WI: Bahadur Shah Zafar an ambitious man?

Dorozhand

Banned
IIRC, the Sepoy rebels tried to get Bahadur Shah Zafar to be a figure Indians could rally around. Being the last of the Mughal Emperors, descended from the line of Timur, he could certainly have been a potent figure. However, he was a quiet poet and completely disinterested in any such ideas.

Let's say the Emperor turns out to be an ambitious man waiting for a chance to reclaim the legacy of Babur, and he enthusiastically gets behind the Indian rebellion. What could come of this?
 
IIRC, the Sepoy rebels tried to get Bahadur Shah Zafar to be a figure Indians could rally around. Being the last of the Mughal Emperors, descended from the line of Timur, he could certainly have been a potent figure. However, he was a quiet poet and completely disinterested in any such ideas.

Let's say the Emperor turns out to be an ambitious man waiting for a chance to reclaim the legacy of Babur, and he enthusiastically gets behind the Indian rebellion. What could come of this?

I don't think it would change much. The Indians were pretty disorganized when compared to the British. I tried to suggest India gaining independence on an earlier thread but apparently it would be impossible without foreign intervention. So if you can get that from someone it could be possible but then India would be dependent on that Nation, Russia I'm guessing.
 
I don't think it would change much. The Indians were pretty disorganized when compared to the British. I tried to suggest India gaining independence on an earlier thread but apparently it would be impossible without foreign intervention. So if you can get that from someone it could be possible but then India would be dependent on that Nation, Russia I'm guessing.

Not impossible, but improbable. You'd need to have a unifying figure, and having Bahadur Shah Zafar to truly be that unifying figure would certainly go far with regards to morale. However, this is only the first step, and only increases the length of the rebellion. He'd need to form contacts within India, and be able to attract more princely states to his cause.

But he was old by that point, and tired. And those two points are quite important when looking at his character.
 
Not impossible, but improbable. You'd need to have a unifying figure, and having Bahadur Shah Zafar to truly be that unifying figure would certainly go far with regards to morale. However, this is only the first step, and only increases the length of the rebellion. He'd need to form contacts within India, and be able to attract more princely states to his cause.

But he was old by that point, and tired. And those two points are quite important when looking at his character.

Perhaps on of his sons then? I remember reading that at least two of them were heavily involved in the Rebellion. So if one was named Crown Prince and Regent then he could serve as an actual rallying point with the Shah as a spiritual leader of the Rebellion.
 
Perhaps on of his sons then? I remember reading that at least two of them were heavily involved in the Rebellion. So if one was named Crown Prince and Regent then he could serve as an actual rallying point with the Shah as a spiritual leader of the Rebellion.

That's sort of what happened OTL, and it didn't really hold up well.
 
The trouble is that not all the rebels are actually going to rally to the Mughal banner- a lot of the Princes certainly wouldn't. Without a unified front the British can just take down rebel forces in isolation (as happened IOTL).

Now if the Emperor is young and energetic enough to actually do more diplomatic work then there's a very slim chance that something coherent can be managed and the British can be driven from the Gangetic valley.

This will leave a chaotic and interesting situation since you'd have this Mughal-led federation in the Gangetic Valley itself, the Sikhs will now be sitting in their rear (one suspects that they'll go back to being independent). British influence in the Deccan and South India will be severely shaken- none of the South Indians rose in the Mutiny but that was because British policy and local tensions were somewhat different in the South. If the shock of losing North India makes Britian overreact and crack down in the South, you'll see another rebellion in a few years.
 
The trouble is that not all the rebels are actually going to rally to the Mughal banner- a lot of the Princes certainly wouldn't. Without a unified front the British can just take down rebel forces in isolation (as happened IOTL).

Now if the Emperor is young and energetic enough to actually do more diplomatic work then there's a very slim chance that something coherent can be managed and the British can be driven from the Gangetic valley.

This will leave a chaotic and interesting situation since you'd have this Mughal-led federation in the Gangetic Valley itself, the Sikhs will now be sitting in their rear (one suspects that they'll go back to being independent). British influence in the Deccan and South India will be severely shaken- none of the South Indians rose in the Mutiny but that was because British policy and local tensions were somewhat different in the South. If the shock of losing North India makes Britian overreact and crack down in the South, you'll see another rebellion in a few years.

This is really interesting. The revolting Sepoys wanted to use Bahadur, and he agreed to their wishes in a way, but you have to be realistic that by the time he became Emperor, the Mughals were merely ruling the Red Fort and allowed a small cadre of troops. By the mid-1830s the BEIC ceased even mentioning the Emperor's name on coinage. When Bahadur had control of Delhi during the rebellion, his administration was a mess and couldn't even straighten that out, not to mention there was no overarching military leader. The rebels obeyed their commanders, but there was no one in charge of the rebel forces of a whole. One of Bahadur's sons wanted to take part militarily, but essentially the rebels refused to obey him, another problem.

If Bahadur is replaced with a younger and charismatic man who people can rally around like you mention, the scenario you describe is interesting. It'd be sad if he the rebellion is crushed, though -- he'd like end up shot like the dozens of Mughal Princes shot IOTL. I get the feeling Bahadur was spared because at that point he was an old man and just wanted to write poetry. But essentially none of his sons except a single one was spared.
 
This is really interesting. The revolting Sepoys wanted to use Bahadur, and he agreed to their wishes in a way, but you have to be realistic that by the time he became Emperor, the Mughals were merely ruling the Red Fort and allowed a small cadre of troops. By the mid-1830s the BEIC ceased even mentioning the Emperor's name on coinage. When Bahadur had control of Delhi during the rebellion, his administration was a mess and couldn't even straighten that out, not to mention there was no overarching military leader. The rebels obeyed their commanders, but there was no one in charge of the rebel forces of a whole. One of Bahadur's sons wanted to take part militarily, but essentially the rebels refused to obey him, another problem.

If Bahadur is replaced with a younger and charismatic man who people can rally around like you mention, the scenario you describe is interesting. It'd be sad if he the rebellion is crushed, though -- he'd like end up shot like the dozens of Mughal Princes shot IOTL. I get the feeling Bahadur was spared because at that point he was an old man and just wanted to write poetry. But essentially none of his sons except a single one was spared.

What about having his eldest son, Mirza Dara Bakht, survive? He was very popular at Court and was supposedly very charismatic. He only died in 1849 so have him survive and come 1857 he could be appointed Prince Regent or whatever the Mughal equivalent was. I have little info on him so whether or not he would be an asset is up in the air.

The only problem I can see is the Mughal's religion. They were Muslim and most of India was Hindu. So would that cause tensions with the various rebel commanders taking orders from a Muslim? And for that matter if India wins independence? Would the Mughals have to convert or would their be a push to have a new Hindu dynasty?
 
Last edited:
Mm. However, if the north manages to get its independence, I can't see the southern princely states, especially Mysore or Travancore, simply resting on their laurels, let alone Hyderabad.

Oh I agree- however I don't think this would take the form of outright war. Travancore and Hyderabad were very good at striking mutually beneficial deals with external powers and this gives them a great opportunity to rework treaties. The Wodeyars of Mysore are a bit different since they're outright British clients, though.
 
The only problem I can see is the Mughal's religion. They were Muslim and most of India was Hindu. So would that cause tensions with the various rebel commanders taking orders from a Muslim? And for that matter if India wins independence? Would the Mughals have to convert or would their be a push to have a new Hindu dynasty?

Religion is a tricky issue and generalising like that is pointless.

There's no point saying that "most of India" was Hindu because we aren't talking about most of India- we're talking about the Gangetic valley and Bengal where there are large (and often militarily powerful) Muslim castes as a significant minority among the Hindu majority. Essentially attitudes towards taking orders from the Mughals will vary from commander to commander and the political situation of the moment as well as each one's specific attitude towards Muslims.

There is no question of the Mughals converting. For one thing you can't actually convert to Hinduism so if Bahadur Shah did try something that ludicrous the Hindus would ignore it at best or be offended by it at worst and the Muslims would consider him an apostate. Akbar tried creating a syncretic Hindu-Islamic religion centred on him but he pulled that off because he was Akbar, the greatest of the Mughals at the height of his power. He could have called himself God Emperor of the Moon and everyone in India would have nodded and agreed. Bahadur Shah doesn't have anywhere near that kind of power.

Just as a reminder- when we talk about the Mutiny we're talking about events that specifically occurred in North India- there's not point speculating on "oh what if India wins independence" because things down South are a totally different political ballgame.
 
Oh I agree- however I don't think this would take the form of outright war. Travancore and Hyderabad were very good at striking mutually beneficial deals with external powers and this gives them a great opportunity to rework treaties. The Wodeyars of Mysore are a bit different since they're outright British clients, though.

But still, there is plenty of land that Hyderabad lost; Masulipatnam comes to mind. I agree with you that war wouldn't necessarily be the form of 'rebellion', but I wouldn't call it out of the question.
 
But still, there is plenty of land that Hyderabad lost; Masulipatnam comes to mind. I agree with you that war wouldn't necessarily be the form of 'rebellion', but I wouldn't call it out of the question.

Like I said the Nizam can probably put soft pressure on the British ITTL renegotiate the terms of some treaties. Travanacore's general ethos seemed to be the uniting of all the Malayalees (it's probing into Calicut was iotl smashed by Hyder Ali) so you might see the Varma kings of Travancore pushing for Cochin to be transferred to them as a vassal territory and maybe for territorial concessions in the Calicut region.
 
Like I said the Nizam can probably put soft pressure on the British ITTL renegotiate the terms of some treaties. Travanacore's general ethos seemed to be the uniting of all the Malayalees (it's probing into Calicut was iotl smashed by Hyder Ali) so you might see the Varma kings of Travancore pushing for Cochin to be transferred to them as a vassal territory and maybe for territorial concessions in the Calicut region.

That's what I was looking at!:)
 
The trouble is that not all the rebels are actually going to rally to the Mughal banner- a lot of the Princes certainly wouldn't. Without a unified front the British can just take down rebel forces in isolation (as happened IOTL).

Once in a while, I've thought about a surviving Sikh state which uses the Mutiny and Mughals as figurehead for a north-Indian state.
 
Once in a while, I've thought about a surviving Sikh state which uses the Mutiny and Mughals as figurehead for a north-Indian state.

That's a possibility, but in a TL where the Sikh Empire survives, would the British get quite so complacent and arrogant in their rule in North India?
 
Top