Mughals into the 21th Century

NotYetRegistered · Apr 22, 2013

Could the Mughals maybe have survived as ceremonial kings over India in a constitutional monarchy if the British hadn't ousted them after they gave their support to the Sepoy revolt/if they didn't give any support whatsoever to the Sepoy revolt? Or would they eventually have been stripped from royal status anyway? Do you think Indian independance advocates even would've wanted the Mughals?

Edit: Yeah, sorry, I'm not sure if it's fully appropriate here. I apologize if it's not.

Razgriz 2K9 · Apr 22, 2013

The Mughals were ceremonial kings of India? Well, even if they did not support the Sepoy Rebels, I highly doubt they would remain puppet Kings, IMHO, I think the BEIC will still be replaced with direct British rule, the only difference would be that the Mughal Emperor would be just another Prince in the Raj rather than the lands be directly controlled by the colonial government.

On the flip side, doing so might keep the Mughal line from dying out.

JedidiahStott · Apr 23, 2013

Very problematic.

Thing is, until 1857, the Mughul Emperor served a necessary purpose.

In reality , most of India was ruled and governed by the British East India Company, with the British Government pulling the strings in the background after 1833. But, British 19C law had reservations about the idea of a Corporation possessing sovereign power. Someone obviously had to be the official King, Emperor, Lord High HuffnPuff or whatever. But prior to 1857 to British Government didn't want to take that responsibility officially. So there needed to be a place holder, which was the Moghul Emperor. He was officially the Lord High Huffnpuff, although in reality the Company collected the taxes, and kept or spent them.

But after 1857, the British government declared that the Queen of England was sovereign of India (she didn't actually take the title of Empress until 1870, but sovereignty was vested in the British Crown from 1857, when the EIC was wound up.

Now, you can't have two Lord High Huffnpuffs at the same time (be like having two POTUSs at the same time). So the Moghul Emperor had to go. To keep him, you would need to remove the British declaration of sovereignty. And the Mutiny was only a trigger for that, people had been discussing it seriously for a long time. No Mutiny, the Emperor might have held on a few more years, but no way until 1948

(In actuality , there would have been no problem with the Company holding sovereignty, at least until 1834. Until then, English real property law was based on feudal law, which was very accommodating about such matters. Feudal law didn't really care whether the King was human or not, or singular or multiple.There were plenty of precedents . But the folk of the 18C weren't keen, for various reasons, to wake that sleeping dog up)

Pericles · Apr 23, 2013

JedidiahStott said:
Very problematic.

Thing is, until 1857, the Mughul Emperor served a necessary purpose.

In reality , most of India was ruled and governed by the British East India Company, with the British Government pulling the strings in the background after 1833. But, British 19C law had reservations about the idea of a Corporation possessing sovereign power. Someone obviously had to be the official King, Emperor, Lord High HuffnPuff or whatever. But prior to 1857 to British Government didn't want to take that responsibility officially. So there needed to be a place holder, which was the Moghul Emperor. He was officially the Lord High Huffnpuff, although in reality the Company collected the taxes, and kept or spent them.

But after 1857, the British government declared that the Queen of England was sovereign of India (she didn't actually take the title of Empress until 1870, but sovereignty was vested in the British Crown from 1857, when the EIC was wound up.

Now, you can't have two Lord High Huffnpuffs at the same time (be like having two POTUSs at the same time). So the Moghul Emperor had to go. To keep him, you would need to remove the British declaration of sovereignty. And the Mutiny was only a trigger for that, people had been discussing it seriously for a long time. No Mutiny, the Emperor might have held on a few more years, but no way until 1948

(In actuality , there would have been no problem with the Company holding sovereignty, at least until 1834. Until then, English real property law was based on feudal law, which was very accommodating about such matters. Feudal law didn't really care whether the King was human or not, or singular or multiple.There were plenty of precedents . But the folk of the 18C weren't keen, for various reasons, to wake that sleeping dog up)

The best bet for Mughal survival is to prevent( or at least impaire) the British occupation. Then a Mughal enclave could survive in Delhi.

JedidiahStott · Apr 23, 2013

Pericles said:
The best bet for Mughal survival is to prevent( or at least impaire) the British occupation. Then a Mughal enclave could survive in Delhi.

Hm. Possibly if the Third Maratha War went _Really_ badly for the British? The Maratha's seemed willing enough to keep the nominal Emperor in place (probably because he served a similar purpose as he did with the British -- Shah Alam being Emperor meant that none of the Maratha princes felt the need to prove himself top dog ).

Might need the Second Maratha War to be rather different too. Which could mean Assaye turning out differently, which could mean quite a different career for a certain Lord Arthur Wellesley. That could be an interesting development.

Kalki · Apr 23, 2013

About the Mughals...

In the 1857 Mutiny, the Indian faction involved had various motives and objectives. Many of them wanted the Mughal emperor to be re-established as the legitimate Indian sovereign, albeit in manner more similar to a figure-head. This was used by the British as a reason to eliminate the Bahadur-Shah Zafar by deposing him and shipping him off to Rangoon.
Its possible that if the 1857 Mutiny was avoided then the British might have continued using the various royals in India as figure-heads/puppets. But given that the roots of the mutiny lay in very reason the BEIC was succesful in conquering the very approach that the BEIC took to conquer and subjugate India through a patchwork of puppet-princes, its highly unlikely thatnthe sepoy mutiny could be avoided by anything short of ASB.

Grey Wolf · Apr 23, 2013

I've never seen the Indian Mutiny itself as inevitable. It was such a patchwork affair that sure something could have broken out in one or two places over time, but to coalesce it needed everything to happen at once. Of course, when it did, there were wildly divergent aims and resulting chaos. Getting rid of something is a unifier, but after a short heady moment you realise you have to replace it. That's more or less why the Emperor let himself be coerced into accepting the figurehead position of leader.

Now, remove this and he continues living in his palace, and Britain's policy towards other royals was rarely to kick them out - unless they lead dangerous rebellions (Zulu etc).

I would think that Bahadur's death from natural causes would be the moment when the Indian question raises its head. If the British refuse to accept his successor as emperor, and instead suggest he take a lower title, coupled with British assertion of sovereignty, then you might see a very different India

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Alex Richards · Apr 23, 2013

It's certainly feasible that if the Mughal Emperor doesn't join the rebellion the British would keep him around in some other function, perhaps as a political pensioner with largely ceremonial duties.

After all, the Khudadad Sultans descended from Tippu Sultan were accorded a 21 gun salute (the highest rank among the Indian Princes) even after the throne was usurped by a more pro-British group, and the heirs to Bengal were granted 19 guns for a personal/local salute.