Could Bijapur and Golconda have survived alongside the Mughals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adil_Shahi_dynasty (Bijapur)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_Shahi_dynasty (Golconda)

The Deccan Sultanates were the heirs of the Bahamid state, which itself started as a group of Persian nobles who followed the Sultan of Delhi into the South and broke away in the mid-14th century as the Tughluq dynasty begin to collapse. However, the state had no real base of power, ruled over 3 distinct ethnic groups who followed a hostile religion, allowing the regional governors to break away over a 30 year period from 1490 to 1518

These states were not only formidable military powers in their own right (a coalition of them defeated the last great Hindu state of Vijayanagar in 1565) 2 of them (Golconda and Bijapur) became centers of Islamic scholarship, architecture, and even in Golconda a center for the revival of the Telugu language. Trade links with the greater Muslim world, especially Persia do the Iranian origins and language of the Muslim aristocracy allowed them to attract some of the best and brightest to their capitals.

However, the Mughals ended the independence of the last 2 in the late 17th century (they had been tributaries up until that time), in part do to Aurangzeb's desire to conquer the entirety of the Deccan, and partly due to a revival and increase in power by the native Hindu Marathis, whose power only increased in Bijapur as the Sultanate disintegrated under the Mughal attack.

My question is this: how plausible is it for Bijapur and Golconda to stay Mughal tributaries or even allies with a POD after the Battle of Talikota in 1565 while also bringing the Marathas under control?

Moreover, what sort of impact would that have on India, both for the native states and later European colonization efforts if they succeed in overcoming the Marathas (which of course means that the Maratha Empire never exists).

deccansulthist.gif
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adil_Shahi_dynasty (Bijapur)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_Shahi_dynasty (Golconda)

The Deccan Sultanates were the heirs of the Bahamid state, which itself started as a group of Persian nobles who followed the Sultan of Delhi into the South and broke away in the mid-14th century as the Tughluq dynasty begin to collapse. However, the state had no real base of power, ruled over 3 distinct ethnic groups who followed a hostile religion, allowing the regional governors to break away over a 30 year period from 1490 to 1518

These states were not only formidable military powers in their own right (a coalition of them defeated the last great Hindu state of Vijayanagar in 1565) 2 of them (Golconda and Bijapur) became centers of Islamic scholarship, architecture, and even in Golconda a center for the revival of the Telugu language. Trade links with the greater Muslim world, especially Persia do the Iranian origins and language of the Muslim aristocracy allowed them to attract some of the best and brightest to their capitals.

However, the Mughals ended the independence of the last 2 in the late 17th century (they had been tributaries up until that time), in part do to Aurangzeb's desire to conquer the entirety of the Deccan, and partly due to a revival and increase in power by the native Hindu Marathis, whose power only increased in Bijapur as the Sultanate disintegrated under the Mughal attack.

My question is this: how plausible is it for Bijapur and Golconda to stay Mughal tributaries or even allies with a POD after the Battle of Talikota in 1565 while also bringing the Marathas under control?

Moreover, what sort of impact would that have on India, both for the native states and later European colonization efforts if they succeed in overcoming the Marathas (which of course means that the Maratha Empire never exists).

deccansulthist.gif

Still seems reasonably vulnerable to the divide and rule tactics the British and French used IOTL. On the other hand, if the Deccan remains under secure states rather than basically going through a power vauum after the collapse of the Mughals and the Mahratta instability, that may well be less of an option.
 
Still seems reasonably vulnerable to the divide and rule tactics the British and French used IOTL. On the other hand, if the Deccan remains under secure states rather than basically going through a power vauum after the collapse of the Mughals and the Mahratta instability, that may well be less of an option.

Yes, that was one of my concerns, that like Mysore and Hyderabad they would just be gradually taken over by the Europeans. However, 2 things come to mind with my proposal based on what I know about the history of the Mughals:

1)Had at least Bijapur survived intact the Marathas as we know them would never have come into being, since the collapse of Bijapur allowed Shivaji to carve out his little kingdom to strike against the invading Mughals

and

2)From my understanding, part of what doomed the Mughal empire was its size. If its restricted to the Indogangetic plain, plus a few areas to the north, it become far easier to govern. Moreover, without Aurangzeb's wars of conquest and shifting of the court to the Deccan the seat of government remains near Delhi, allowing the government to better deal with the revolts that plagued the empire during the Deccan wars, at least in theory. So, could keeping the Mughal empire at a more reasonable size have actually strengthened the Mughals as well? (granted, this is a rather unintended consequence of my theory but the more I think about it the more interesting it becomes)
 
2)From my understanding, part of what doomed the Mughal empire was its size. If its restricted to the Indogangetic plain, plus a few areas to the north, it become far easier to govern. Moreover, without Aurangzeb's wars of conquest and shifting of the court to the Deccan the seat of government remains near Delhi, allowing the government to better deal with the revolts that plagued the empire during the Deccan wars, at least in theory. So, could keeping the Mughal empire at a more reasonable size have actually strengthened the Mughals as well? (granted, this is a rather unintended consequence of my theory but the more I think about it the more interesting it becomes)

I think this could go either way- it's all well and good if the Mughals are content with staying North of the Vindhyas but if they're instead engaged in constant border wars with the Deccan Sultanates, that could weaken both sides.

Also, with regard to European incursion, Kerala will be a vulnerable spot. IOTL Cochin was taken by the Portuguese and later the Dutch but the kingdom of Travancore then actually managed to beat the Dutch. However, given the rise of Mysore under the Haiders and their conquest of Malabar, the Keralan states were essentially sidelined in the power game and quickly sought accomodation with the British.

In a scenario where the Deccan Sultanates are still strong, one assumes Malabar, Cochin, and Travancore may well be more willing to seek accomodation with the foreigners much earlier.
 
I know it's only indirectly related, but why did the Adil Shahis abandon Shiism for Sunnism?
From what I can gather, it's because the overwhelming majority of Muslims within their realm (and still, even they were a tiny minority) were sunni and it was causing tensions between the ruling class and the monarch; the Adil Shahis needed the sunnis support and so converted in the late 16th century.
 
From what I can gather, it's because the overwhelming majority of Muslims within their realm (and still, even they were a tiny minority) were sunni and it was causing tensions between the ruling class and the monarch; the Adil Shahis needed the sunnis support and so converted in the late 16th century.
Had they been Twelvers or some other Shia variety?
 
Top