Ruler of India

Would post-Mutiny Mogul Empire be absolutism? Moguls were a figurehead, but would they became absolute rulers, or would the actual leaders of the mutinous sepoys work out some constitutional government?
Post-mutiny would be smaller breakup of kingdoms. India was not exposed to democratic beliefs until the British educated Indians about democracy and then ironically didn't give it to them.
 
Post-mutiny would be smaller breakup of kingdoms. India was not exposed to democratic beliefs until the British educated Indians about democracy and then ironically didn't give it to them.
As of 1857-1858, what British practices and ideals would British-educated Indians entering Mutineer Civil Service have been exposed to?
 
Hindu women had to convert to Islam when they married rulers.

Not in the Mughal Empire. One of its most notable features of the Empire was that Hindu women weren’t converted upon marriage to emperors, which led to children being accustomed to Hinduism at an extremely early age.

One thing is for sure is that Mughals sacked way more than the Marathas did.

No, they didn’t. They did some rather bloody sacks, that is true, but the Mughals preferred to tax revenue rather than sacking and looting everything. The same isn’t true about the Marathas, who raided pretty much everything, including temples, even within their own territory. The distinction is that the Marathas didn’t really have control over their army, while the Mughals did.

For the Mughals, there was a factor of forced conversion of the masses that Hindu empires never did.

On the contrary, during Mughal rule, there was forcible conversion of Muslims to Hinduism. Clearly, things are a lot more nuanced than “tolerant” Hindus being converted by “evil” Muslims.
 
If the Mughals lasted till the modern day, would Indian culture as a whole be more Persianised if so what sort of things would be common place
 
I was referring to OTL 1950's India. What you said is correct; there was no democratic interest in that period.

The Bengal Army of sepoys, hired by Company and ranked by Company, in units that existed permanently when officers were promoted or transferred, was something Moguls had not had. The babus of 1857 Company lower bureaucracy entering the service of restored Mogul empire would come with habits and expectations that were not those of pre-1770 native Indian dewani bureaucracy.
 
Not in the Mughal Empire. One of its most notable features of the Empire was that Hindu women weren’t converted upon marriage to emperors, which led to children being accustomed to Hinduism at an extremely early age.



No, they didn’t. They did some rather bloody sacks, that is true, but the Mughals preferred to tax revenue rather than sacking and looting everything. The same isn’t true about the Marathas, who raided pretty much everything, including temples, even within their own territory. The distinction is that the Marathas didn’t really have control over their army, while the Mughals did.



On the contrary, during Mughal rule, there was forcible conversion of Muslims to Hinduism. Clearly, things are a lot more nuanced than “tolerant” Hindus being converted by “evil” Muslims.
My friend, we have reached an impasse in terms of each others opinions. I need not go any further as we both clearly seem to subscribe to our points of view.
 
The Bengal Army of sepoys, hired by Company and ranked by Company, in units that existed permanently when officers were promoted or transferred, was something Moguls had not had. The babus of 1857 Company lower bureaucracy entering the service of restored Mogul empire would come with habits and expectations that were not those of pre-1770 native Indian dewani bureaucracy.
Ah I see, yes that is true.
 
Bahadur Shah was 81 in 1857. And in his reign, since 1837, he had not had much government experience - nor interest in the limited administrative rights he did have.

In 1850...1865, there were three great rebellions of mostly rural areas against technologically superior established governments.
CSA, in Battle of Bull Run, managed to stave off immediate suppression in April-July 1861, and consolidate to hold out a war of attrition till 1865.
Taiping Empire, in 1853, managed to stave off immediate suppression and consolidate to hold out a war of attrition till 1864.
Mutiny could not stop the Britons from lodging on Delhi Ridge on 7th of June, and Delhi fell in September.

Why?
The Mutineers, in May 1857, had been professional soldiers in their units and with their arms.
An advantage not enjoyed by Provisional Army of Confederacy in Spring 1861, nor by Taiping Army in 1853.
So suppose that Mutineers successfully stave off immediate suppression in June-September 1857, and consolidate. The attack on Delhi in June in 1857 is a bloody debacle and no other British army penetrates near Delhi for year/s.

How would the Mutineers build up their logistics, finance and taxation systems in June-September 1857? Company had been a steady paymaster. How do they get the steady cash pay during Mutiny?
 
Top