Question : Ottoman-India relations

I've been hearing about significant pro-Ottoman feelings in India back then until now, but have known too little and shallow about this topic, as for how could that had been the case IOTL, why it's also applied to Hindus and to what extent, etc... Though I'm pretty sure British colonialism in India played a part in forming it...

Sources on the topic will be very appreciated ! :)
 
I know that the fact the Sultan was the Caliph didn't cause to much trouble with the Indian soldier fighting in the Middle East during WWI, so it obviously wasn't too buddy buddy. I know that Persian culture had a large influence on Islamic culture in the North-West Frontier area, so perhaps that could lead to some conflict if the Ottomans had ever gotten to India's frontiers, seeing that Persia and the Ottomans were such great rivals. Just some food for thought, I'm not that well acquainted with the politics in India during any era, but I'm sure that their were some Indian's who sympathized with the Ottomans, I do know my history of 19th century colonialism.
 
I know that the fact the Sultan was the Caliph didn't cause to much trouble with the Indian soldier fighting in the Middle East during WWI, so it obviously wasn't too buddy buddy. I know that Persian culture had a large influence on Islamic culture in the North-West Frontier area, so perhaps that could lead to some conflict if the Ottomans had ever gotten to India's frontiers, seeing that Persia and the Ottomans were such great rivals. Just some food for thought, I'm not that well acquainted with the politics in India during any era, but I'm sure that their were some Indian's who sympathized with the Ottomans, I do know my history of 19th century colonialism.

I know that there was a sizable uproar in India over British invasion into Ottoman Empire, and also over dissolvement of the Caliphate by Kemal years after WW1. In the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78, Pro-Ottoman sentiment in India was apparent, even among Hindus, and quite a lot of Indian money and volunteers were sent to support Ottomans fighting against Russian invasion. That even made British authority in India quite nervous and restricted the movement of Ottoman officials in India. But I guess that the empire's defeat in that war affected Indian optimism for the Caliphate. And I'm sure that not all Indian muslims acknowlegded Ottoman Empire as Caliphate.
 
Well the only real mention of Ottoman-philia (is that the right word ?) that I can remember from school was the Khilafat Movement that was formed by a couple of Indian Muslim bothers after WWI to push the British into supporting the Ottomans as Caliph and to make them return conquered Ottoman lands. It become a pretty big mass movement among Indian Muslims and they even ended up allying with the Congress as a show of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hell Gandhiji even made a big deal out of pushing for the Khilafat aims by linking it directly to calls for Swaraj (self rule).

Other than that I don't think the Ottomans were all that important to Indian history or even Indian Muslim history. I mean why bother with a large strong multi-ethnic Muslim empire thousands of kilometers away when you already have one right here in the Mughals ?

EDIT- Didn't see your second post. Other than the Khilafat movement I've never really heard of any large scale brouhaha among Indians over the fate of the Ottoman empire. A few members of the intelligentsia might have cared but it never really amounted to anything until after the Ottomans' fall.
 
Last edited:
I've been hearing about significant pro-Ottoman feelings in India back then until now, but have known too little and shallow about this topic, as for how could that had been the case IOTL, why it's also applied to Hindus and to what extent, etc... Though I'm pretty sure British colonialism in India played a part in forming it...

Sources on the topic will be very appreciated ! :)

I recently read an interesting text on Ottoman policy in the Indian Ocean- the title has slipped my mind, though. The writer covers Ottoman policy after the conquest of Egypt and their response to Portuguese encroachment in the Red Sea and beyond.
 
I recently read an interesting text on Ottoman policy in the Indian Ocean- the title has slipped my mind, though. The writer covers Ottoman policy after the conquest of Egypt and their response to Portuguese encroachment in the Red Sea and beyond.

That should had started then, indeed.....

I sure remember the period of animosity with Mughal Empire starting from Akbar's reign, but it strikes that the Mughals didn't stay that way until death. Maybe the more Sunni Orthodox Aurangzeb reversed that policy ? Now that we're at it, surely the Mughal did acknowledged Ottoman Caliphacy at least for once, not ?
 
EDIT- Didn't see your second post. Other than the Khilafat movement I've never really heard of any large scale brouhaha among Indians over the fate of the Ottoman empire. A few members of the intelligentsia might have cared but it never really amounted to anything until after the Ottomans' fall.

I don't have a deep hindsight on the topic myself, hence this thread. But I think if there was actually material support sent from Indian for the Ottomans I think it was something to be recogned with.
 
I recently read an interesting text on Ottoman policy in the Indian Ocean- the title has slipped my mind, though. The writer covers Ottoman policy after the conquest of Egypt and their response to Portuguese encroachment in the Red Sea and beyond.

If you are going back that far, then relations between the Mughals and the Ottomans was quite strained. Akbar the Great was extremely presumptuous in regards to religion, and even considered himself the Caliph of all Indian Muslims. Akbar even considered allying with the Portuguese to launch an invasion of Ottoman Arab territories. The Mughals had always been rather reliant on good relations with the Shahs of Iran.

Akbar also pursued very heterodox ideas, and suffered many revolts from the Sunnis in India.
 
If you are going back that far, then relations between the Mughals and the Ottomans was quite strained. Akbar the Great was extremely presumptuous in regards to religion, and even considered himself the Caliph of all Indian Muslims. Akbar even considered allying with the Portuguese to launch an invasion of Ottoman Arab territories. The Mughals had always been rather reliant on good relations with the Shahs of Iran.

Akbar also pursued very heterodox ideas, and suffered many revolts from the Sunnis in India.

Yeah- though I do like Akbar. He was a truly enlightened leader and it's notable that the Mughals really started to collapse only after Aurangzeb decided to ignore the Hindu majority of his subjects in favour of Sunni orthodoxy.

After all, the man's name was Jallaluddin Muhammad-there's a reason he earned the title Akbar :D
 
Yeah- though I do like Akbar. He was a truly enlightened leader and it's notable that the Mughals really started to collapse only after Aurangzeb decided to ignore the Hindu majority of his subjects in favour of Sunni orthodoxy.

After all, the man's name was Jallaluddin Muhammad-there's a reason he earned the title Akbar :D

Akbar was undoubtably enlightened, but you can say that he was a wee bit to radical. It was his actions afterall that exacerbated Sunni extremism in the empire that later rode on Aurangzeb. Without that, Mughal would have stayed with a kind of approachment towards non-muslims closer to Ottoman-style, instead ended up with Aurangzeb....


Now back on topic. What exactly was the thing that caused many Indians using Ottoman Caliphate as a rallying point during colonial era ? Was it the collapse of Mughal Empire ? And to exactly what extent pro-Ottoman feelings in India back then during 19th century ?
 
Last edited:
More often than not the Sultan's title as Caliph of Islam was just used as an excuse to invade or pressure a land with a sizable Muslim population.
 
More often than not the Sultan's title as Caliph of Islam was just used as an excuse to invade or pressure a land with a sizable Muslim population.

That logic wouldn't work in 1800 and beyond though. By that time, only Ottoman Empire remained as the sole strongest Islamic Power, and only Ottoman Caliph who had the chance to actually lead practically the whole Islamic World as The Caliph, something comparable to an Islamic Pope.

Indeed, that certainly had to do with the growing expansion of European colonialism in muslim parts of Asia and Africa. Ottoman Empire was the only muslim power the muslims worldwide could rely on.
 
Last edited:
I decide to bump this with the information quoted from The Great Pasha :

Abdul Hadi Pasha on how Pro-Ottomanism in 19th century India started said:
I think it was based on the Ottomans being the only non-Western European power with long relations with India. Japan became a power later, but aped all the exploitative habits of the West. Also, India had a large Muslim population.

The British caused some of it by emphasizing at first the Caliph's universalist role as head of all Islam, which they hoped to exploit through their friendship with the Ottomans. After the Treaty of Berlin, when that friendship was OVER, the British began to fear the Caliphate. In the 1877 war, there were several Indian volunteer medical units and a lot of money was contributed to the war effort, but the British tried to discourage this.
 
Akbar was undoubtably enlightened, but you can say that he was a wee bit to radical. It was his actions afterall that exacerbated Sunni extremism in the empire that later rode on Aurangzeb. Without that, Mughal would have stayed with a kind of approachment towards non-muslims closer to Ottoman-style, instead ended up with Aurangzeb....

I'm woefully ignorant on many aspects of this subject, but from what I've seen Aurangzeb was an unfortunately fortunate outlier instead of part of a growing trend, so from what I know it looks like Akbar's radicalism was harmless. If there was a growing trend of Sunni extremism, could you point me to a source on it? I'm fond of the Mughals and wish to learn more.
 
To quote from Kautilya and the Arthashatra: "The king who is situated anywhere immediately on the circumference of the conqueror's territory is termed the enemy. The king who is likewise situated close to the enemy, but separated from the conqueror only by the enemy, is termed a friend".

A fun Indian version of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Add in some cognitive dissonance and among Indian Muslim the Caliphate, Hejaz and the fact it was the preeminent Muslim power at the time and there you have it.
 
Top