Kingdoms: Restoration of Hindu Rulership

AI Grok analyzed Indian history, omitting hearsay and exaggerations, to declare Islamists and British imperialists as the most brutal rulers.

Shivaji being coronated Chakravarti or Chhatrapati, the ruler of India.

"The Peshwa was the head of the only government that could be called the government of India; his flag flew from the Indus to the Kaveri, and from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas."
- Mountstuart Elphinstone, Resident at Pune & later Governor of Bombay (1818)

Throughout the history of India, it has withstood invasions and migrations of numerous groups that different in cultures and religions but they embraced Arya principles. Examples in recorded history can be seen going as far back as the Rig Veda wherein the Taruksha Dasas (Turkic Dahaes) became Arya. Other examples include of kings when Agathokles the Euthydemid became a Vaishnava (2nd cent.), Ardashir I the Sassanian became a Zoroastrian (3rd cent.), Bhima the Udi Shahi became a Ganpatya (10th cent.), Quanlong-sheng the Nanzhao became a Bonpo (9th-10th cent.), Menander I the Euthydemid became a Bauddh (2nd cent. BCE), Maues the Saka became a Jain (1st cent. BCE), Spalapati the Udi Shahi became a Kaumara (9th cent.), Sukaphaa the Ahom became a Shakta (13th cent.), Toramana the Huna became a Saura (5th-6th cent.), and Vima the Kushan became a Shaiva (1st cent.)

Islamists did in India what they did in other countries, which was genocide and oppression for non-Muslims to pressure them to convert to Islam. Hindus defied Islamists and fought back, not allowing what happened to Afghanistan (multiple religions exterminated), Central Asia (Buddhism exterminated), and Iran (Zoroastrianism exterminated) to take place in India. Even in dynasties that ruled as far as southern India (i.e., Hyderabad, Mysore) the administrative language was Persian and was sometimes even violently enforced onto Indians.

The Mughal Empire only expanded due to Hindus placing trust in Akbar, who went from tyrant to good ruler, but his successors were Islamists who oppressed Indians, did not even prevent build-up of European imperialists and their and subsequent takeover. Mughals and other Islamists tried portraying Hindavis as cowards and they brutally and culturally oppressed Indians. Hindavis built up their rage into strength to fight and they liberated Indian regions, and other indigenous kingdoms liberated themselves by defeating Mughals in battle also. Hindavis brought Mughals to their knees and the latter would only praise them as the legitimate and God-sent rulers of India. But still, Mughals and other Islamists would then choose the side of British imperialists, thereby betraying Hindavis, leading to India's conquest by European imperialists. Even during the colonial era, local revolts, in the 1857 War, and the 20th century naval mutiny, the Hindavi rulers were praised and examples of liberators.

It was mainly the Hindavi Swarajya ('Maratha Empire') that liberated Indians (others like Sikh Empire contributed) and became the legitimate empire over dominion of India. It was recognized by the British to have controlled India more extensively than the Mughal Empire at its heyday. The Hindavis would bring the Muslim rulers to the knees and make them tributary states. Muslim rulers acknowledged the supremacy of the Hindavi Swarajya and referred to it as "Sarkar-i-Ala" (Exalted Government of India) and Sarkar-i-Hind (Government of India), and their ruler as "Maharajadhiraj of Hindustan" (Great-king-of-kings of India). The British themselves acknowledged Mahadji Scindia not only as the ruler of the "Maratha Empire" (Hindavi Swarajya) but of the Mughal Empire Emperor Mahadji Scindia was proclaimed 'Malik al-Hind', not only by himself but by also by the Mughal chief Shah Alam II and by Rajputs, both verbally and in imperial farmans. After him, Emperor Nana Phadnavis was proclaimed 'Malik-i Hind' in the Rajput and Mughal courts.

"The Mahratta Empire has succeeded to the pretensions of the House of Timur, and is at present the sovereign power of India, exacting tribute from the Rajput princes, the Nizam, the Carnatic, and even the territories of the Company. The Peshwa is the head of the only native power that can claim legitimate sovereignty over India; his influence extends from the Krishna to the Sutlej, and from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal."
- Lord Wellesley in Secret Memorandum to the Secret Committee of EIC, July 15, 1798 (1803)

The British imperialists had acknowledged that the Hindavis were the only real threat that prevented India's conquest by them. The repeated siding of Muslim rulers with the British, especially to fight the Hindavis and to legitimize British authority over India was what made India fall to British rule.

Why Mughals expanded

Akbar with Jain saint.

Akbar with Jain saint Hirvijaya Suri.

Akbar worshipping the sun.

AI Grok analyzed Indian history and declares Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh dynasties the best for women.

"The truths of the Upanishads about the unity of God are superior to what later sects have taught."
- Mahzar-nama (1598) By Akbar

Akbar's acceptance of Arya Dharmas
The Mughals in Babur's and Humayun's era did not possess vast lands. It was after Humayun's son Akbar (6th-7th cent.) earned the trust of non-Muslims, mainly Hindus, that the dynasty became an empire. Akbar himself was a ruthless Islamist ruler who slaughtered tens of thousands of non-Muslim, pressured and paid non-Muslims to convert to Islam, but after his meeting of the Jain Hiravijaya Suri, he had a change of heart and not only accepted tolerance and equality of non-Muslims but also accepted Arya doctrines.

Akbar believed in karma, reincarnation, and Moksha. He even began practicing vegetarianism on most days after 1585 to avoid being reborn as a animal, prohibited slaughtering animals on his birthday and during Jain festivals, and then in 1596 ordered the release of all thousands of prisoners and animals, saying, "souls are imprisoned in bodies; freeing them earns merit toward liberation." He performed Surya Namaskar in Sanskrit, worshipped the sun 4 times a day, and had the sun emblem painted on palace walls. He kept a sacred fire burning in the palace and would feed it sandalwood and incense every evening. He observed Jain vrats (fasts), especially on Paryushan, and abstained from meat, garlic, onions, and sexual relations on certain days of Jain significance. He wore the sacred thread (jeneu), tulsi beads, and tilak on his forehead on certain occasions. He would recite a mantra to the tulsi plant and had the plants throughout his palace. He declared cows sacred, banned their slaughtered throughout his empire, and personally fed them. He bathed in the Ganga River at Prayag and sprinkled its water in palace for purification. He kept idols in his private prayer room and performed arti with lamps and incense. He shaved his head and beard 4 times as acts of humility. He celebrated Diwali, Raksha Bandhan, Krishna Jayanti, and the Jain Samvatsari.

He even established a new religion, Din-i-Ilahi (Divine Religion), which could accommodate members of other religions by having members of different religions—adherents had to proclaim in one God and that the soul "wanders through many births until it reaches God." As this religion was a tolerant and universalistic dharma, scriptures of various religions were read, including The Bible, Jain sutras and Sanatan texts. The most common scripture that was read aloud was Bhagavad Gita in the Ibadat-khana (debating hall), and Akbar frequently quoted verses (especially 2.47, 9.29, 18.66) in court discussions.

Akbar even dropped Islamic titles that earlier Mughal emperors had used and replaced them with universalistic ones. 'Zill Allah' (Shadow of Allah) was dropped from documents dictated, corrected, or personally approved after 1582, and 'Padshah-i-Islam' (Emperor of Islam) was replaced with 'Shahanshah-i-Hind' (Emperor of India) or simply 'Padshah' (Emperor.) The slogan for his empire became 'Daulat-i Sulh-i Kul' or Commonwealth of Peace for All.

The Jesuit Christian priests of his court will confirm that the Upanishads were his favourite scriptures, and Abu'l-Fazl claimed this too.

Ruining Akbar's legacy

"Akbar has abandoned the Quran and now recites verses from the Upanishads in the Ibadat-khana. He calls them ‘the ancient revelation of India’."
- Badauni the orthodox critic of Akbar (1590s)

Through Akbar's openness of cultural differences, both religious and ethnic, Hindu kingdoms agreed to merge into the Mughal dynasty to create an empire. It was his successors, who not only abused the tolerance of non-Muslims, but their intolerance led to the downfall of the once-tolerant empire. Akbar's own son executed the 5th Sikh Satguru Arjan Dev in 1606 for refusing to convert to Islam. Shahjahan was even more brutal with non-Muslims, and his son Aurangzeb was the worst, who not only had the 9th Sikh Satguru Tegh Bahadur beheaded at Delhi for refusing to convert to Islam, but converted temples into mosques to showcase Muslim supremacy, and restarted the jizya.

Akbar was so influenced by Arya principles, that even orthodox Muslims, including his son Jahangir, tried to falsify records for history to think otherwise. These include the claim 'Akbar remained a pious Sunni Muslim all his life' by Shahjahan-era and later writings, 'Din-i-Ilahi was just a philosophical discussion circle, not a new religion', 'Akbar never abolish the jizya permanently—it was only suspended', 'Akbar performed orthodox Islamic funeral rites for himself', 'Akbar repented on his deathbed and died a perfect Muslim'. Multiple Muslim chroniclers stated that Jahangir did a good thing by giving Akbar an Islamic funeral and spreading the story that Akbar died reciting the kalima—Khushwaqt Rai, Ghulam Husain Khan Tabatabai, Maulvi Muhammad Hasan, Syed Muhammad Latif, Maulana Shibli Nomani A Hindu chronicler (Munshi Sohan Lal Suri) of Sikh Raja Ranjit Singh also mentioned it.

Prince Dara Shikoh with Hindu sadhus in an Upanishad learning session.

"My armies have melted away because the Hindu zamindars and their peasants no longer supply men and money as they did in Akbar’s time."
- Aurangzeb (1705)

Whereas Akbar was the most tolerant Mughal, Aurangzeb was the the most intolerant, so then it is no wonder the he failed as an emperor and made his empire fail forever. Hindus were tolerant enough to work under Akbar, and even under Aurangzeb but when Hindus in the latter's military realized that he was just undermining them and would eventually persecute them like he was to other Hindus, they defected on a massive scale.

Prince Dara Shikoh was a brother of Aurangzeb, and the latter opposed the former for 2 reasons—the prince stood in the way of Aurangzeb becoming Mughal emperor and because he became an apostate like Akbar. Aurangzeb had Shikoh executed in 1659, and the latter died reciting the Upanishads and Persian poetry.

"The Upanishads are the ocean of monotheism. All later scriptures—Torah, Psalms, Gospel, and even the Quran—are rivers flowing from this ocean."
- Dara Shikoh in letter to his Sufi master Mullah Shah Badakhshi (1658)

Prince Shikoh was a believer in Akbar's Daulat-i Sulh-i Kul philosophy and while confirming his faith in the Quran, also believed it's "A perfect revelation, but its inner meaning is fully explained only by the Upanishads" and that the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel "Contain divine light, but incomplete without the Upanishads." To him the Upanishads were "The fountainhead of all true monotheism; the concealed book mentioned in the Quran." Being a great admirer of his great-grandfather Akbar, he proclaimed to traveler François Bernier and in his own Majma‘-ul-Bahrain that he was trying to finish Akbar's mission to reconcile the different religions.

Shahjahan, though grieved by Dara's embracing of unislamic practices and beliefs, he still advised Aurangzeb that "...the throne belongs to him." Only on his deathbed he may have informed Aurangzeb that he can do whatever he thinks is necessary (i.e., including execution) about Dara.

The Mughal administration saw Dara as an apostate ('kufr'), and complainants included Inayat KhanQazi Muhammad Khalil (chief qazi of the empire), Shaikh Abdul Momin, Khafi Khan, and foreign visitors François Bernier and Nicola Manucci documented this resentment.

"In the Upanishads is contained the secret of the Vedas, and in the Vedas is contained the secret of the entire world. The highest aim of the wise is the knowledge of Brahman, by which the soul is liberated from the bonds of birth and death, and attains union with the Eternal One."
- "Dibācha-yi" Sirr-i Akbar (1657)

Dara Shikoh was the last chance for the Mughal Empire to redeem its rule and the empire's hardliners ruined it, and also executed Prince Dara's loyalists from 1659-1660, and poisoned his 2 surviving children (Suleiman & Sipihr Shikoh) on the order or Aurangzeb from 1660-1663.

Hindus in militaries of Muslim rulers

"The Nawab's army is chiefly Hindoos—Rajputs and Purbiyas—who outnumber the Mussalmans ten to one."
- East India Company on the Bengal dynasty's army (1698)

Region	Hindu % (army)	Hindu % (navy)	Key Hindu Groups % (army)
Ahmadnagar	70%	[No navy]	Marathas
Awadh	75-80%	95%	Purbiya Rajputs
Bahmani	70-80%	85%	Telugu Nayaks
Bengal	76%	95%	Bihari Ahirs, Bhumihars, Malangas, Manjhis, Purbiya Rajputs, other Rajputs
Bijapur	75%	90%	Marathas, Kunbis
Golconda	80%	95%	Telugus, Vokkaligas
Gujarat	70-75%	90%	Bhils, Kolis, Rajputs
Hyderabad	70%	90%	Marathis, Telugus
Malwa	80%	[No navy]	Bundela Rajputs, and Gonds
Mughals (1605)	35-39%		Rajputs, Khatris, Jats, Kayasthas, Brahmans, Ahirs
Mysore	60-65%	85%	Kodavas, Kurubas

Aurangzeb saw the threat of militant Hindus who would only fight the Mughals if the rights of their ethnicities were trampled on, so he ordered a reduction in Hindus in the Mughal army after 1680. Hindu troops (Rajputs and Marathas) began deserting in high numbers from 1689, only exacerbating the collapse of the Mughal regime that bit the hands (Hindus) that fed them.

"In the imperial service, give preference to Muslims over Hindus, because the Hindus have become insolent and the strength of Islam has weakened."
- Aurangzeb in letter to his son Prince A'zam

Under him there were less high-ranking Hindu officers (mansabdars) than in previous administrations. From 33-35% in Akbar's time, to around 30-33% by Shahjahan's death, to around 22-25% by 1680s, to 14-16% from 1695-1707.

"The numbers of Hindu mansabdars has become excessive, reduce their ranks gradually and fill vacancies with worthy Muslims."
- Aurangzeb in letter (1702)

Mughal falsifications against Hindavis

Mughals aimed to forever been seen in history as the bravest and most powerful but, as Western visitors to Aurangzeb had also noted, the empire was hallow and crumbling. Akbar had earned the trust of Hindus whereas his successors exploited Hindus and other non-Muslims, so it makes sense that Indians overthrew the Mughals.

Official Mughal record claim	What actually happened	Evidence
"Aurangzeb won decisive victories and the Maratha rebellion was crushed." - Maasir-i-Alamgiri	By 1707 the Marathas were collection chauth from Gujarat to the Godavari; Aurangzeb died in despair.	"Wherever I look, I see the Marathas—they have swallowed the country. From the Deccan lands up to Malwa and Gujarat, they have taken everything...I have come to this province (the Deccan) only to die here and take leave of this transient world." - Aurangzeb in letter to Prince A'zam Shah (1705)
"The Mughals captured all major Maratha forts 1690-1707."	Most forts changed hands 5-15 times; Mughals paid huge chauth to get them back or keep them quiet.	Aurangzeb in letters contained within Ahkam-i-Alamgiri admit paying chauth
"Marathas were mere robbers and bandits."	They ran a sophisticated state with regular taxation, navy, artillery, and diplomacy.	Portuguese, Dutch, English records treat them as a sovereign power by 1700
"Shivaji surrendered in 1665 and was honourably received in Agra."	Shivaji was detailed as a prisoner; escaped in a mango crate.	Shivaji's own letters, Dutch and English factory records
"Shivaji died of natural illness/fever."	Shivaji died of dysentery/blood infection, but Mughals spread rumours he was poisoned or cursed.	Maratha bakhars and English letters confirm natural death
"Sambhaji was captured because was drunk and careless." - Maasir-i-Alamgiri	Sambhaji was betrayed by his own brother-in-law Ganoji Shrike.	Maratha sources, Portuguese records, Aurangzeb's private letters
"Sambhaji was executed for refusing to convert to Islam."	He was tortured and executed for refusing to surrender forts and treasure, not just because he refused to convert.	Aurangzeb's own letter to Rahullah Khan (1689) lists political and religious demands
"Rajaram was a cowardly fugitive who never won a battle." - Maasir-i-Alamgiri	Rajaram conducted a brilliant 9-year guerrilla campaign from Jinji, defeating multiple Mughal armies.	Dutch and English records, Maratha bakhars, Aurangzeb's private complaints
"Peshwa Bajirao I never defeated a Mughal army."	Bajirao defeated Mughal armies repeatedly (Palkhed 1728, Delhi 1737, Bhopal 1737, etc)	Maratha records, Persian chronicles from rival courts (Nizam, Jats), British observers
"Shahu was released in 1707 as an act of mercy."	Shahu was released because Aurangzeb's generals told him the war was unwinnable and they needed a rival to weaken Tarabai.	Aurangzeb's private council minutes (preserved in Rajasthan archives)

Why Indians saw Mughals as oppressors

"In the war of succession that followed the death of Raja Jaswant Singh [1678], Aurangzeb sent his armies to occupy Marwar.
When the Rathore Rajputs resisted, the Emperor gave orders that no quarter should be given.
The Mughal troops put entire villages to the sword, women and children included.
In one campaign alone he destroyed 100,000 souls — men, women, and even infants at the breast were slaughtered or died of hunger and exposure when the country was laid waste.
The Emperor himself boasted that he had extinguished the Rathore clan almost to the last man."
- Nicolo Manucci (1907)

Not only Indian sources (Bauddh, Jain, Sanatan, Sikh), but also European ones describe Muslim rulers as oppressive, tyrannical, and genocidal. Ralph Fitch (English merchant) and Father António Monserrate (Portuguese Jesuit) were critical of Akbar, Sir Thomas Roe (English ambassador) and Edward Terry (chaplain to Roe) of Jahangir, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier (French jeweller), Father Henri Roth (German Jesuit), François Bernier (French physician & philosopher) of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb, and Nicolo Manucci (Venetian artilleryman & physician), John Fryer (English surgeon), and Alexander Hamilton (Scottish sea-captain) of Aurangzeb.

Fighting dirty

"The Mughals burn whole provinces…the earth is left black and barren."
- French traveler François Bernier (1660s)

Not only were Indians massacred for refusing to convert to Islam and their cultures being replaced with a Arabist-Persianist-Turkist one - names of their homelands and even their own names were changed. Most Muslim-ruled administrations used Persian in administrative matters - courts, documentation, and letters.

Worse was that farms were burnt and famines were caused. Indians starved. This Mughal policy was termed 'chaharbar'. Torching of crops [to starve enemy], burning wells [to deny water], razing homes [to displace population], sacking cities [to loot and terrorize] was actually executed frequently by Mughals.

Warring with the Islamist-governed dynasties was more than justified.

"Burn every village that shelters Marathas. Leave no grain, no water."
- Aurangzeb’s orders (1680-1707)

Year	Target	Reason	Conflagration
1669	Jat Revolt (Mathura)	Jat leader Gokula executed	100+ Jat villages
1672	Satnami Revolt (Narnaul)	Satnami uprising	All rebel villages
1680	Marwar (Jodhpur)	Rajput succession war	Jodhpur city, 500 villages
1686-1707	Deccan Campaign	27-year war	10,000+ Maratha villages, Bijapur, Golconda cities
1686	Bijapur	Annexation - devastate region into submitting to Mughals	Homes and temples
1687	Hyderabad	Annexation - devastate region into submitting to Mughals	Homes and temples

According to the-then European estimates, in the resulting famine from these, 2-3 million people died from starvation.

Taxation & famine

AI Grok analyzed Indian history and declares the top 15 liberators with Hindavi Swarajya's Shivaji at the top.
(None of them are Muslims.)

AI Grok analyzed Indian history and declares the top 15 dynasties to have increased HDI.
(None of them were Muslim-ruled.)

"The Emperor's orders were that the revenue should be collected with the utmost rigour, even when there was no harvest. The collectors of revenue took the grain from the cultivators by force, and left them nothing to eat. The people in the Deccan were compelled to sell their children, and many died of hunger. The country became desolate, and the roads were covered with the bones of the dead. The Emperor's treasury was full, but the subjects were ruined."
- Khafi Khan, official Mughal chronicler (1720s-30s)

The Indians saw Hindavis are liberators and were welcomed by the oppressed peoples. But why? It wasn't just that the Mughals were pressuring Indians to convert to Islam by making being a non-Muslim harder through genocides, kidnappings and/or rapes of females, jizya tax implementation, and other brutal measures. Dharma has always been held reverently by most Indians.

The selfish thefts of both money and agricultural produce left Indians dirt poor–all just to fund their wars and live luxuriously. Mughal man-made famines devastated Indians and starved millions. It's believed that 3-7 million Indians died from preventable starvation deaths.

Witness	Testimony
Khafi Khan, official Mughal chronicler (1720s-30s)	"In the later years of Aurangzeb’s reign the land revenue was collected with such severity that the peasants were reduced to poverty; many sold their children and ate grass and bark to survive." "In his later years Aurangzeb became cruel-hearted and bloodthirsty; the oppression of his officials made the people curse the Emperor’s name."
Saqi Mustaid Khan, Aurangzeb’s court historian	"In the famine years the Emperor’s camp was full of grain while the country around was eaten bare."
Saqi Mustaid Khan, Aurangzeb’s personal court historian (completed 1710)	"The Emperor’s insistence on collecting the full revenue in cash even during drought and war caused the ryots to become destitute; villages were deserted and the cultivators fled to the hills."
Nawab Dargah Quli Khan, nobleman who visited Delhi 1739-40, reflecting on late Aurangzeb years	"In the later part of Aurangzeb’s reign the country was ruined by excessive taxation; the peasants were reduced to eating leaves and the once-rich provinces became desolate."
Mirza Muhammad Kazim, official chronicler of the Deccan wars	"The Emperor’s orders were to collect the revenue in full without any remission, even when there was no harvest. The result was that the people were utterly ruined and the land turned into a desert."
Bakhtawar Khan, mir bakhshi under Aurangzeb (writing after 1707)	"The later years of Alamgir were full of oppression and cruelty; the people suffered greatly under his harsh rule." "The extreme pressure of revenue collection in the Deccan caused the cultivators to flee; whole districts were depopulated and the Emperor’s own soldiers sometimes had nothing to eat."
François Bernier, French physician at Aurangzeb’s court (1660s)	"The Mughal system leaves the peasant nothing; in bad seasons they die like flies."

Muslim rulers against Indian-ness

Refusal to identify as Indians

Despite being born and raised in India, Muslim royals whose families had been in India for generations refused to identify as Indians.

Ruler	Dynasty	Testimony
Aurangzeb	Mughal	"We Turk-born are foreigners in Hind." "Hindustan is a foreign land."
Shahjahan	Mughal	"The people of Iran and Turan are foreigners in Hindustan."
Jahangir	Mughal	"We are people of the wilayat (foreign homeland), strangers in Hindustan."
Muhammad Shah	Mughal	"We Iranians are strangers in Hind."
Nizam-ul-Milk Asaf Jah I	Hyderabad	"We are people of Iran and Turan, foreigners in the Deccan."
Sarfar Jung	Awadh	"We Iranians are foreigners in Hindustan."
Mir Jafar	Bengal	"We Turks and Afghans are strangers in Bengal."
Shuja-ud-Daula	Awadh	"Hindustan is a foreign country for us."
Alauddin Khilji	Khilji	"We Turks are foreigners in Hind."
Ghiyasuddin Tughluq	Tughluq	"Hindustan is a foreign country for the Turks."
Muhammad bin Tughluq	Tughluq	"Hindustan is a foreign country for the Turks."
Firuz Shah Tughluq	Tughluq	"The Turks are strangers in Hind and the Hindus (Indians) are enemies."
Sikandar Lodi	Lodi dynasty	"We Turks are foreigners in Hind and must not consider Hindus our equals."
Ibrahim Lodi	Lodi dynasty	"Hindustan is an alien land."

Superimposition against Indian languages

It wasn't just the indigeneity the Muslim rulers were against but also the byproducts of it including, religion and language. Muslim royals whose families had been in India for generations had refused to become 'Indianized' or adapt an Indian language as their mother tongue. Indian cultural byproducts were treated as inferior and savage. Even the liberal governments of southern Indian states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh promote their own native languages while declaring native Hindi as a threat at the same time they highlight their love for Tipu, who actively undermined and reduced the significance of Kannada.

Muslim rulers went to a great extent to make Persian the lingua franca and gave prominence to Arabic in order to minimize Indian cultures. Aurangzeb (Mughal), Tipu (Mysore), Alauddin (Khilji), and Firoz Shah (Tughluq) were all hateful of Indian languages and sought to minimize their influence.

Kingdoms against European invasions

AI Grok analyzed Indian history to declare Shivaji as the greatest ever underdog that became king.

"Shivaji, even after becoming Padshah, used to fight like a common horseman, riding into the ranks with his own sword."
- Khafi Khan, Mughal chronicler (1718)

India ended up being occupied by Europeans, particularly Britain. The only dynasty that had a pan-Indian identity and represented the Indians as a whole rather than any single ethnicity is the Hindavi Swarajya, which was a Maratha-led confederacy that ended up being the prime reason for the Mughal Empire's decline and ended up freeing much of the Subcontinent. Even after the Swarajya's founder was coronated King, he continued personally fighting on the battlefield instead of just commanding for a guarded area. Islamist propaganda depicts Mughals are brave fighters but after Aurangzeb became ruler of the Mughals, he never fought on the battlefield. Even before becoming ruler, as a prince he personally never fought on the battlefield against a Hindu ruler's army.

Islamic dynasties definitely had anti-Hindu administrators, which led to them not only in policies detrimental to Hindus. They were also weak when it came to recognizing, and especially in fighting foreign threats. They ended up needed the help of Hindu monarchs and soldiers to be able to fight. This is seen in the Mughal Empire when Aurangzeb himself employed more Hindus than any Muslim in history, but only to undermine them by building small temples for them in 1 area (Rajasthan) while destroying large important ones in another area (i.e., Varanasi.) This led to defections and revolts from his empire, so at the time of his death there was very little to pass onto the heir. And without the Hindu expertise in warfare, the Mughal Empire was mostly conquered—Hindavi Swarajya (Maratha-led dynasty took most of it) and Sikh Empire took most of the remainder.

Mughals were very accommodating of British imperialists and traders, from hosting English envoys (Hawkings, Best) in 1608-1612 to issuing dozens of farmans granting trade rights, low duties, and their military protection (1613-1707.) Mughals never fought military against the British Empire (it only eventually fought EIC, even that after Hindavis were already in prior conflicts with them.) The Mughals made travel of Europeans in India convenient for British traders. This, combined with a passive policy towards British would aid in Britain's conquest of India.

The first European military conquest in India was in 1510 of Goa by the Portuguese from the Bijapur Sultanate. Then in 1535 the Portuguese took Diu from the Gujarat Sultanate. In 1559, Daman was conquered from local chiefs.

The Portuguese imperialists' aggression was seen by the Kingdom of Calicut, which led to the Zamorin's (Raja's) forces massacring Portuguese traders in Calicut. In 1502, the Zamorin destroyed the first Portuguese factory in Calicut. In 1503, the Zamorin's fleet attacked Portuguese ships. Multiple battles ensued between 1505-1510 wherein the Zamorin resorted to burning the-then Portuguese ally Cochin. The Zamorin was the first Indian ruler to wage a war against a European imperialist force.

Next was the Vijayanagara Empire, which also fought Portuguese imperialists. In 1510, the Empire refused the Portuguese imperialist demand for monopoly. Then in 1530, it clashed with the imperialists over Goa, which traded horses (the Empire also traded horses, so saw imperialists as an economic threat too.) In the battle of 1542, when Vijayanagara's navy attacked Portuguese ships off Bhatkal the result was a stalemate wherein Portugal couldn't conquer the city.

With the help of Hindus, Bijapur Sultanate was briefly able to capture Goa in 1571. Portuguese regained it soon due to naval superiority.

The Raja of Kannur (Kolathiri, Kerala) expelled the Portuguese factory after disputes over pepper trade in 1505-1507.

The Nayak of Madurai (Tamil Nadu) expelled Jesuit Catholic priests from Fishery Coast in 1532 and then in 1640s attacked the imperialists in Tuicorin.

The King of Jaffna (Sri Lanka) destroyed the Portuguese fort at Mannar in 1560.

The Hindavi Swarajya raided British imperialists and Mughals at Surat (Gujarat) in 1664, wherein the Mughal treasury was looted and an English factory barricaded but paid random. The English fired cannons in defense. Shivaji attacked Surat again (1670), burning suburbs, costing the imperialists £50,000. Shivaji had breached outer defenses, forcing the English to use muskets and artillery to hold the factory. The English evacuated and their factory was burned down. In 1675, Shivaji attacked the Bijapur Sultanate at Karwar (Karnataka) and there even charged the English by storming the imperialists' outpost south of Goa. In 1683-84, Sambhaji's (son of Shivaji's) navy blockaded Bombay's harbour.

Child's War (1686-1690)
Hindavis won the war on the west coast. The mainly-Hindu navy won on the east coast. Although Muslim writers like to claim this conflict as the 'Anglo-Mughal War', testimonies of the war itself claim the Muslim soldiers were cowardly whereas the Hindus were the champions. The Hindavis weren't anti-Muslim like the Mughals of the era were anti-Hindu. In 1689, Hindavi Swarajya put its trust in the Mughals to cooperate with them to besiege Bombay. Hindavi troops under Sambhaji joined Sidi Yaqut's fleet and they cut off supplies to the British imperialist garrison.

Source	Nationality	Quote	Context
Bombay Council minutes February 12, 1689	British (English)	"The Marathas who have joined the Sidi are the only ones who fight with spirit; the Moors and Mughals are cowardly and run at the first fire."	During a failed Sidi-Mughal assault on Bombay fort
John Child (President of Surat factory) Letter to Madras March 18, 1689	British (English)	"The Hindoo gunners of the Sidi fleet shoot far better and faster than the Abyssinian or Moorish ones; without them the bombardment would have been harmless."	Commenting on the daily cannonade of Bombay
Jacob van Berchout Dispatch to Batavia April 15, 1689	Dutch	"The Maratha troops sent by Sambhaji are the real terror; the Mughal and Sidi soldiers are sluggish and undisciplined — it is the Hindoos who do all the daring attacks."	After a Maratha raid on English shipping
Rodrigo da Costa (Portuguese Viceroy of Goa) Letter to Lisbon 1689	Portuguese	"The Maratha seamen under the Angre are the best sailors on this coast; the Sidi Moors are brave only when they outnumber the enemy ten to one."	Comparing the two fleets fighting the English
Abraham Navarro (commander of Bombay militia) Journal entry October 1689	British (English)	"When we sallied out we found the Marathas fought like devils while the Mughals and Sidis fled; had they all been Marathas we would have been lost."	After a successful sortie against the besiegers
Anonymous sailor (captured by Kanhoji Angre’s fleet) 1689	British (English)	"The Hindoo sailors of the Sidi ships deserted to the Marathas because they said the Moors were cowards who only knew how to run."	Published in London in 1692

Later conflicts with British
A later Maratha of the dynasty, Kanhoji Angria would attack British and Dutch ships (1720.) Then the British imperialists' ships were attacked at the Battle of Gheria (Vijaydurg) by Angria's fleet defeating the British squadron (4 ships) that ended up being captured or burned. In 1722 Hindavi troops sieged the imperialists' factory at Mahim wherein an English outpost near Bombay was stormed and the factory destroyed. By the 1730s multiple fort assaults occurred wherein Angria's grabs (captured warships) attacked British convoys and Hindavi land troops raided coastal factories. This resulted in the British losing dozens of ships. Angria attacked Gheria in 1756 to his attack, but others of the Hindavi dynasty (led by Ramaji Pant) were against his move and had even worked with the British to prevent it.

Weakness of Muslim-ruled dynasties

AI Grok analyzed Indian history to declare Aurangzeb as the ruler who failed and lost the most.

AI Grok analyzed Indian history to name 15 rulers who failed and lost the most.
(Most of them are Islamists.)

"In Hindustan the Hindus are the original owners of the soil; if they do not serve us willingly, our armies become weak and the treasury empty."
- Aurangzeb (1860s)

Not only were Hindu monarchs the first to realize that they were being undermined and exploited by Eurocentric traders, but Muslim administrators of their dynasties only emboldened them. For example, when Hindavis and other kingdoms rebelled against Europeans along the coast, zamindars (landlords) extorted Europeans, the Jats and Rajputs revolted against British traders along trade routs in northern India, Mughals would come to their aid.

Further, when Muslims enforced Islamofascist policies, non-Muslims naturally rebelled, thus making it easier and quicker for European imperialists to invader and acquire lands in the Subcontinent.

Eventually, the remaining Muslim-ruled dynasties Awadh (1751-1799), Bengal (1751-1772), Bhawalpur (1762-1818), Hyderabad (1740s-1795), Rohilkhand (1752-1788), and Sindh (1786-1818) would pay tribute ('chauth') to the Hindavi Swarajya. Before that, even in the Aurangzeb's era, Mughal officers secretly paid Marathas to not raid areas of their control!

"Aurungzeb...reposes more confidence in the Rajaputs than in the Mahomedans...they are his best generals and fight with great bravery, while many of his own faith are cowards."
- Dr. Niccolò Manucci, Italian physician and traveler who met Aurangzeb

Despite the catastrophic failures of Aurangzeb and Mughals, most Muslims will claim them as powerful and unbeaten by Hindus and Sikhs. This is because Aurangzeb persecuted non-Muslims into converting and demolished their temples. However, they will normally pretend he never did any or those things or downplay the level to which he did them.

It was not only the persecutions, brutality, destruction of cultural monuments and customs, war-caused famines, and gross taxation that Indians overthrew in in deposing the Mughal Empire but also oppression of women.

Traveler	Statement(s)	Nationality	Years	Context
Nicolo Manucci	"Aurangzeb is a king weak in resolution; he conquers provinces but cannot govern them. His empire is a colossus with feet of clay." (1669) "The Mughal throne is weak because the king trusts no one; he kills his brothers, imprisons his sons, and leaves the kingdoms to be eaten by vultures [governors]."	Italian	1656-1708	Aurangzeb relied on armies allied with him to conquer regions of India but couldn't occupy them, like how U.S. conquered Afghanistan but couldn't occupy it, leading to the U.S.' eventual withdrawal.
François Bernier	"The Great Mogol, though absolute in name, is weak in the exercise of power; his authority depends on the caprice of Omrahs and the timidity of his own heart." (1670)	French	1658-1667	The "Mogol" (Mughal) he's referring to is Aurangzeb, and he's saying Aurangzeb is a weak prince in council surrounded by flatterers who rob him of his treasures and leave the provinces in disorder.
John Fryer	"The Mogul's power is weak at the extremities; though he sits in Delhi, his arm reaches not to Surat or Bengal without the consent of his farmers [governors]." (1673)	English	1672-1681	Fryer saw decentralized control and rebellions (i.e., Satnami revolt in 1672) as proof of weakening grip on regions.
Abbé Carré	"Aurangzeb is a weak sovereign in practice; he spends his life in tents, fighting shadows in the Deccan, while his capital rots and his treasury empties." (1674)	French	1672-1674	Carre witnessed Aurangzeb's 25-year Deccan military campaign to conquer it as a strategic error that drained the empire. The over-extension of the empire was only weakening it like how the U.S.S.R. over-extended itself into the Soviet Bloc and had to fight revolts (i.e., Hungary, Poland, etc.)
Jean-Baptists Tavernier	"The King [Aurangzeb] is weak in the administration of justice; the provinces are oppressed, and the people groan under his governors, who are wolves in sheep's clothing." (1676)	French	1638-1668	Tavernier noted corruption in the jagirdari system and Aurangzeb simply had no power to stop it. He saw the administration as decaying.
Francesco Careri	"The Marathas are like ants: every time you crush them, they return in greater numbers. This war will consume him, and after twenty years spent in it, with millions of rupees, he has not yet finished." (1695) "The King's sons are weak and divided...not one has the strength to hold together what the father has worn out."	Italian	1695-1697	Careri foresaw that the-then frail empire would disintegrate soon.

Kingdoms that broke free from Mughals

Kingdoms that had freed themselves from Mughals in Aurangzeb's reign

Kingdom	Region	Year(s) Freed	Prior status	Main Ethnicity	Main liberator(s)	Context
Sirmaur (Nahan)	Himachal	1640s	Tributary	Pahari	Kirat Prakash	Prakash refused to pay tribute after 1945 and in the 1660s, Mughal army commanded by Aurangzeb failed to cross the Yamuna River
Kangra	Himachal	1700	Tributary	Kangri	Hari Chand	After Aurangzeb's Mughal army occupied it, it was retaken by the Kangri with 5,000 hill archers
Kumaon	Uttarakhand	1680s	Tributary	Kumaoni	Fateh Shah	Shah stopped paying tribute in 1685 and the Mughal army commanded by Aurangzeb became bogged in the Kumaon monsoon
Ahom	N.E.	1663, 1682	Subah	Assami	Gadadhar Singha, Lachit Borphukan	Mughal navy was destroyed and Mughals expelled forever
Palamau	Jharkhand	1660s-1680s	Subah	Chero (Austro-Asiatic)	Dikpal Rai	Mughal army of 10,000 failed in the jungle (1660s), Battle of Rank left about 1,000 Mughals dead (1674), Chota-Nagpur raids resulted in burned-down Mughal outposts in Hazaribagh (1680s), to which Aurangzeb gave the order to give up on fighting them
Bhumihar [Hills] (Kaimur and Rohtas districts)	Bihar	1660-1690s	Subah	Magadhi	[No single ruler]	After tax hike, Mughal garrison was expelled at Rohtas (1666), Mughal thanadars were raided and Doab road cut at Sasaram (1680s), Battle of Shergarh resulted in Mughal army of 5,000 defeated, around 1,200 of them slain (1698), to which Aurangzeb gave the order to give up on fighting them
Katehar (Rohilkhand)	U.P.	1670-1690s	Subah	Hindi	Hafiz Rahmat Khan	Katehriya Rajputs slew 200 Mughals in the Battle of Sambhal (1672), burned Mughal supply caravans to Delhi in the Doab region raids (1680s), and resisted Mughal soldiers in the Siege of Bareily (1691), but in 1774 this region became reconquered by Mughals (the governor of Awadh)
Chanda	Central, Maharashtra, Telangana	1670-1700	Subah	Gond	Ram Shah
Amber	Rajputana	1679-1681	Subah	Mewari	Jai Singh	Rebelled after jizya implemented
Mewar	Rajputana	1679-1681	Subah	Mewari	Amar Singh II	Rebelled after jizya implemented
Marwar	Rajputana	1679-1681	Subah	Marwari	Ajit Singh	Rebelled after jizya implemented
Aurangabad	Maharashtra	1660s-1706	Subah	Marathi	Dhanaji Jadhav	1696-1698: Bidar 1700-1704: Nusratabad (Ausa) 1699-1702: Parenda 1703-1704: Dharaseo (Dharashiv) 1704-1706: Vijayapur (Bir/Bhir) 1705: Fatehullahabad 1660s-1670s: Ahmadnagar north
Baglan (northern Khandesh)	Maharashtra		Subah	Marathi	Chimnaji Damodar
Bahaghat (Khandesh, eastern Berar)	Maharashtra	1698-1706	Subah	Marathi	Nemaji Shinde	1698-1700: Northern Khandesh (Dhule, Nandurbar, Shirpur, and parts of Jalgaon) 1702-1704: Southern Khandesh + Baglana (Nasik, Malegaon, Satana) 1705-1706: Almost whole of Khandesh except Burhanpur and Asirgarh
Beed	Maharashtra	1690s-1706	Subah	Marathi	Haibatrao Nimbalkar	1701: Beed (Champaner) 1703-1704: Parbhani (mostly) 1704-1706: Hingoli (mostly) 1705-1706: Nanded (southern half) 1704-1706: Parts of Latur + Osmanabad 1703-1706: Parts of N.E. Karnataka
Karnatak	Karnataka		Subah	Kannada	Hindurao Ghorpade
Konkan	Maharashtra		Subah	Marathi	Kanhoji Angre and other sardars
Pune	Maharashtra		Subah	Marathi	Bahiroji Pingale
Satara	Maharashtra		Subah	Marathi	Parshuram Pant Pratinidhi
Jat	Jatwara	1680s	Subah	Braj	Churaman Singh	Gokula Jat had already began a revolt in 1669 at Tikpat where he killed the Mughal faujdar but he was executed and the revolt crushed, though Churaman Singh began another rebellion in 1672
Ladakh	Ladakh	1684	Tributary	Ladakhi	Delek Namgyal	The region decided to align itself with Tibet and pay tribute only to the Dalai Lama, who resided at Lhasa, to which Aurangzeb didn't bother fighting Ladakh
Bundelkhand	Central	1690s	Subah	Bundeli	Chhatrasal Bundela	Chhatrasal allied with Marathas
Deogarh	Central, Maharashtra	1690s	Subah	Gond	Bakth Buland Shah	Bakth Buland Shah never actually converted to Islam, as Gonds saw Islam as the foreign enemy that acquired their lands by force or deceit, and so he was cremated according to Hindu rites, and Aurangzeb complained that he became another rebel against the Mughal Empire
Gujarat (minus some cities)	Gujarat	1690s	Subah	Gujarati	Khande Rao Dabhade	After Hindavis invaded and defeated Mughals, the zamindars began to pay only them and did not follow Aurangzeb's farmans The Mughal governor Bidar Bakht only controlled the walled cities, which only supported the Mughal Empire symbolically by reading the khutba (sermon), flag was hoisted on the forts, coins were struck in Aurangzeb's name, and some taxes from these cities flowed to Aurangzeb
Malwa (minus some cities)	Malwa	1690s	Subah	Malwi	Nemaji Shinde	After Hindavis invaded and defeated Mughals, the zamindars began to pay only them and did not follow Aurangzeb's farmans The Mughal governor Inayatullah Khan only controlled the walled cities, which only supported the Mughal Empire symbolically by reading the khutba (sermon), flag was hoisted on the forts, coins were struck in Aurangzeb's name, and some taxes from these cities flowed to Aurangzeb
Sikh	The Punjab	1690s	Subah	Punjabi	Guru Gobind Singh	Anandpur and Chamkaur were freed first, then Doaba and Majha
Bhawalpur	The Punjab	1702	Subah	Saraiki	Bahawal Khan I	The governor expels the Mughal faujdar and stopped paying tribute, to which Aurangzeb didn't bother fighting Bhawalpur
Bengal	Bengal	1704	Subah	Bengali	Murshid Quli	From 1703-04 the ruler, although having the official title 'Nawab' (not as emperor), sent partial tribute of ₹50,000 and seeing that he could got away with that, sent a symbolic gift of ₹10,000 in 1704 and after that paid no tribute, to which Aurangzeb didn't bother fighting Bengal as the empire was already collapsing

Of the above regions, Rohilkhand would end up being reconquered by Mughals (the governor of Awadh.) Bengal, although freed from Mughal authority since 1704, only declared formal independence in 1717. After Aurangzeb died in 1707, Afghans seized the opportunity to fight Mughals wherein Mirwais Hotak revolted and in 1709 achieved independence from Mughal Empire.

Mughals tried converting best warriors to Islam

"From the 1680s Aurangzeb pursued a conscious policy of Islamisation of the officer corps."
- The Mughal Empire (1993) By John F. Richards

The best fighters in the Mughal Empire in Aurangzeb's time were Hindus; Sadullah Khan (Raja Jai Singh’s nephew) who only had an Islamic name, Raja Anup Singh of Bikaner, Raja Karan of Bikaner, Raja Shuja‘et Khan of Amber (Mirza Raja Jai Singh’s son), Raja Indradyumna of Nurpur, and Rao Dalpat Bundela. The last 2 converted to Islam after their defeat to Aurangzeb (both as 'Islam Khan'.)

"If any Rajput or other Hindu mansabdār accepts the religion of Islam, he is to be granted an increase in mansab and a robe of honour of the highest class."
- Aurangzeb's farman (May 2, 1669)

Raja Karan of Bikaner, Raja Jai Singh of Amber, Raja Jaswant Singh of Marwar, and his son Raja Ajit Singh of Marwar all converted temporarily but were Hindus in practice. Raja Karan of Bikaner after the Rajput revolt was threatened with execution if he did not convert. He played along but was not actually a Muslim.

Further, kings Bakth Buland Shah of Deogarh (17th cent.) and Raja Hari Chand of Jasrota (18th cent.) all publicly converted to Islam but it is also documented that they continued with their Hindu traditions. This means they only pretended to be Muslims to gain favour of the Mughal Empire but were practicing Hindus. Their descendants were the same way. A similar story is from the when Malik Raja Faruqi (14th cent.) or Raja Mal converted to Islam publicly to earn favour of the Sultan Firoz of the Tughlaq dynasty, but he continued practicing his true faith, and worshipped Goddess Bhavani. His descendants were also practicing Hindus.

After Aurangzeb's reign, King Bakth Buland Shah of Rewari (18th cent.) did the same. Tegh Chand too, and he accepted the name 'Tegh Muhammad Khan' to save the fort. He never genuinely practiced Islam.

Mughals did not prevent British consolidation

"After my death the empire will break into pieces. The Marathas will rule the Deccan, the English and the Jats will take the north."
- Aurangzeb (as a dying man having seen in hindsight what his obsessions led to)

Aurangzeb's failure to curb English expansionism by the Brits consolidating power through economics and militarization not only shows the weakness of the Mughals in refusing to eliminate the threat but in dooming India to be under the latter's occupation after Mughals would fail. British Empire was better for India than Mughal Empire on most levels, especially as Indians were normally allowed to keep their customs, whereas the Mughal administration would normally only persecute them. With a military of 500,000 he used 300,000 of them in constant warfare within the Deccan against peoples that did not wish to be ruled by him or or his empire.

Aspect of English expansion	What Aurangzeb Did (or Didn't Do)	Outcome by 1707	Why It Was a Failure
Trade Fortifications	Issued farmans allowing EIC forts (e.g., Fort William in Calcutta, 1696) but ignored complaints of fortification without permission.	EIC had 4 major fortified factories (Surat, Madras, Bombay, Calcutta) with private armies of 2,000-5,000 sepoys each.	No inspections or revocation—EIC became de facto sovereigns in their enclaves.
Naval Weakness	No ocean-going fleet; relied on Portuguese allies (who hated the English) but did nothing to build one.	English ships dominated Indian Ocean trade; EIC fleet grew to 20+ warships by 1700.	Aurangzeb's navy was riverine only (Ganges patrols); he lost control of sea lanes without firing a shot.
Child's War (1686-1690)	Brief blockade of Bombay after EIC aggression, but quickly forgave them after fines.	EIC paid ₹1.5 lakh but kept Calcutta and expanded.	Showed Mughals could hurt the English but chose not to—prioritized Marathas over "firangi" traders.
Revenue & Diplomacy	Farmans (1690, 1695) granted duty-free trade in Bengal and Gujarat, ignoring warnings of EIC smuggling.	EIC revenue from Bengal alone hit ₹10 lakh/year by 1707—rivaling small subahs.	Treated English as merchants, not threats; no ban on arms imports.
Intelligence Gaps	Spies reported EIC activities, but Aurangzeb dismissed them as "petty traders."	EIC had 50,000 troops by 1707; Mughals had zero policy to counter.	Focused on Rajputs/Marathas; Europeans seen as "hat-wearers" (per his letters), not conquerors.

By 1707, the EIC controlled 4 coastal subahs' (Bengal, Bijapur, Gujarat, Golconda) trade (worth ~₹5 crore/year) and had 20,000-30,000 troops. Aurangzeb's empire, despite annexing Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687), couldn't spare 5,000 men to raid an English factory.

Islamist attitude led to Bengal's overthrow

AI Grok analyzed the greatest betrayal in Indian politics as when Mir Jafar helped the British to become Bengal's nawab himself, thereby empowering Britain to acquire a kingdom in India.

By 1751, which was the 6th attack on the Bengal Sultanate since 1741, the kingdom agreed to become a tributary of the Hindavi Swarajya.

"The Nawab has turned tyrant and mad…he threatens to ruin our caste and faith unless we lend him three crore rupees without interest. We are ready to stake our entire fortune if the Company will deliver us from this monster."
- Hiranand Shah in letter to William Watts (December 12, 1756)

The single act that opened the doors of India wide open for takeover by the British was when Mir Jafar (military general) betrayed King Siraj-ud-Daulah of the Bengal Sultanate in the pre-planned Battle of Plassey (June 23, 1757.) Mir Jafar had even agreed to pay the EIC considerably for it to execute the plan, and this revenue the EIC was paid made it possible to fund multiple successive campaigns against Indian kingdoms. Robert Clive was the EIC officer that Jafar had collaborated with. The battle only lasted a few hours, with less than 100 casualties. Jafar advised his soldiers to remain inactive in the battle, which they did. With the amassed wealth, the EIC's military went from around 3,000 troops in 1757 to around 30,000 by 1770. The EIC had become powerful enough in 1764 to topple the Bengal Sultanate together with Mughal (then only controlling Delhi) and Awadh sultanates. The wealth even contributed to the annexation of the Hindavi Swarajya in 1818 and Sikh Empire (Khalsa Raj) in 1849.

"The Nawab has become a mad tyrant…he has threatened to destroy my caste and religion… he vows to drag me through the streets and make me a Mussalman by force unless I pay the thirty lakhs at once."
- Amir Chand in letter to William Watts (December 12, 1756)

Bengal Sultanate's chief banker Hiranand Shah (Jain) and and Amir Chand (Sikh) were desperate enough to agree with Mir Jafar in overthrowing Siraj-ud-Daulah because the sultan threatened them and their families and threated them poorly because of their religions. Siraj-ud-Daulah publicly humiliated Seth by calling him and Mehtab Rai "blood-sucking moneylenders" and spat on them. He also threatened to circumcise and convert them forcibly if they didn't lend him ₹3 crore at zero interest. The sultan ordered their arrest and confiscation of all property in October 1756. Then he sent armed men to loot their Murshidabad mint and haveli. Seth wrote to William Watts (Dec 12, 1756), "Save us from this madman or we are finished." Chand was imprisoned for 40 days in chains. The sultan confiscated Chand's entire trading fleet on the Hooghly River. The sultan threatened to execute Chand and his entire family if he didn’t pay ₹30 lakh immediately. Chand was public declared a "traitor to the Nawab". In between the dates June-Nov 1756, Chand said to Clive, "I will give you any amount if you destroy Siraj." Both Shah and Chand were hiding together at a Dutch factory, which is why both letters appear almost identical. (Both Shah and Chand had asked Hindavis before they asked the British, but the biggest reason is that the prior were occupied with fighting Afghan raiders and Hyderabad Nizam.)

This events bring to light how Muslim rulers exploited living off of Hindus. Unfortunately, this was not the only situation. Jat Rajas of Bharatpur and Mathura in 1771-1772 requested British aid to help in the oppression of Rohilla Afghan chief Najib-ud-Daula and Mughal governor of Agra (accused of temple destruction and forced conversions in Mathura-Vrindavan), so the British and Awadh army crushed the Rohillas in 1774. (Initially the Jats asked the Hindavis but the latter were busy restoring a Mughal to the Delhi throne after that Mughal was overthrown by Afghan, Rohilla, and Awadh armies.) Then Hindu zamindars and merchants of Benares in 1790-1795 asked the British for aid when Nawab Wazir Ali of Awadh was forcing Hindu widows into marriage with Muslims and he attacked temples, so British deposed Wazir Ali in 1798 and installed a more pliant nawab. (Initially they asked help from Hindavis but the latter were occupied with a civil war.) Hindu Dogra generals Gulab Singh and Dhian Singh of Jammu with Kashmiri Pandit leaders asked British for assistance in dealing with the Muslim ministers that enacted jizya-like taxes and desecrated temples within the Sikh Durbar of Lahore (court of Khalsa Raj), resulting in the annexation of Punjab in 1849. (By this time even the Hindavi Swarajya had become engulfed by the British Empire, so there was no way it could help.)

Anglo-Hindavi Wars

These are normally called 'Anglo-Maratha Wars' but more accurately they are the 'Anglo-Hindavi Wars', as the Indian dynasty was a pan-Indian and inclusive kingdom. These were the only wars wherein The British Empire engaged in warfare with an Indian dynasty. Previous conflicts with the British were against the EIC, but not against the British Empire. These wars were also the largest-scale wars that involved a European nation and India.

In the 1st, end and 3rd Anglo-Maratha Wars, the British Empire's side were armed with Britain's military, EIC military, and local Indian kingdoms' militaries.

First Anglo-Hindavi War (1775-1782)

"We are fighting the Marathas with Muslim Indian armies."
- Goddard’s dispatches (1780)

The rulers of Hyderabad (Ali Khan), Awadh (Asaf-ud-Daula), Arcot (Muhammad Ali Wallajah), Bengal (Mubarak-ud-Daula), and even Berar (Mudhoji Bhonsle) and Travancore (Rama Varma) supported the British with troops and/or money.

Hyderabad's provided 20,000-25,000 cavalry and 10 battalions of sepoys under French officers, Awadh's provided 10,000-12,000 cavalry and large cash subsidies (₹40-50 lakh), Arcot's 8,000-10,000 sepoys and huge financial loans (₹60 lakh), Bengal's paid ₹80-100 lakh for the Bombay Army's expenses, Berar's 5,000-8,000 cavalry, and Travancore's a 2,000-3,000 contingent and it opened ports for British's shipping.

Mudhoji Bhonsle provided military support to British from 1780-81 whereas the Muslim rulers provided military and/or financial support throughout the war.

Without Hyderabad’s 30,000+ troops and the Nawab of Arcot’s loans, the Bombay Army would have been annihilated after the Wadgaon disaster of 1779. The war would've ended quicker and lesser lives lost.

This war ended in a tie–there were no gain for the British Empire.

Second Anglo-Hindavi War (1803-1805)

"The Mussulman troops of the Nizam and the Nawab of Oudh have fought like lions against the infidel Mahrattas; their fidelity has secured our conquests in Hindostan."
- Lord Lake, Commander-in-Chief (1804)

The rulers of Hyderabad (Sikandar Jah), Awadh (Saadat Ali Khan II), Arcot (Azim-ud-Daula), Berar (Raghuji Bhonsle II), Baroda (Anand Rao Gaekwad), Mysore (Krishnaraja Wodeyar III), and Travancore (Balarama Varma) supported the British with troops and/or money.

Hyderabad's provided 25,000-30,000 regular cavalry, 12-15 battalions of British-trained sepoys, and 20-50 guns, Awadh's provided 15,000-18,000 cavalry, 10,000 sepoys, and huge cash subsidy (₹1 crore+), Arcot's 8,000-10,000 sepoys and massive loans (around ₹80 lakh), Berar's 12,000-15,000 cavalry and infantry, Baroda's 8,000-10,000 Arab and Sindhi mercenaries and cavalry, Mysore's 6,000-8,000 cavalry and arsenals, and Travancore's 4,000-5,000 infantry and coastal logistics.

"Shah Alam's treachery knows no bounds; he betrays Scindia, his regent and saviour, for promises from Ghulam Qadir — an act of ingratitude that will blind him to his own peril."
- Jean-Baptiste Gentil, French adventurer and spy in Delhi (1787-1788)

Although this war ended in defeat for the Hindavis, the biggest traitor wasn't from any of the dynasties mentioned, but was the Mughal Shah Alam II who only controlled Delhi (even that, theoretically) who legitimized British rule. How he did this was by appointing the British Lord Lake as Amir-ul-Umara (highest noble of the empire) and Vakil-i-Mutlaq (regent/plenipotentiary) in September 12, 1803 after Lake captured Delhi and Aligarh. This made the British as protectors of the emperor and commanders. He then granted EIC full sovereignty over the city of Delhi and its dependencies (including the Doab territories taken from Scindia), which turned British occupation of Delhi into legal Mughal possession. He then confirmed EIC as Wazir (prime minister) of the empire (same title Mahadji Scindia had held), which gave the British the legal right to collect revenue and administer justice in the emperor’s name across former Maratha territories. He then issued separate farmans to every Rajput raja, Jat chief, and zamindar which ordered them to pay tribute to EIC instead of Hindavis (Scindia, Holkar, or the Peshwa.)

The British realized that the Hindavi Swarajya was the only hope of any Indian possessions that the British Empire has in India to become liberated.

Third Anglo-Hindavi War (1817-1819)

"The Mohammedan powers of Hyderabad and Oudh have rendered services of the most essential nature…Their cavalry has been the instrument of crushing the last remains of Mahratta power."
- Lord Hastings, Governor-General (1818) 

The rulers of Hyderabad (Sikandar Jah), Awadh (Ghazi-ud-Din Haidar), Baroda (Anand Rao Gaekwad), Berar (Mudhoji Bhonsle), Mysore (Krishnaraja Wodeyar III), Rajput kingdoms (Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Udaipur), Travancore & Cochin (Balarama Varma & Rama Varma), and Bundelkhand kingdoms supported the British with troops and/or money.

Hyderabad's provided 30,000-35,000 cavalry, 15-18 battalions of sepoys, and 60 guns, Awadh's provided 20,000-25,000 cavalry, 12,000 sepoys and large cash subsidies (₹1.5 crore), Baroda's 12,000-15,000 Arab mercenaries and 8,000 Gujarati cavalry, Nagpur's 10,000-12,000 cavalry and infantry, Mysore's 8,000-10,000 cavalry and arsenals, Rajput kingdoms' 15,000-20,000 combined cavalry and cash tribute, Travancore's a 5,000-7,000 infantry and coastal logistics, and Bundelkhand kingdoms' 10,000-15,000 irregulars and local forts surrendered.

Recognizing Hindavi rule as legitimate over India

The Hindavis, having proven powerful, became feared from Muslim-ruled dynasties and they were forced to pay the Hindavis tribute, becoming tributary states of the Hindavis.

The Mughal ruler Shah Alam II issued an imperial farman dated 1771 gave Hindavis the right to collect tribute from the Mughal dynasty and appointed Hindavi Emperor Mahadji Scindia as Vakil-i-Mutlaq (Regent of the Empire) of it.

"The keys of the whole Hindustan have been given to the Marathas by God."
- Mughal ruler Shah Alam II (1771)

Then after the Second Battle of Delhi, Shah Alam II issued another farman of 1785 that reconfirmed Mahadji Scindia as Naib-i-Mulk (Deputy Emperor) of the Mughal dynasty and declared:

"The Marathas are now the protectors of the Timurid throne and the real rulers of Hindustan."
- Mughal ruler Shah Alam II (1785)

Even the British in their Treaty of Salbai (1782) recognized Emperor Mahadji Scindia as "the real ruler of the Mughal Empire".

The Hyderabad Nizam became a tributary state of the Hindavi Swarajya and it had signed treaties in 1762, 1795, 1803 acknowledging the Swarajya as Sarkar-i-Hind (Government of India) and agreed to pay annual chauth of ₹27-40 lakhs.

The Nawab of Awadh Shuja-ud-Daula, then Asaf-ud-Daula between 1765-1780s paid regular tribute to the Hindavis and addressed the Peshwa as "Maharajadhiraj of Hindustan" (Great-king-of-kings of India).

The Raja of Jaipur Sawai Madho Singh and his successors from 1760s-1803 paid tribute and their farman declared, "The Marathas are now the sovereign power in India; we pay chauth willingly."

The Raja of Jodhpur between 1755-1809 paid chauth and sardeshmukhi. Rathore chronicles call the Peshwa "Chhatrapati of the whole of India".

The Raja of Bikaner & Jaisalmer from 1750s-1818 accepted Hindavi suzerainty and paid tribute "to the paramount power of Hindustan”.

The Nawab of Bhopal between 1770s-1818 paid regular tribute to Scindia & Holkar and addressed the Peshwa (Scindia) as "Sarkar-i-Ala" (Exalted Government of India).

The Nawab of Bengal Mir Qasim ad his successors from 1762-1765 paid ₹20-25 lakhs annually to the Hindavis as 'chauth of Bengal' (until British stopped it).

Hindavi legacy in 1857 War

Nana Sahib Peshwa of Bithoor.

Jhansi Ki Rani (Queen Lakshmibai Tambe).

Tantya Tope of Yeola.

Kunwar Singh of Jagdishpur.

See also: Indian Freedom Fighters

"These are not mutinous sepoys but independent Hindu chieftains with their private armies, fighting for their ancient privileges and religion."
- Colonel Colin Macaulay, dispatch after capturing Kattabomman (1799)

The 1857 War of Independence drew inspiration from the earlier Polygar (Palayakkarar) revolts (1799-1805) and Vellore Mutiny (July 10, 1806), which erupted because Hindus saw British policies and British cultural influences as anti-Hindu. For example the Polygar chieftains revolted because of the British imposition of cow-tax, forced Christian conversions by missionaries, and destruction of local temples to build churches/forts. The Vellore sepoys revolted because they feared forced Christian conversion via turban regulation wherein troops' turbans were required to have a leather cockade and the soldiers couldn't have any religious symbolism. Both the Polygar and Vellore rebellions' insurgents used saffron flags, and the prior even proclaimed temple oaths for the revolts. The phrases 'Dharma rakshana(m)' and 'Dharma Yuddha(m)' were used by insurgents in the Polygar and Vellore revolts and would be used again in the 1857 war.

Insurgent	Date	Source	Proclamation	More
Rao Jwala Prasad (Diwan post) and Azimullah Khan (Munshi post)	July 15, 1857	Farman sent from Bithoor/Kanpur to the Bundela rajas of Orchha, Datia, Chanderi, and Shahgarh.	"Be it known to all true Hindus that the Hindavi Swarajya has been re-established under the Peshwa Shri Nana Sahib Bahadur, the rightful successor of Baji Rao. All who desire the restoration of dharma and the expulsion of the Firangi should rally to his banner."	Coins minted in Kanpur in Nana Sahib’s name (1857) bear the legend "Hindavi Swarajya" in Devanagari on the reverse
Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi	May-June 1858	Letter to Tantya Tope & Rao Sahib	"We are fighting for Hindavi Swarajya, not for the Mughal shadow."	"The Ranee’s troops shouted ‘Hindavi Swaraj’ as they charged." - British officer Sir Hugh Rose’s dispatch (June 1858)
Tantya Tope & Rao Sahib	August 1858	Letter sent to various Hindus	"The Peshwa has restored Hindavi Swarajya; all true Hindus must join the army of liberation or be treated as enemies of dharma."	The letter ended with "Jai Hindavi Swarajya! Jai Peshwa!" Gwalior mint coins (June 1858) struck in Rao Sahib’s name carry "श्री हिंदवी स्वराज्य" (Shri Hindavi Swarajya)
Baba Sahib Bhonsle	1858	Letter to local zamindars, including Raja Bakht Singh Bundela of Shahgarh (Bundelkhand), Raja of Chanderi (Malwa), and Raja of Nurpur (Gondwana)	"We are establishing Hindavi Samrajya free from Mughal and Firangi yoke."

The Marathas never stop after overthrowing the Mughals, and continued to fight the other foreign threats—European imperialists (British, Dutch, French, and Portuguese.) In the 1857 war, the most prominent names of all the participants are Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi, Nana Sahib of Kanpur, and his supreme commander Tantya Tope. They not only fought on the battlefield but directed the war on a cross-regional scale. Whereas Muslim rulers relied on their militaries, the Hindavis usually participated, whether they were royalty or not. The most common flag of the war was Shivaji's saffron flag. This was used at places like Jhansi & Gwalior. A variant that Hindavis had also used was implemented too, like at Kanpur & Kalpi. In Bihar, Kunwar Singh used a saffron flag with the lotus.

"The old King at Delhi was nothing but the flag of the rebellion—a puppet in the hands of the sepoys. The real directing mind, the moving spirit of the whole insurrection, was the Nana Sahib at Bithoor."
- Sir John Kaye, officer and official historian of the-then Mutiny (interviewed Havelock, Outram, and other officers)

Nana Sahib was identified by British officers as the primary orchestrator and strategic director. Further testimonies hamper and disprove arrogant Islamist assertions that the Mughal Bahadur Shah Zafar was the architect or prime leader of the rebellion. Like most Muslim royals of the era, he personally did not fight against the British on the battlefield and whereas the Hindavis that didn't die on the battlefield were executed, he was only exiled to Rangoon in Burma.

"The Nana Sahib [Dhondu Pant] is the chief director of this accursed revolt...but his Muslim allies are as cowardly as their Mughal masters, letting the Hindu sepoys do all the dying."
- Major-General Sir Henry Havelock, Commander at Kanpur

British officers of the era that Hindus were very brave and they did the fighting while the Muslim rulers of their regions and even the Muslim civilians 'cowardly'.

Name	Background	Base of operations	Role	Outcome
Nana Sahib (Dhondu Pant)	Royalty	Bithoor → Kanpur → Kalpi → Arrah	Proclaimed Peshwa; overall commander at Kanpur; ordered siege & Satichaura Ghat massacre; financed large armies	Disappeared into Nepal 1859 (probably died 1859-61)
Rao Sahib (nephew of Nana Sahib)	Royalty	Kanpur	Deputy commander at Kanpur & Kalpi; later proclaimed Peshwa after Nana vanished	Hanged (1860)
Tantia Tope (Ramchandra Pandurang)		Kanpur → Kalpi → Jhansi → Gwalior → Rajasthan → Tonk → Paron	Supreme guerrilla commander; kept 20,000-30,000 men fighting for 18 months after all cities fell	Hanged (April, 18, 1859)
Rani Lakshmi Bai	Royalty (Jhansi)	Jhansi	Led defense of Jhansi; commanded 20,000 troops; died sword in hand at Gwalior	Killed in battle, Kotah-ki-Serai (June 18, 1858)
Damodar Rao	Royalty (Jhansi), and adopted son of Lakshmi Bai	Jhansi	Nominal commander after mother’s death; continued resistance with Tantia Tope	Escaped to Nepal; pensioned by British later
Appa Sahib Bhonsle II	Royalty (Nagpur Bhonsles)	Nagpur	Sent money & agents to rebels; British intercepted letters urging Maratha unity	Died in exile (1853), but his son and retainers were active
Bhau Sahib Bhonsle	Royalty (Nagpur Bhonsles)	Nagpur	Raised troops in Mandla & Central Provinces; fought with Tantia Tope	Captured & imprisoned (1844)
Raghuji Bhonsle III	Royalty (Satara Bhonsles)	Satara	British deposed him just before 1857; his retainers & adopted son joined rebels	Died under house arrest, Florence (1904)
Chimnabai Sahib	Royalty (Satara Bhonsles), and widow of Satara Raja	Satara (covertly)	Secretly funded rebels in Satara & Kolhapur region	Pensioned off after 1857
Balaji Pant Natu		Satara (covertly)	Organised underground network in Deccan; supplied intelligence & money to Nana Sahib	Hanged, Pune (1858)
Krishnarao Bhasker		Pune → Satara	Secret courier between Nana Sahib & Lakshmi Bai	Executed (1858)
Vinayak Rao Shinde	Royalty (Gwailor Shinde)	Gwalior	Deserted Gwalior army with troops to join Rani Lakshmi Bai	Killed in battle, Gwalior (1858)
Moropant Tambe	Father-in-law to Lakshmi Bai, not a royal himself	Jhansi → Kalpi → Gwalior		Killed in battle (1858)
Baba Sahib Bhonsle	Royalty (Nagpur Bhonsles)	Mandla → Sagar → Narmada valley	Raised 5,000 men in Narmada valley; fought alongside Tantia Tope	Captured & blown from cannon (1859)
Sadashiv Rao Bhau		Kalpi	Commanded rebel artillery at Kalpi	Killed (1858)
Tukoji Rao Holkar II	Royalty (Indore Holkar)	Indore / Mhow	Tacitly allowed large-scale rebel activity in his territory	Died in battle, Maheshwar (June 17, 1886)

Just as the Indian Muslim rulers of Awadh, Katehar (Rohilkhand) and Rampur supported foreign Afghan invaders who raped and kidnapped Hindu females in and after the Third Battle of Panipat (1761), the Muslim-ruled princely states whose rulers supported the British in the 1857 War of Independence were pro-Pakistan and in favour of those kingdoms becoming incorporated into the Union of India was delayed as a result. These princely states were Balasinor (Gujarat), Bhopal (M.P.), Hyderabad (A.P., Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Telangana), Jafarabad (Gujarat), Jaora (M.P.), Junagadh (Gujarat), Palanpur (Gujarat), Rampur (U.P.), Sachins (Gujarat), and Tonk (Rajasthan.) Of the princely states which became a part of Pakistan, all were pro-British in the 1857 War; Bhawalpur (Panjab), Kalat (Balochistan), and Khairpur (Sindh.)

Hindavi legacy in 1946 RIN Mutiny

In the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) Mutiny, phrases proclaiming loyalty to Nana Sahib, Rani Lakshmi Bai, Tantya Tope, Mangal Pandey, as well as Anushilan Samiti's member Khudiram Bose and the INA's Netaji. The RIN mutineers proclaimed themselves as the naval wing of the INA (the organization established by Savarkar's pupil R.B. Bose), even renamed the Central Strike Committee the 'Naval Wing Central Command of the Azad Hind Government'. They even used the INA oath (not the British one) when administering new recruits on the ships. The mutineers hoisted the INA flag with the springing tiger. HMIS Talwar’s February 19 broadcast called itself the 'Azad Hind Radio'.

Hindavi legacy in other parts of freedom struggle

Freedom fighter	Date	Proclamation
V.D. Savarkar	1923-1938 (repeatedly)	"The goal of complete independence is nothing but the revival of Hindavī Swarājya first established by Shivaji and expanded by the Peshwas." "We want the same Hindavī Swarājya that the Peshwas had established from Attock to Cuttack."
Bhagat Singh & HSRA comrades	1929	"The revolution we are waging is the same that Chhatrapati Shivaji began against the Mughals and the Peshwas carried to the Attock — Hindavi Swarajya for all India, a Hindu government of Hindus for the whole of India." (Printed on the HSRA manifesto distributed after the Assembly bomb)
Subhas Chandra Bose	1940-1944	"The ideal before us is the Hindavī Swarājya of Shivaji and the Peshwas — a united Hindu nation stretching from the Indus to the Brahmaputra." "Shivaji’s Hindavī Swarājya is our model."
RSS (K.B. Hedgewar & M.S. Golwalkar)	1939-1950s	"Our aim is the re-establishment of Hindavī Swarājya on the lines of Chhatrapati Shivaji and the Peshwas."
Lala Lajpat Rai	1920-1928	"The only successful model of Swaraj in Indian history is Shivaji’s Hindavī Swarājya and the Peshwa empire."
Bal Gangadhar Tilak	1890s-1910s	"Swaraj is my birthright” was always explained as “the same Swaraj that Shivaji and Baji Rao I had established."
Senapati Bapat	1940s	"I have fought all my life to revive the Hindavī Swarājya of Shivaji and the Peshwas — nothing less than that will satisfy me."
Chafekar Brothers	1897	"We have taken the oath to re-establish Shivaji’s Hindavī Swarājya."

Related articles

• Rulership in Hinduism
• Indian Freedom Fighters
• Political Philosophy
• Rulership in Hinduism
• Martial History
• Hindu Political Parties
• The spread of Hinduism
• Yama's Kingdom is in Kashmir
• Ravana's Kingdom of Lanka is in Kashmir
• Hanuman's Kingdom of Kishkindha is in Kashmir
• Shenrab's Kingdom of Olmo Lungring is in Karakoram
• Asura kingdoms of Patālaloka reigon
• History of ancient geography

Contributors to this article

Himanshu Bhatt

Explore Other Articles

कातन्त्रव्याकरणविमर्शः - Katantravyakarana Vimarsah of Acarya Sarvavarma Foreword By Prof. Yadunath Prasad Dubey
Indra- Lord of Divine Mind
Indrayavaḥ
Abhigyan-Shakuntal - Ek Adhyayan
Sab Sadhanon Ka Sar (Bangla)