AHC: Aurangzeb destroys the East India Companies

The last decades of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's reign saw increased conflict with European East India Companies.

In 1689-1690, the English capture of eighty Gujarati ships led to the destruction of the EIC's factory in Hughli and the Mughal admiral Siddi Yaqub very nearly capturing Bombay. In this so-called "Child's War," Aurangzeb also planned on conquering Madras. Unfortunately, the pressing needs of the Mughal war against the Maratha made this campaign impossible.

A decade later, the Englishman Henry Avery captured Gunj-i Sawai, the Mughals' greatest ship which happened to be carrying aristocratic pilgrims from Mecca, and looted its treasures and raped all the pilgrims. In Bombay the EIC was also making replicas of Mughal coins, but with the insignia of Willaim and Mary. Both events infuriated Aurangzeb, who ordered Siddi Yaqub to attack Bombay again. Yaqub failed (it's worth noting that he was never an imperially appointed admiral, but rather a centrally sanctioned strongman who commanded an army of African corsairs).

In 1702 continued European piracy made Aurangzeb ban all trade with Europeans. The Mughal governors attacked Madras, the main holding of the English in southern India, and threatened Pondicherry, the center of French power. Both the English and the French were able to pay enough bribes to escape the predicament.

What if the Mughals had destroyed Bombay and Madras during Child's War, and sacked Pondicherry in 1702?

Would the dynamics of 18th-century India have been fundamentally changed?
 
@Intransigent Southerner there would be a lot of disruptions in commerce as a lot of the shipping was by then done by Europeans as part of the country trade.

You'd probably see some kind of return to the Cartas system done by the Portuguese, where every ship had to get a special licence or be attacked by European powers. At that time, the Europeans don't have the advantage on land but are still way better on the high seas as I seem to recall.

In India itself, you'd probably see a lot of smuggling to non-Moghol states in the southern Deccan and Kerala but also toward Burma, which would gain in importance compared to Benghal.

Wonder what Persia would do in such a scenario
 
Perfect. I was just about to make a thread on this for my preparation of my "Prince Akbar's Revolt succeeds" TL. Then again, that would be a very different scenario.

With both France and Britain especially heavily weakened in the region, suddenly colonization of India looks far less likely. The Portuguese held immense unpopularity for their missionary tendencies, while the Dutch were focused on Indonesia. As such, it makes it much likelier that, after Nader Shah's sacking, while the Mughals collapse, it is far less likely that the Europeans will be able to fill the void save for making factories around the Indian coasts. Portugal will likely be the strongest of the European powers in India, though they will not be hegemonic. All in all, an India that can remain independent.

I'd also expect this to result in slower industrialization in Britain. Now, it must be noted that one of the reasons Britain industrialized and saw a high degree of mechanization is because textiles in India were quite large competition. If it is other companies that are trading with India, suddenly British textile manufacturers have less of an incentive to adopt mechanization, and the various feedback loops that led to industrialization are weaker.
 
With both France and Britain especially heavily weakened in the region, suddenly colonization of India looks far less likely. The Portuguese held immense unpopularity for their missionary tendencies, while the Dutch were focused on Indonesia. As such, it makes it much likelier that, after Nader Shah's sacking, while the Mughals collapse, it is far less likely that the Europeans will be able to fill the void save for making factories around the Indian coasts. Portugal will likely be the strongest of the European powers in India, though they will not be hegemonic. All in all, an India that can remain independent.
Disagree with Portugal, by that time the Dutch could take over the Portuguese after a while. Or anybody else. Point is, Portugal is an empty shell by this point. Even if they are technically in charge, anybody could inhabit the body and milk it for commercial advantage

I'd also expect this to result in slower industrialization in Britain. Now, it must be noted that one of the reasons Britain industrialized and saw a high degree of mechanization is because textiles in India were quite large competition. If it is other companies that are trading with India, suddenly British textile manufacturers have less of an incentive to adopt mechanization, and the various feedback loops that led to industrialization are weaker.
Partially disagree, demand was high, there would be smuggling of some kind. But yeah, the feedback loop would be lesser. Do you know what type of textiles were imported at that time?
 
Disagree with Portugal, by that time the Dutch could take over the Portuguese after a while. Or anybody else. Point is, Portugal is an empty shell by this point. Even if they are technically in charge, anybody could inhabit the body and milk it for commercial advantage

But then, who will shoulder the India-Europe trade? The VOC is focused on Indonesia, the BEIC and FEIC are destroyed, and the others are insignificant. Someone is going to become the main trading partner between Europe and India, but who?

Partially disagree, demand was high, there would be smuggling of some kind.

My point is, Britain would not be the dominant trading partner with India, and so its textile industry would not have direct competition with India. Someone will trade with India after Aurangzeb's successors weaken restrictions (he will die soon, after all), but probably not the crushed BEIC.
 
But then, who will shoulder the India-Europe trade? The VOC is focused on Indonesia, the BEIC and FEIC are destroyed, and the others are insignificant. Someone is going to become the main trading partner between Europe and India, but who?
Well, their comptoirs in India would be destroyed, but not the full company. They were state backed, they would survive, especially with their other comptoirs like Ile Bourbon or Port Dauphin for the FEIC
 
Well, their comptoirs in India would be destroyed, but not the full company. They were state backed, they would survive, especially with their other comptoirs like Ile Bourbon or Port Dauphin for the FEIC

Strictly speaking, that's true, and France especially still has a number of moderate-sized ports to fall back to. Britain is reduced to a few minor factories, however, and the BEIC will never recover. France as well will have a large slope to recovery, and with this vacuum of trade, someone will come to exploit it.
 
Strictly speaking, that's true, and France especially still has a number of moderate-sized ports to fall back to. Britain is reduced to a few minor factories, however, and the BEIC will never recover. France as well will have a large slope to recovery, and with this vacuum of trade, someone will come to exploit it.
Good point, people at Whitehall would probably rush to denounce that as consequences of the monopoly instead of free trade.

How much did the UK government rely on the company for its finances at the time?
 
Top