Aurangzīb, who had been preoccupied with Afghan upris- ings and other affairs in the northwest, turned his personal attention to the Deccan, taking charge of operations there in 1682. By 1689, in addition to the already noted annexation of Bijapur and Golkonda, he was able to recover most of the area that had been under Maratha control, including their capital at Raigarh. In 1698 the southern Maratha possession of Jiñjī also fell. Scattered pockets of resistance persisted, how- ever, and Maratha raids, though uncoordinated, were scarcely abated. After Aurangzīb's death in 1707, the Marathas were soon able to rise again and establish an empire far greater in extent than the relatively small and scattered territories brought under Shivājī's direct rule (map (b); cf. plate VII.A.1, map (b)).

The drain on Mughal resources caused by their prolonged conflict with the Marathas facilitated revolts by a variety of disaffected groups elsewhere in the empire. The Rāthors of Marwar were almost continuously in rebellion since 1679, and sundry other Rajput powers rebelled intermittently. The Sikhs in the Punjab and the Satnāmis in Mewat participated in re- volts that were distinctly sectarian in character, that of the Sikhs being particularly prolonged and bloody. South of Delhi, the Jats also rose against Mughal rule. And among tribal peo- ples, the widespread Gonds also were intermittently in re- bellion.

In the lower left corner of plate VI.A.3 are two charts il- lustrating administrative systems of the Marathas. The upper chart relates to the system introduced by Shivājī. It shows that power was concentrated in his own hands as chhatrapati. He was, however, assisted by an advisory council of eight minis- ters, known as a&stod;&ttod;a prādhāns, six of whom held military com- mands. One of those six the peshwā, or prime minister, ex- celled his colleagues in status and prestige but not in power.

The conquered territory was divided into major divisions and provinces held by sarsubahdārs (mukhya deshadhikari) or subahdārs (governors) respectively; below them were tarafs, the equivalent of Mughal parganas, in which the duties of ad- ministration and collection of revenue were performed by havaldārs. The lowest units, the mauzas or villages, were un- der the administrative charge of pātils. Within the area of di- rect Maratha rule, known as "Swarājya," revenue collection and other aspects of government were regularized and a highly elaborate administrative system was devised for them. Other areas, known as "Mughlai," only irregularly or indirectly un- der Maratha jurisdiction, fared less well, being periodically subjected to plundering raids and assessed with a surcharge known as chauth, or one-fourth of the regularly assessed land revenue. Commonly the only return for this payment was that of being spared the depredations of the Maratha army. It was the army's established practice to remain stationed in barracks for the rainy months from June to September and to set out every October on their marauding activities in areas selected by Shivājī, thus refilling the treasury with cash and supplies.

Under the Peshwās, in the period of Maratha resurgence in the 18th century the Maratha administrative system altered substantially (see lower chart) in consequence of the emer- gence of a confederated state system. Although the chhatrapati remained the nominal head of the Marathas, the peshwā as- sumed the real reins of power. In time, however, the principal regional chiefs (sadrs) of the confederacy acted with increas- ing independence until, by c. 1770, Maratha unity became, for all practical purposes, little more than a legal fiction. For addi- tional details, see plates VII.A.1 and 2 and relevant texts.

The historical role of the Marathas has been the subject of much historiographic controversy. At one extreme the Mara- thas have been seen as little more than a band of rapacious brigands, seeking to extract the maximum loot from any vul- nerable quarter. On the other hand, certain writers, especially Marathis, are wont to perceive them as leaders of a nationalist "war of liberation" against alien Muslim rule. The latter view ignores the fact that even before the time of Shivājī the Mu- ghals had become, like the Normans in England, an integral part of their adopted country. They were no longer foreigners from Trans-Oxiana or Kabul (indeed, for a time under Akbar the Mughal province of Kabul was placed under Hindu gov- ernors). Further, Maratha unity was scarcely complete, for many of their leading families remained consistently loyal to the Mughals, even serving in prominent positions in their ar- mies. While it is undoubtedly true that the Marathas in oppo- sition to Mughal rule did seek to utilize Hindu communal sentiment in their effort to gain popular support for their own independence struggle, there was nothing new or unique in the fact that such a struggle occurred: regions relatively remote from centers of imperial power had struggled for independence in virtually all periods of Indian history. The memories and latter-day interpretations of the Maratha wars of the late 17th century and later, whatever the true meaning of those conflicts may have been, were to provide fuel to both Hindu and Mus- lim propagandists in stoking the fires of modern communal sentiments. Thus their study is relevant for an appreciation of Muslim separatism in the 20th century.

In our discussion of plate VI.A.1 we noted the generally friendly relations that the Mughals under Akbar maintained with the Portuguese. During his reign other European powers were as yet of little or no consequence in South Asia. The 17th century, however, witnessed the emergence of the British, the Dutch, and to a lesser degree the French as significant factors in the affairs of the subcontinent. All these powers established various factories (trading posts), usually fortified, along the coast of India (see plate VI.B.2), both within and outside the imperial domains.

Although Jahāngīr sought to continue his father's policy with respect to the Portuguese, their seizure of four imperial ships laden with costly goods led the Mughal governor at Surat to enlist British support in defeating them in a naval engage- ment. Thereafter all Portuguese privileges were canceled and Portuguese were arrested throughout the Mughal Empire. Eventually Jesuit intercession resulted in a restoration of peaceful relations. Portuguese missionaries operated with con- siderable freedom, and their churches in Lahore and Agra flourished until the reign of Aurangzīb, who not only termi- nated imperial patronage of Christianity but also suppressed Portuguese piratical activities in Bengal.

The first British emissaries to the Mughal court arrived, as noted in the text for plate VI.A.1, even before the end of the 16th century. The founding of the British East India Company in 1600 resulted in the dispatch of additional envoys, begin- ning with Captain William Hawkins in 1608. British attempts to gain commercial privileges, however, were largely thwarted by the hostility of the more influential Jesuits. Nevertheless, the British did gain permission to build a factory at Surat in 1612 and various others in subsequent decades. Fort St. George (Madras), outside Mughal territory, was purchased in 1640. In 1651 they opened a trading post at Hooghly in Bengal. In 1680 Aurangzīb ordered the British to pay a 3.5 percent duty at Surat in order to trade freely inside the country. This was resisted and led to Anglo-Mughal hostilities during the period 1686–89, after which the original payment of Rs. 3,000 yearly was restored. In 1690 Calcutta was founded.

Dutch activities, though quite widespread, were more con- centrated in the south of India than were those of the British. In that area and in Ceylon they largely replaced the Portu- guese over the period 1654–70. French commercial interests in South Asia did not become significant until late in the 17th century, their principal settlement, at Pondicherry, being founded in 1674. Two Danish settlements in India were also established during the period of our map.

Apart from legitimate trade, piracy by European adventur- ers was widespread throughout the 17th century. Aurangzīb repeatedly tried to curb this activity, but his efforts proved of little avail.

Sources (in addition to those in the General Bibliography)

Original Sources

'Abdu-l Hamīd Lāhorī; Jahāngīr; Kāmgār; Khāfī Khān; Mu- hammad Salīh Kanbū; Muhammad Sāqī; Muhammad Sharīf; Persian Records . . . ; Rafi 'ud-Dīn Ibrahīm Shīrāzī.

Other Works

M. Akbar (1948b); F. Bernier (1968); M. S. Commissariat (1938, 1957); J. D. Cunningham (1849), (1955); H. Das (1959); J. G. Duff (1878); Z. Fauki (1935); W. Foster (1926); V. T. Gune (1953); C. A. Kincaid and D. B. Pa- rasnis (1931); S. Lane-Poole (1896); W. H. Moreland (1923); S. J. Owen (1963); B. Prasad (1962); K. R. Qanungo (1925), (1935); M. G. Ranade (1960); B. P. Saksena (1958); G. S. Sardesai (1946–48), (1949); J. Sarkar (1924–30), (1948), (1961), (1962); J. Sarkar, ed. and trans. (1901); S. N. Sen (1923), (1958); Shripad Rama Sharma (1944?); H. K. Sher- wani (1974); R. Shyam (1966), (1968); C. K. Srinivasan (1962); Khushwant Singh (1963–66); J. B. Tavernier (1925); Yar Muhammad Khan (1971).

VI.A.4 Religious and Cultural Sites of the Mughal Period, 1526–1707; Sufi Orders, Shrines, and Associated Saints, Early 16th–Early 18th Century; Saints and Poet-Saints of the Bhakti Movement, Early 16th–Early 18th Century

This map plate, like plate V.5, relating to the period of the Delhi Sultanate, with which it may profitably be compared, portrays the spatial distribution of monuments that are impor- tant from the perspective of art history; other religious and cultural centers; and places and regions associated with the lives of prominent saints and poets of the Hindu Bhakti move- ment and the Muslim Sufi orders. In the following text we consider first the art sites, then the mapped religious move- ments, and finally the distribution of sects and religions that are not mapped.

In studying the distribution of major monuments of the Mughal Period, one is struck by the remarkable degree to which the pattern of their areas of concentration contrasts with that of the Sultanate Period. In the Mughal Period, the prin- cipal concentration is in the North Indian Plain, over which Mughal rule was most firmly implanted, with an extension into Rajasthan, an area that, though ruled by Hindu princes tribu- tary to the Mughals, received special favor in the policies of Akbar and succeeding emperors because of its important mili- tary contribution to the might of the empire. The same regions during the Sultanate Period have few monuments. This sug- gests that in contrast to the Mughals, whose empire was rea- sonably secure for the better part of two centuries, the ruling dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate were too preoccupied with gaining political supremacy and consolidating their rule in In- dia to have much leisure to expend on the architectural and artistic embellishment of their domains. It suggests too that they had far fewer resources at their disposal than did the Mu- ghals. Eastern and southern India on the Mughal map, unlike the North, show few major monuments, whereas numerous Hindu temples and other works of architecture were built in southern peninsular India during the Sultanate Period. Rea- soning along lines similar to those applied above, one may suggest that the apparent decline in creativity may be ex- plained, at least in part, by the intensity of the military strug- gles, first between the Deccani sultanates and Vijayanagara and then between southern powers opposed to Mughal expan- sionism, which absorbed the bulk of state energies and material resources, leaving little to spare for great cultural undertakings. Further, one must reckon, in both the Sultanate and the Mu- ghal Periods, with regional variations in the ravages of war itself on the cultural inventory of the age. Yet none of these speculative remarks can gainsay the essential fact that the splendid architectural and artistic creations of northern India during Mughal times are attributable not merely to the wealth the empire could amass, but also to the patronage, refined taste, and cultural predilections of the ruling dynasty, all of which are commented on in the text for plate VI.A.5. That text also comments on the specific forms of art and architec- ture differentiated by various symbols on map (a).

The text for plate V.5 provides brief synopses of the essen- tial nature of the Bhakti movement and Sufism and the rela- tionship that existed between the two and between each and the dominant streams of orthodox Hinduism and Islam, and there is no need to repeat those particulars here. Rather, in the paragraphs that follow we simply carry the story forward to the early 18th century. Thereafter we make a few clos- ing observations on other religious developments during the period.

In the later period of the Bhakti movement (map (c)) the high degree of individualism characteristic of the poet-saints in previous centuries began to be replaced by religious orga- nizations. These were often loosely organized groups bound together by the teachings of a single leader such as Caitanya in eastern India. In northern and western India they were called panths ("paths") and were associated with the names of such saints as Kabīr, Dādū (1544–1660), and Rāmdās (1608–81). In the Punjab, however, the organization that sprang from the bhakti impulse was much more highly organized, in the form of the Sikh religion, founded by Guru Nānak (1469–1539) and bound together by a single leader in an unbroken line of nine successive gurus (teachers) after the death of its founding saint. Under the fourth guru, Rāmdās, Amritsar was founded as the sacred city of the Sikhs on land granted to them by Akbar in 1577. It remains the spiritual center of the faith to this day. The principal scriptures of the Sikhs were compiled by Arjundās, the fifth guru, in the form of the Adi-Granth (First Writings) including much of the writing of Nānak and Kabīr and constituting in itself the ultimate guru. Arjundās's successor, Har Gobind, imparted to the movement a distinctly militaristic cast and armed its members to resist opposition from both Hindus and Muslims. But it was not until the time of Gobind Singh (1675–1708), the tenth and last guru, that Sikhs assumed many of the essential symbolic characteristics by which male believers are still known (unshorn hair, metal bracelet, dagger, a type of clothing to represent chastity, and a comb) and which marks them as members of a military brotherhood, called the Khalsa, all of whose initiated mem- bers adopt names ending in Singh.

As the Bhaktas grew more highly organized socially, many of them did so theologically as well. Caitanya, for example, had deputed theologians to establish a center in Vrindāban, near Mathura, the place where the K&rtod;&stod;&ntod;a of myth and faith had lived. Through their Sanskrit writings they established the bhedābheda doctrine and an analysis of the methods, includ- ing ritual activity, Bhaktas should use to reach salvation. Their student K&rtod;&stod;&ntod;adās Kavirāj (late 16th century) transmitted these teachings back to Bengal through his biography of Caitanya, the Caitanya-caritām&rtod;ta, which he wrote in Bengali.

In Bengal, too, bhakti toward the goddess (Śakti) was grow- ing in popularity. There the underlying feeling of the poems of such poets as Rāmprasād (18th century) was not the eroticism characteristic of the poets of the K&rtod;&stod;&ntod;a cults (e.g., Ca&ntod;&dtod;īdāsa [15th century]), but the dependence of the child upon the mother. The same element of dualism was present, however: