After WW1 and the Turkish war of independence, Mustafa Kemal abolished the Ottoman caliphate. The last caliph, Abdulmejid II, was sent into exile.

However, there was a pan-Islamic movement among Muslims in British India at the time called the Khilafat Movement, which sought restore the caliph's political authority, or at least preserve the institutions. Abdulmejid's daughter Durrusehvar Sultan married Azam Jah, the heir to the throne of Hyderabad, an Indian princely state.

How would history be affected if the Ottoman Caliphate was replaced by a Hyderabad caliphate? Could a future caliph be given a ceremonial presidency or position of constitutional monarch in an independent India?

The continued existence of a caliphate in South Asia might change the factors which contributed to partition, and affect the Islamic revival later on in the 20th century.
 
As far as I'm aware, didn't most Muslims of the time period not really care much about the Ottoman Caliphate? I'm not sure that they would believe a Caliph living in British India would be any more legitimate.
 
I doubt the Arabs would accept anybody but them being the next Caliphate.

True, but who would they accept? King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz, a direct descendant of Muhammed, declared himself Caliph on March 3, 1924, but was for the most part not recognized. Who would be more legitimate or acceptable than him?
 
True, but who would they accept? King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz, a direct descendant of Muhammed, declared himself Caliph on March 3, 1924, but was for the most part not recognized. Who would be more legitimate or acceptable than him?
Nobody. That's the point. Nobody in OTL could take the place of the Ottomans. To be a legitimate "Caliphate" a country would have to be:

1. Arab.

2. Hold Mecca and Medina.

3. Be strong enough to act as a regional power.

Nobody in OTL fills this criteria. Perhaps had there never been a Sykes–Picot Agreement, than the Arab Super-state that was envisioned during WW1 could fill it. A Greater Egypt is a real stretch. Anybody else is just too distant or lacks legitimacy regardless of how powerful they are.
 
Nobody. That's the point. Nobody in OTL could take the place of the Ottomans. To be a legitimate "Caliphate" a country would have to be:

1. Arab.

2. Hold Mecca and Medina.

3. Be strong enough to act as a regional power.

Nobody in OTL fills this criteria. Perhaps had there never been a Sykes–Picot Agreement, than the Arab Super-state that was envisioned during WW1 could fill it. A Greater Egypt is a real stretch. Anybody else is just too distant or lacks the legitimacy regardless of how powerful they are.

I wonder if Ibn Saud had been able to gain control of Iraq or Jordan in addition to Saudi Arabia (perhaps through a deal with the British) if he might have been able to stake a claim. I mean, he fits two out of three of your criteria IOT.
 
Top