled on December 23, 1688. The decampment of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England. In the case of Catholics, it was disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over 100 years after this and the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or marry a Catholic, thus ensuring the Protestant succession. This also led to limited toleration for nonconformist Protestants—it would be some time before they had full political rights.
Two Treatises of Government’ to support the Glorious Revolution. From the standpoint of history, this was a move in the right direction—toward human freedom, human rights, and recognition of the equal worth and dignity of all people.
During his three-year reign, King James II fell victim to the political battles in England between Catholicism and Protestantism as well as between the divine right of the crown and the political rights of Parliament. James’s greatest political problem was his Catholicism, which left him alienated from both parties in Parliament.
The ultra-Protestant Whigs had failed in their attempt to exclude James from the throne between 1679 and 1681, and James’s supporters were the High Church Anglican Tories. When James inherited the throne in 1685, he had much support in the “Loyal Parliament,” which was composed mostly of Tories. James’s attempt to relax the penal laws alienated his natural supporters, however, because the Tories viewed this as equivalent to disestablishment of the Church of England. Abandoning the Tories, James looked to form a “King’s party” as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, so in 1687 James supported the policy of religious toleration and issued the Declaration of Indulgence. By allying himself with Catholics, dissenters, and nonconformists (such as Baptists and Congregationalists), James hoped to build a coalition that would lead to Catholic emancipation.
Matters came to a head in 1688, when James fathered James Francis Edward Stuart; until then, the throne would have passed to his daughter, Mary, a Protestant. The prospect of a Catholic dynasty in the British Isles was now likely. Some leaders of the Tory Party united with members of the opposing Whigs and set out to solve the crisis.
The Glorious Revolution is considered by some to be one of the most important events in the long evolution of powers possessed by the Parliament and by the crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights, any final possibility of a Catholic monarchy was stamped out and moves toward absolute monarchy in the British Isles ended by circumscribing the monarch’s powers. The bill is considered to be a cornerstone of the unwritten British constitution. It clearly gave Parliament ultimate authority. The king’s powers were greatly restricted; he could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament’s permission. It influenced the U.S. Bill of Rights. (Also, American Declaration of Independence, 1776)
It is certain that after 1688 Parliament had to be summoned every year and not just when monarch needed its help. The Crown still has formidable rights, not least in the choice of government ministers; but the struggle for power had taken a decisive turn in Parliament’s favor.
Since 1689, England (and later the United Kingdom) has been governed under a system of constitutional monarchy, which has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament has gained more and more power, and the crown has progressively lost it. The Bill of Rights is sometimes referred to as “England’s Protestant Constitution.” The people of Scotland had expressed their desire for a Protestant state in their Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, which pledged to maintain the reformed (non-Episcopal) Church and to be rid of the pope and prelates.
The philosopher John Locke praised the Glorious Revolution in his Two Treatises on Government (1689), arguing that if a government does not protect the natural rights of its people, namely life, liberty and property, it can rightly and lawfully be overthrown. Locke’s praise of the Glorious Revolution helped to inspire both the American and French revolutions. Locke wrote:
Our Great Restorer, our present King William…in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful, governments…has more fully and clearly than any prince in Christendom…and to justify to the world, the people of England, whose Just and Natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the Nation when it was on the brink of Slavery and ruin.
Why can we say that James II did not learn from his fathers mistakes?he attempted to dominate the Parliament and revive the Theory of Divine Rights of Kings
|In which ways was the Glorious Revolution different from the American Revolution and the French Revolution||First, it was not violent; second, it was not the middle class and lower class who were demanding rights, but nobles and wealthy members of Parliament|
|What was the impact of the Glorious Revolution?||It inspired French thinkers to speak out against absolutism. British colonists also took an important lesson from the Glorious Revolution. They applauded Parliaments fight and saw their own parliaments in the colonies having the same rights|
|What, according to Locke, are the mutual obligations binding government and the people under the social contract?||—->>Government would protect the rights of the people, and the people would act responsibly toward government|
|What if, according to Locke, a government broke the contract by not protecting an individual’s natural rights?||—->People were justified in rebelling and forming a new government|
|What was the purposes of the series of laws passed by the Parliament in the aftermath of the events, which became known as the Glorious Revolution?||—–>Establishing its power over the monarch|
|What did the English Bill of Rights represent?||An agreement between Parliament and the new King and Queen about how the country should be run|
|What is the purpose of the English Bill of Rights?||To set clear limits on royal power|
|Constitutional Monarchy||System of government in which the powers of the monarch are limited by the constitution, either written or unwritten|
|When is the first constitutional monarchy established?||1688 C.E. after the Glorious Revolution in England|
|Who is the leader of England at the time of the Glorious Revolution?||King james II|
|What was King James II’s both religious leaning and attitude towards parliament?||A Roman Catholic who ruled with little respect for Parliament|
|What “potential” implications did England suddenly faced when James fathered a son in 1688?||—->The possibility of a dynasty of Roman Catholic Monarch|
|What did Parliament do after the birth of James’s son to head off the possibility of a dynasty of Roman Catholic Monarchs?||—>Parliament invited William of Orange, the husband of James’s protestant daughter Mary, and a dutch by birth, to England|
|What did James do when William and his army sailed from Holland and invaded England?||James fled the country and went to France|
|How did William and Mary accessed the throne?||In 1689 Parliament voted to offer the throne to William and Mary|
|Parliament made William and Mary sign the Bill of Rights||Parliament were able to gain enormous power and William and Mary were able to become King and Queen|
|What doctrine did the English Bill of Rights end?||According to the English Bill of Rights, the King cannot make and suspend laws without the consent of Parliament|
|According to the English Bill of Rights, the King cannot raise||money without the consent of the Parliament|
|According to the English Bill of Rights, the King cannot||prosecute people for petitioning him|
|According to the English Bill of Rights, the King cannot||raise a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament|
|The English Bill of Rights guaranteed||trial by jury|
|The English Bill of Rights outlawed||cruel and unusual punishment|
|What rights did Protestants have with the English Bill of Rights?||the right to bear arms for purposes of defense|
|According to the English Bill of Rights, an English monarch cannot be||a Catholic, marry a Catholic|
From “Of the Motives for establishing new Colonies” By Adam Smith
Towards the end of the fifteenth, and during the greater part of the sixteenth century, Spain and Portugal were the two great naval powers upon the ocean; for though the commerce of Venice extended to every part of Europe, its fleets had scarce ever sailed beyond the Mediterranean. The Spaniards, in virtue of the first discovery, claimed all America as their own; and though they could not hinder so great a naval power as that of Portugal from settling in Brazil, such was, at that time, the terror of their name, that the greater part of the other nations of Europe were afraid to establish themselves in any other part of that great continent.
The French, who attempted to settle in Florida, were all murdered by the Spaniards. But the declension of the naval power of this latter nation, in consequence of the defeat or miscarriage of what they called their Invincible Armada, which happened towards the end of the sixteenth century (1588), put it out of their power to obstruct any longer the settlements of the other European nations. In the course of the seventeenth century, therefore, the English, French, Dutch, Danes, and Swedes, all the great nations who had any ports upon the ocean, attempted to make some settlements in the new world.
From “Of the Motives for establishing new Colonies” By Adam Smith
All the other enterprises of the Spaniards in the new world, subsequent to those of Columbus, seem to have been prompted by the same motive. It was the sacred thirst of gold that carried Oieda, Nicuessa, and Vasco Nugnes de Balboa, to the Isthmus of Darien, that carried Cortez to Mexico, and Almagro and Pizzarro to Chili and Peru. When those adventurers arrived upon any unknown coast, their first inquiry was always if there was any gold to be found there; and according to the information which they received concerning this particular, they determined either to quit the country or to settle in it.
But though the judgment of sober reason and experience concerning such projects has always been extremely unfavourable, that of human avidity has commonly been quite otherwise. The same passion which has suggested to so many people the absurd idea of the philosopher’s stone, has suggested to others the equally absurd one of immense rich mines of gold and silver. They did not consider that the value of those metals has, in all ages and nations, arisen chiefly from their scarcity, and that their scarcity has arisen from the very small quantities of them which nature has anywhere deposited in one place, from the hard and intractable substances with which she has almost every-where surrounded those small quantities, and consequently from the labour and expence which are every-where necessary in order to penetrate to and get at them. They flattered themselves that veins of those metals might in many places be found as large and as abundant as those which are commonly found of lead, or copper, or tin, or iron. The dream of Sir Walter Raleigh concerning the golden city and country of Eldorado,*24 may satisfy us that even wise men are not always exempt from such strange delusions. More than a hundred years after the death of that great man, the Jesuit Gumila was still convinced of the reality of that wonderful country, and expressed with great warmth, and I dare to say with great sincerity, how happy he should be to carry the light of the gospel to a people who could so well reward the pious labours of their missionary.
In the countries first discovered by the Spaniards, no gold or silver mines are at present known which are supposed to be worth the working. The quantities of those metals which the first adventurers are said to have found there had probably been very much magnified, as well as the fertility of the mines which were wrought immediately after the first discovery. What those adventurers were reported to have found, however, was sufficient to inflame the avidity of all their countrymen. Every Spaniard who sailed to America expected to find an Eldorado.
A project of commerce to the East Indies, therefore, gave occasion to the first discovery of the West. A project of conquest gave occasion to all the establishments of the Spaniards in those newly discovered countries. The motive which excited them to this conquest was a project of gold and silver mines; and a course of accidents, which no human wisdom could foresee, rendered this project much more successful than the undertakers had any reasonable grounds for expecting.
The first adventurers of all the other nations of Europe who attempted to make settlements in America were animated by the like chimerical views; but they were not equally successful. It was more than a hundred years after the first settlement of the Brazils before any silver, gold, or diamond mines were discovered there. In the English, French, Dutch, and Danish colonies, none have ever yet been discovered; at least none that are at present supposed to be worth the working. The first English settlers in North America, however, offered a fifth of all the gold and silver which should be found there to the king, as a motive for granting them their patents. In the patents to Sir Walter Raleigh, to the London and Plymouth Companies, to the Council of Plymouth, &c. this fifth was accordingly reserved to the crown. To the expectation of finding gold and silver mines, those first settlers, too, joined that of discovering a northwest passage to the East Indies. They have hitherto been disappointed in both.
The death of the Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707 generally marks the end of the era of the great Mughals, and this was sensed by ambitious men who had worked for them as deputy officials. As his sons became increasingly impotent, independent rulers — like in Awadh, Bengal and Hyderabad — established themselves in states around the periphery of empire.
After Aurangjeb, chaos of temporary pleasures with music, women, eunuchs, and other luxuries took the Mughal Empire to the abysmal darkness where they could only imagine their grand and glorious past. The later Mughals fell an easy prey to the intrigues from within and the foreigners who took advantage of their weaknesses and internal conflicts. The Empire became a tale of the bygone lanes and political and social anarchy encouraged the foreigners to occupy India. The traders to India became the master of India in the long run. With the passing away of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughal Empire functionally breathed its last though it continued till the War of Independence in 1857 when Bahadur Shah Zafar was the last emperor of the great Mughal Dynasty. With his removal (he was exiled to Rangoon) the title of Emperor of India was taken by Queen Victoria.
In the Northern and eastern sectors of India, two major powers — Awadh and Bengal — began to emerge after the death of Aurangjeb in 1707. In the west and the south another four great powers — Hyderabad, Mysore, the Marathas, and the Carnatic — began to emerge.
Awadh was one of major states to emerge between 1717 and 1724 as the central Mughal government ruled by Aurangjeb’s sons began to lose real authority.
Bengal was the first, in 1717 under Murshid Quli Khan ( Shia Islam), the founder of a short-lived dynasty, whose successors were to be emasculated by the east India Company forty years later at the Battle of Plassey.
The second was Awadh, which became virtually autonomous in 1722 under Burhan-ul-Mulk, who had been appointed deputy minister (nawab wazir) to deputise for the emperor, and who generally assumed his master’s role. His sixth–generation descendant was Wajid ‘Ali Shah, the subject of this book. Awadh survived for alittle over 130 years before its annexation, subject to increasing interference from the Company. In 1856, the Company annexed Awadh [Oudh] on the grounds that the native prince was of evil disposition, indifferent to the welfare of his subjects.
The third state was Hyderabad, established under Asaf Jah in 1724; it survived the fate of Bengal and Awadh by remaining Hyderabad, established under Asaf Jah in 1724; it survived the fate of Bengal and Awadh by remaining more or less independent until 1948. (The ruler of Hyderabad since 1762 was Asaf Jah II (also known as Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Nizam ‘Ali Khan Bahadur, Fath Jang, Sipah Salar, better known to the British simply as Nizam Ali. His ancestor, the Turani noble Qamar-ud-din, received the title Nizam-ul-Mulk from the emperor Farruksiyar for helping him to gain the throne of Delhi. Uniting with another powerful Mughal noble, Sa’adat Khan, Nizam-ul-Mulk overthrew the infamous Sayyid brothers, the “kingmakers” who had deposed and killed Farruksiyar in 1719 in order to put a series of their puppets on the throne. Sa’adat went on to found the Awadh dynasty which, perhaps because of its proximity to Delhi, maintained some ties to the Mughals, although by 1780 it was autonomous in all but name.)
Rosie Llewellyn-Jones in The Last King in India: Wajid Ali Shah
The West and the South: Hyderabad, Mysore, Marathas, Carnatic
In the power vacuum that appeared in India mid-18th-century owing to the weakening of Mughal control, the four great powers in the south and in the west — Hyderabad, Mysore, the Marathas, and the Company with its ally the Carnatic — began jostling each other in a series of wars over boundaries and lands.
All four were evenly matched in strength–with armies of between 80,000 and 100,0007–and in training, with the Indian states having acquired Western methods and instruments of war.In 1788 another independent ruler, Tipu Sultan, son of the long-time foe of the British, Haidar Ali, ruled Mysore. Theirs was a new dynasty even by the lenient standards of a continent in flux.
The last great Indian power on the subcontinent in 1788 were the Marathas, the warlike peasant caste of Maharashtra, who had obtained coherence under the leadership of the famous “mountain rat,” Shivaji Bhonsle (1627-80). After Aurangzeb’s death, the leadership of the Marathas passed to a pentarchy consisting of four powerful generals–Gaekwar at Baroda, Holkar at Indore, Sindhia at
Gwalior, and Bhonsle at Nagpur–who were technically united by allegiance to the
peshwa of Poona, the chief minister of the raja of Satara. By the 1760s the Marathas,
under the peshwa’s leadership, controlled a vast area spreading from the Indus river to the far south of India, and even their loss at the battle of Panipat in 1761 to the Afghans over control of Delhi was not the disaster it first appeared.
Aurangjeb Conquering the Deccans
Apart from Awadh, Bengal and Hyderabad, the Deccan Sultanates were there to contend with.
The Deccan was coveted territory. Located on east-west trade routes, it was rich in natural resources and fine products, and it attracted people from across the Middle East and Europe, making it a cultural melting pot if not always a political one. Its golden age began toward the end of the Bahmani Empire, which broke away from the Delhi Sultanate to the north in 1347 and ruled over the entire Deccan with decreasing power until around 1538. By then the governors of the five Bahmani states had rebelled, declaring themselves sultans of individual kingdoms. The greater were Ahmadnagar, Bijapur and Golconda, the lesser Bidar and Berar.
Over the next 150 years, the sultans and their successors built palaces and cities, established workshops and reached out to artists, writers and composers, especially from the centers of Islamic creativity in Persia, Turkey and Africa.
In 1574, Mutaza I , sultan of Ahmadnagar annexed Berar to his sultanate. In 1619, the last ruler of the Bidar, sulatante Amir Barid Shah III, fell to Bijapur and Bidar thereafetr merged with the Bijapur Sultanate. In 1636 Aurangzeb, then Mughal viceroy of Deccan finally annexed the Ahmadnagar sultanate to the Mughal empire.
So, among all Deccan Sultanate, only Bijapur and Golconda remained to be annexed by Aurangjeb.
To contain the Marathas Aurangzeb invaded Bijapur (under Sikandar Adil Shah) and annexed it in 1686. This brought an end to Adil Shahi dynasty. Bijapur became the seat of the Mughal provincial governor.
Then Aurangzeb ordered attack against Abul Hassan Qutub Shah of Golconda. In 1687 the Mughal army entered the Golconda fort and Golconda was annexed by the Mughal Empire. Thus fell the last of the Deccani sultanates to Mughal Empire.
After the downfall of Bijapur and Golconda Aurangzeb concentrated all his forces against the Marathas.
East India Company and the Deccan Sultanate
The first Governor-General of India was Warren Hastings. Under his dispensation, the expansion of British rule in India was pursued vigorously, and the British sought to master indigenous systems of knowledge. Hastings remained in India until 1784 and was succeeded by Cornwallis, who initiated the Permanent Settlement, whereby an agreement in perpetuity was reached with zamindars or landlords for the collection of revenue. For the next fifty years, the British were engaged in attempts to eliminate Indian rivals, and it is under the administration of Wellesley that British territorial expansion was achieved with ruthless efficiency. Major victories were achieved against Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Marathas, and finally the subjugation and conquest of the Sikhs in a series of Anglo- Sikh Wars led to British occupation over the entirety of India.
1765 Treaty Of Allhabad
Seventeen sixty-five marked the origin of empire with Robert Clive’s attainment of the diwani of Bengal from Mughal Emperor Shah Alam (See above) , which conferred the right on the Company to collect the revenues and to administer one of the most fertile regions in India for the Mughal emperors.
A painting, shown above, created in 1818 by British artist Benjamin West features Mughal emperor Shah Alam II presenting a scroll to Robert Clive, a British colonel. According to historian John McAleer, the event depicted in West’s painting can be categorised as one of the most crucial events in the history of the British Empire and one of the most important legacies of the Battle of Plassey that took place in 1757 in Palashi, Bengal.
The scroll, which forms the focus of the painting, was responsible for transferring tax-collecting rights and the authority to administer justice in Bengal to the East India Company. It set the ball rolling, establishing the East India Company as a major power and Calcutta as its seat.
The artwork appears in Picturing India: People, Places And The World Of The East India Company by McAleer, a lecturer at the University of Southampton. The coffee-table book, published by Niyogi Books, explores Britain’s complicated relationship with India through images of the Indian subcontinent, by artists and travellers in the 18th and 19th century.
As Mughal hegemony was quickly becoming an anachronism, the Company found itself virtually sovereign over the breadbasket of India, the traditional starting point for conquest from the time of the Mauryas to that of the Mughals themselves. However, the problems that accompanied even the early stages of empire-building soon caused consternation in Britain. The “nabobs,” men who had left England paupers and returned from the East as millionaires, flaunted their successful plunder of the subcontinent by purchasing titles, grand mansions and seats in parliament, while their wives glittered through the London social scene in maharanis’ jewels. Tales of corruption, financial peculation and mismanagement flowed back with the golden tide from India, along with news of a seemingly never-ending succession of wars–first against the French, then with numerous Indian rulers. This culminated in 1787 with the sensational trial of Warren Hastings forfraud and unnecessary aggression while governor-general. Edmund Burke, a prominent MP, made long speeches during Hastings’ impeachment, decrying the governor-general’s actions and contrasting them with those of the Indian rulers, who were portrayed as enlightened monarchs with beneficial practices.
In 1766, the first trickle of what would become a great wave of publicity began when
the British government conceived a case for abolishing the Company and taking control
of its Indian possessions–including the £2 million a year in estimated tax revenue gained
with the diwani of Bengal. This may have been less a serious suggestion than an attempt
to appropriate a portion of the Company’s new found wealth to pay down the national
debt; if so, it was a successful tactic. The Company reluctantly agreed in 1767 to pay the
staggering sum of £400,000 a year in return for continued independence.
It can be argued that 1783 was the real beginning of British imperialism on the sub-continent: the end of the American war turned British eyes towards India as a substitute for the empire they had lost; Warren Hastings’ actions as governor-general publicized the affairs of the Company to a degree unknown before and led to furious debates over the proper role of the British in India; and William Pitt’s East India Act was being formulated, which would culminate the next year in the British government attaining a significant amount of control over the Company’s affairs. The Company then changed from a mercantile association based in North India and a few coastal stations to an empire spanning the sub-continent. Eighteen-eighteen (1818) witnessed the Company’s final victory over the Marathas, the last great, independent Indian power. Between 1783 and 1818, the mercantilists in the Company’s service became functionaries of the new empire: diplomats, administrators, statesmen and spies replaced in importance the bookkeepers and accountants of the previous age. There was no precedent for what they were called upon to do, and no guidelines on how to build an infrastructure capable of ruling a land far larger and more diverse than Britain. Although few of them had prior training for the task, they built a workable system that endured under the Company’s rule until 1858, and became the basis for every subsequent Indian
Murshid Quli Khan died on 30 June 1727. He founded the city Murshidabad. Alivardi Khan became the Nawab of Bengal during 1740–1756. After him, Siraj ud-Daulah reigned from 9 April 1756 – 23 June 1757.
In the period 1722-75 three nawabs reigned through several phases of state formation in Awadh. The. state has been described as “a distinct realm of structured political relations that is defined by contention along its boundaries and among politicians and bureaucrats who, in competing for office and influence, rework social and economic conflict into political terms,” and emphasis has shifted in the scholarly study of state making from static institutions to the “structured relations between the state and other spheres of society.” The question arises of what social forces influenced the rise of the nawabs to regional autonomy in Awadh. As Iranian Shi‘is, the nawabs, originally temporary Mughal appointees, seem at first glance an elite group unlikely to assert strong authority over the Hindu peasants and Sunni townsmen of Awadh. How they made Shi‘i rule at all palatable to Awadh’s population must occupy us as a central question. Moreover, it might be asked if there arc any parallels between the rise of Shi‘i rule in Awadh and that of the Safavids earlier in Iran.
The emergence of the province of Awadh as a Shi‘i-ruled state depended in part on developments at the Timurid court, where the Mughal administrative elite allowed Iranian Shi‘i immigrants to rise as provincial governors. On the one hand, pohtical instability in Iran encouraged large numbers of Iranian notables to go to India; on the other, the mood at court after the passing of Awrangzib (d. 1707) grew decidedly more tolerant of Shi‘ism. Awrangzib’s successor, Bahadur Shah (d. 1712), leaned heavily toward Shi‘i Islam. The Shi‘i Barhah Sayyids, mere Delhi courtiers, made and unmade Mughal emperors, further demonstrating growing Shi‘i power. Greater tolerance at court allowed more elite recruitment of avowed Shi‘is to high office,
The Iranians made an impact, not only on the Delhi court, but on North India as a whole. Mir Muhammad Amin Nishapuri (d. 1739), the first nawab of Awadh, began a dynasty that ruled for 136 years. Nishapuri. known as Burhanu’l-Mulk, derived from a family of Islamic judges (qazis ) in Khurasan, whom Shah Ismacil Safavi of Iran transplanted there from Najaf as part of his campaign to make Iran Shi‘i. Nishapuri came to India in 1708, where he worked himself up the bureaucratic ladder to emerge as a power broker in Delhi. He helped free the Mughal emperor, Muhammad
He had four sons: Azam, Moazzam, Akbar and Kambakhsh who were waiting to ascend to the throne.
Moazzam became the ruler of Agra February 1708 after defeating all his brotheers and began an exclusive rule
with the title of Bahadur Shah l or Shah Alam l till his death in February 1712. His death again gave birth to the
war of accession among his sons: Jahandar Shah and Farrukhsiyar. Jahandar Shah succeeded to access the throne but
after a few months Farrukhsiyar snatched the throne.
Shi‘i dynasty ruled the state of Awadh
Awadh was established as one of the twelve original subahs (top-level imperial provinces) under 16th-century Mughal emperor Akbar and became a hereditary tributary polity around 1722 AD, with Faizabad as its initial capital and Saadat Ali Khan as its first Subadar Nawab and progenitor of a dynasty of Nawabs of Awadh (often styled Nawab Wazir al-Mamalik).
Saadat Ali Khan belonged to a dynasty of Persian origin from Nishapur, Iran.
From 1500 to 1600 the Ottoman Empire expanded from Anatolia into eastern Europe and conquered Syria (1516), Egypt (1517), and Iraq (1534). The Safavid Empire, based in Azerbaijan, subdued the Iranian plateau. The Mughal Empire reached from Kabul down into the Gangetic plain, uniting most of northern India. These three Muslim states, their power based partially on borrowed Chinese and European technical advances in artillery.
Ottoman Istanbul, Safavid Isfahan, and Mughal Agra dazzled travelers with their splendor in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Their wealth, based primarily on agriculture and only secondarily on trade and manufactures, is indisputable. But their rulers and craftsmen borrowed technology from Europe instead of innovating, so that they gave the world few new developments in weaponry or industry. From at least the fifteenth century, Europe produced more made goods, including, for instance, silk textiles, whereas the Middle East and South Asia sent raw materials (raw silk, spices such as pepper) to Europe. But the western European edge in mechanical inventiveness and the ability to accumulate capital only manifested itself with full force after 1760. Until the late eighteenth century, manufacturing and agricultural productivity, and transportation costs and speed, did not improve dramatically in Europe.
The political and economic flowering of the three sixteenth-century Muslim empires in South and Southwest Asia had a religious impact. The Ottomans promoted the Hanafi rite of Sunni Islam as their state religion, developing a highly institutionalized and bureaucratic religious establishment. The Safavids and their Shi‘i Turkoman followers from Anatolia made Twelver Shi‘ism the religion of state and heavy-handedly imposed it on Sunni Iran. They brought in Arab Shi‘i clerics from southern Lebanon and southern Iraq to man the fledgling religious institution and relied also on notable clerical families within Iran who embraced Shi‘ism. The Mughals, originating in largely Turkish-speaking Central Asia, promoted Hanafi Sunnism. Religious ideology and a corps of ulama organized around institutions useful to the state played an important political role in each of the three Muslim empires.
The southwestern Deccani kingdom of Bijapur also experienced Shi‘i rule and Iranian influence in the sixteenth century, 1502-34 and 1558-83, under the ‘Adil Shahi dynasty. Shi‘i Iranian merchants plied the horse trade from the Persian Gulf to Bijapur, and Shi‘i notables achieved high office there. Yusuf ‘Adil Shah (1489-1510), an Ottoman Turkish exile with tics to the Safavid Ismacil, proclaimed Shi‘ism the state religion in Bijapur in 1502, on hearing of the Safavid victory. This proclamation encouraged even more Iranians to immigrate, and the ‘Adil Shahis employed them as administrators or military men. The Shi‘i monarchs hired three hundred Iranians to curse the first three caliphs.
Indian Ocean trade routes linked the Persian Gulf with southern India, encouraging a migration of people and ideas between the two areas. Iranian notables, administrators, military men, and literati flooded into southern India, or the Deccan, during the Mongol invasions of Iran in the thirteenth century, and thereafter. Especially after the Safavid victory, these Iranian elites often adopted Shi‘ism. Diplomatically and in its elite culture southern India became a dependency of Iran in the sixteenth century. Iranian notables carried with them their new conviction in Usuli Shi‘ism, providing patronage for Friday congregational prayer mosques and other Usuli Twelver institutions.
The longest-lasting of the Shi‘i-ruled states in southern India, the Qutb-Shahi (1512-1687), began with the political rise in Golconda of a Turkoman adventurer from Hamadan, Iran, named Sultan-Quli Qutbu’d-Din. The rulers in his line gave extensive patronage to Shi‘i ulama and built mosques, buildings (cashur-khanah ) for the commemoration of Imam Husayn’s martyrdom, seminaries, and Shi‘i burial grounds. They had the Friday prayer sermons said in the name of the Twelve Imams and of the Safavids.
Treaty Of Verdun (843)
The Holy Roman Empire
It was the German emperor Otto I (r. 962–73) who, by military conquest and astute political policy, placed the territorial empire of Charlemagne under German rule and established in Central Europe the feudal state that would be called, by the thirteenth century, the Holy Roman Empire.
After 962, when Otto I was crowned emperor, the German kingdom formed the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire, which also included Italy (after 951), Bohemia (after 1004) and Burgundy (after 1032).
Throughout the Middle Ages, the convention was that the (elected) king of Germany was also Emperor of the Romans. From the time of Otto’s coronation until the official dissolution of the empire in 1806, the imperial title was held almost exclusively by German monarchs and, for nearly four centuries, by members of a single family.
German Confederation, 1815–66, union of German states provided for at the Congress of Vienna to replace the old Holy Roman Empire, which had been destroyed during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. It comprised 39 states in all, 35 monarchies and 4 free cities. Its purpose was to guarantee the external and internal peace of Germany and the independence of the member states. In case of attack the members pledged mutual aid. Certain princes, however, were exempt from this provision. These were the king of England, as king of Hanover; the king of the Netherlands, as duke of Luxembourg; and the King of Denmark, as duke of Holstein and Lauenburg. As it was constituted, the confederation was little more than a loose union for mutual defense. Its main organ, a central diet that met at Frankfurt under the presidency of Austria, functioned as a diplomatic conference. Unanimity or a two-thirds majority was required for most decisions, and, in voting, the delegates were bound to instructions from their respective governments. The diet thus was ineffective. The strong reactionary influence of the Austrian statesman Metternich, backed by Prussia, dominated the confederation until 1848, when the liberal revolutions that swept Germany resulted in the creation of the Frankfurt Parliament. The diet was resumed in 1850. By the treaty agreed upon at Olmütz (Olomouc), Austrian leadership was temporarily restored, but the Austro-Prussian War (1866) led to the dissolution of the confederation and the establishment of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.
The Cotton Manufacture to Modern factory