The Successor States: Hyderabad, Bengal & Awadh (18th Century)

Two Roads from the Mughal Wreck

🎯 Exam priority: Foundational. Tier 3 — tested occasionally and/or sets up the storyline; master the key facts and move on.

Why this topic matters for UPSC. Awadh's annexation (1856) resurfaced in Prelims 2026 — and knowing how these successor states formed explains why each region fell when it did.

• The Diwani of Bengal (1765), Nawabs of Awadh and their relation to the British, and Nizam of Hyderabad (subsidiary alliance) are occasional match questions.

• 2026 tested British post-annexation policy in Awadh (taluqdars, revenue settlement) directly.

• Know the three major states and their eventual relationship with the British.

When the great Mughal Empire broke down in the 18th century, it did not leave a vacuum. On its debris arose a large number of independent and semi-independent powers — Bengal, Avadh, Hyderabad, Mysore and the Maratha kingdom — and it was these powers, not the dying empire, that would challenge the British attempt at supremacy in the second half of the century. Understanding them is the key to understanding how India was conquered.

Two Roads from the Mughal Wreck

• One historian divides these 18th-century states into broad groups by their origin. Some arose as the result of the assertion of autonomy by the governors of Mughal provinces — the classic "successor states" such as Hyderabad, Bengal and Avadh, where an old subahdar simply stopped obeying Delhi while keeping the Mughal forms. Others were the product of rebellion against Mughal authority — the "new states" / "independent kingdoms" such as the Marathas, the Sikhs and the Jats. Mysore and the Rajput states form a third type of regional independent kingdom.

• The successor states are thus the old Mughal provinces gone independent from the inside: their founders never overthrew the emperor — they remained, in form, his governors. This article concentrates on the four classic successor states of the Mughal heartland and Deccan — Hyderabad, the Carnatic, Bengal and Avadh — and their shared character.

Common Features of the Successor States

Different though they were, the successor states shared a striking family likeness — and the same fatal blind spots.

Common Features of the Successor States

• 1. Nominal Mughal allegiance, real independence. Their founders never formally declared independence. They continued to send tribute to the emperor and to rule in his name, but in practice they waged wars, concluded peace, conferred titles and granted jagirs and offices without reference to Delhi. Nizam-ul-Mulk is the model: he "never openly declared his independence from the Central Government but in practice he acted like an independent ruler."

• 2. Secular, non-communal politics. The rulers did not discriminate on religious grounds in public appointments, civil or military, and their rebel opponents likewise paid little attention to the ruler's religion. The Nizam's Dewan was a Hindu (Puran Chand); the highest post under Safdar Jang was held by the Hindu Maharaja Nawab Rai; in Bengal the highest civil posts and many military posts went to Bengalis, mostly Hindus.

• 3. New revenue arrangements. Each ruler re-established law and order and reorganised the finances — fresh revenue settlements, the conversion of jagir land into khalisah, the system of revenue-farming (ijara), and the disciplining of turbulent zamindars to secure a larger share of the peasant's surplus.

• 4. They failed to arrest the economic crisis. None of these states succeeded in arresting the underlying economic crisis. The number of zamindars and jagirdars kept rising, all fighting over a declining agricultural income, while the condition of the peasantry continued to deteriorate. They preserved internal trade but did nothing to modernise the basic industrial and commercial structure of their states.

• 5. Weakness vis-à-vis the Europeans. Above all, they underestimated the European trading companies, treating them as mere merchants rather than as the spearhead of an aggressive, expansionist colonialism — a blindness that would cost them everything.

Hyderabad: Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah (1724)

The first and one of the most powerful of the successor states rose in the Deccan, founded by the ablest noble of the post-Aurangzeb age.

Hyderabad: Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah (1724)

• The state of Hyderabad was founded by Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah in 1724. One of the leading nobles after Aurangzeb, he had played a role in the overthrow of the Saiyid brothers and was rewarded with the viceroyalty of the Deccan. From 1722 to 1724 he was the wazir (chief minister) of the Empire, but disgusted that Emperor Muhammad Shah frustrated his attempts at reform, he returned to the Deccan — marching south in October 1724 — where he could safely maintain his supremacy.

• There he laid the foundations of the Hyderabad State and ruled it with a strong hand. He never openly declared independence, yet acted as an independent ruler — waging wars, concluding peace, conferring titles and granting jagirs and offices without reference to Delhi. He followed a tolerant policy towards Hindus (his Dewan, Puran Chand, was a Hindu), built an orderly administration, forced the turbulent zamindars to respect his authority, kept the powerful Marathas out of his dominions, and tried to cleanse the revenue system of corruption.

• But the order he created was personal, not institutional. After his death in 1748, Hyderabad fell prey to the same disruptive forces as were operating at Delhi — succession disputes and factional intrigue — opening the door to Anglo-French interference in the Deccan.

The Carnatic: A Sub-Successor Breaks Free

Hanging off Hyderabad was a province that repeated the same story one level down — and in doing so handed the Europeans their first opening into Indian politics.

The Carnatic: A Sub-Successor Breaks Free

• The Carnatic was one of the subahs of the Mughal Deccan and so came under the Nizam of Hyderabad's authority. But just as the Nizam had become independent of Delhi, so the Deputy Governor of the Carnatic — the Nawab of Carnatic — freed himself of the control of the Viceroy of the Deccan and made his office hereditary. Autonomy, in other words, cascaded downward.

• Thus Nawab Saadatullah Khan of the Carnatic made his nephew Dost Ali his successor without the approval of his superior, the Nizam. After 1740 the affairs of the Carnatic deteriorated because of repeated struggles for the Nawabship — and these disputed successions provided the opportunity for the European trading companies to interfere in Indian politics. The Carnatic became the stage of the Anglo-French Carnatic Wars, the laboratory in which Europeans learned that Indian thrones could be bought and won with small disciplined armies.

Bengal: Wealth Without a Sword

If Hyderabad was the most powerful successor state, Bengal was the richest — and its very wealth, undefended, became the prize that founded the British Empire.

Bengal: Wealth Without a Sword

• Taking advantage of the weakening centre, two men of exceptional ability — Murshid Quli Khan and Alivardi Khan — made Bengal virtually independent. Though Murshid Quli Khan was formally made Governor only in 1717, he had been Bengal's effective ruler since 1700 (when appointed its Dewan). He freed himself from central control while sending regular tribute to the emperor, and crushed the few zamindar uprisings. He died in 1727; his son-in-law Shuja-ud-din ruled till 1739, when Alivardi Khan deposed and killed Shuja-ud-din's son Sarfaraz Khan and made himself Nawab.

• These three Nawabs gave Bengal peace and orderly administration. Murshid Quli Khan reorganised the finances — converting much jagir land into khalisah, carrying out a fresh revenue settlement, introducing revenue-farming, and granting taccavi (agricultural loans) to cultivators. He gave equal opportunity to Hindus and Muslims, preferring local zamindars and mahajans as revenue farmers — and so laid the foundations of a new landed aristocracy in Bengal. (His system, though, increased pressure on the peasant and displaced many older zamindars.)

• The Nawabs encouraged trade but kept strict control over the foreign companies: they compelled the English Company to obey the law and pay the same customs duties as other merchants, and Alivardi Khan refused to let the English and French fortify their factories at Calcutta and Chandernagore.

• Yet they were short-sighted in two fatal ways. First, they did not firmly check the growing tendency of the English Company (after 1707) to use, or threaten, military force — wrongly believing "a mere trading company" could never threaten their power, ignorant of the devastation such companies had already caused in Africa, South-East Asia and Latin America. Second, they neglected to build a strong army (Murshid Quli Khan's army was only 2,000 cavalry and 4,000 infantry). When the English declared war on Siraj-ud-Daulah, Alivardi's successor, in 1756-57, the absence of a strong army "contributed much to the victory of the foreigner."

Awadh: Saadat Khan, Safdar Jang & the Birth of Lucknow Culture

To the north-west, a third Mughal province went the same way under a line of able and unusually upright rulers — and gave India one of its great cultural capitals.

Awadh: Saadat Khan, Safdar Jang & the Birth of Lucknow Culture

• The founder of the autonomous kingdom of Avadh was Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk, appointed Governor of Avadh in 1722. Bold, energetic and iron-willed, he found the province in chaos — rebellious zamindars refusing the land tax, raising private armies and building forts. He waged years of war to suppress the lawlessness and discipline the big zamindars, increasing his government's resources, and carried out a fresh revenue settlement in 1723, levying equitable land revenue and protecting peasants from oppression. Before his death in 1739 he had become virtually independent and made the province a hereditary possession.

• He was succeeded by his nephew Safdar Jang, who in 1748 was simultaneously appointed wazir of the Empire and granted the province of Allahabad. Safdar Jang gave Avadh and Allahabad a long period of peace until his death in 1754: he suppressed rebellious zamindars, allied with the Maratha sardars to save his lands from their raids, fought the Rohelas and the Bangash Pathans, organised an equitable system of justice, and like the others employed Hindus and Muslims impartially (his highest post went to the Hindu Maharaja Nawab Rai).

• Avadh's prosperity bred a glittering high culture: the long peace and the wealth of its nobles produced a distinct Lucknow culture around the court. Lucknow — the seat of the Nawabs after 1775 — soon rivalled Delhi in its patronage of arts and literature and grew into an important centre of handicrafts.

• One historian adds a corrective to a popular myth: the founders of all three autonomous kingdoms — Nizam-ul-Mulk, Murshid Quli Khan and Alivardi Khan, and Saadat Khan and Safdar Jang — were men of high personal morality who led austere, simple lives. The belief that all 18th-century nobles were decadent is false; it was only in public and political dealings that they "resorted to fraud, intrigue and treachery."

Why the Successor States Mattered — and Why They Fell

The successor states were, in the end, a paradox: strong enough to rule provinces larger than European kingdoms, yet too narrow in vision to see the storm gathering on their coasts.

Why the Successor States Mattered — and Why They Fell

• They proved that the collapse of the Mughal centre was not the collapse of Indian governance: able rulers could still raise revenue, keep order and patronise culture. But because they shared the empire's structural economic crisis — a swelling parasitic class living off a shrinking agrarian surplus — and because they were divided, mutually hostile and contemptuous of the European companies, they could be picked off one by one. Disputed successions (the Carnatic, post-1748 Hyderabad), neglected armies (Bengal) and isolation from world events made them ripe for conquest.

• The lesson the British learned in the Carnatic and Bengal — that a small disciplined European-led force, backed by Indian bankers and rival claimants, could topple a Nawab — is exactly what they applied at Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764). The successor states are, therefore, the indispensable prologue to the British conquest.

Why This Matters for UPSC

• Prelims: the founder–state pairs (Hyderabad–Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah 1724; Bengal–Murshid Quli Khan; Avadh–Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk); the classification into successor states (autonomy by governors) vs rebel/new states (Marathas, Sikhs, Jats); Safdar Jang as wazir 1748 + Allahabad; Alivardi Khan deposing Sarfaraz Khan (1739); the Carnatic under the Nizam and Saadatullah Khan / Dost Ali; Bengal's exports (the 2018 PYQ below).

• Mains: the common features of the successor states; why their secular, capable administration still failed to arrest the economic crisis or resist the Europeans; the policies of the rulers of Hyderabad, Bengal and Avadh (a direct one historian exercise question).

Further Reading

• Standard NCERT-level texts and reference books on modern Indian history (any UPSC reading list).

Test Yourself: Practice Questions & PYQs

Test how well you can explain the successor states of the Mughal Empire — Hyderabad, the Carnatic, Bengal and Avadh, their founders, their common features and their failure against the Europeans. Decide your answer, then open Show answer.

Practice Questions

Q1. Which of the following is the correct classification of the 'successor states' of the Mughal Empire?

• (a) States founded by rebellion against the Mughals (Marathas, Sikhs)

• (b) Old Mughal provinces made independent by their own governors (Hyderabad, Bengal, Avadh)

• (c) European-founded trading settlements

• (d) States created by the Treaty of Allahabad

Q2. The state of Hyderabad was founded in 1724 by:

• (a) Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah

• (b) Alivardi Khan

• (c) Murshid Quli Khan

• (d) Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk

Q3. Which statement best describes the political status of the successor states?

• (a) They never openly declared independence but acted as independent rulers, sending tribute to the emperor

• (b) They formally proclaimed full independence from the Mughals

• (c) They restored the Mughal Empire's old power

• (d) They were directly ruled by the East India Company

Q4. The Carnatic, before its Nawab became autonomous, was a subah under the authority of the:

• (a) Peshwa

• (b) Nawab of Avadh

• (c) Nawab of Bengal

• (d) Nizam of Hyderabad

Q5. The disputed successions in the Carnatic after 1740 were significant because they:

• (a) united south India under one ruler

• (b) led to the founding of Hyderabad

• (c) provided the opportunity for the European companies to interfere in Indian politics

• (d) ended Mughal rule in the south

Q6. Murshid Quli Khan and Alivardi Khan are remembered chiefly for:

• (a) founding Hyderabad

• (b) making Bengal virtually independent of the Mughals

• (c) winning the Battle of Buxar

• (d) serving as wazirs of the Empire

Q7. A fatal weakness of the Bengal Nawabs, which contributed to the English victory, was that they:

• (a) allied with the Marathas against Delhi

• (b) persecuted Hindus

• (c) neglected to build a strong army and underestimated the English Company

• (d) refused to collect any revenue

Q8. The founder of the autonomous kingdom of Avadh, appointed its Governor in 1722, was:

• (a) Asaf-ud-Daula

• (b) Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk

• (c) Safdar Jang

• (d) Shuja-ud-Daula

Q9. Safdar Jang, the successor in Avadh, was in 1748 also appointed:

• (a) Nizam of Hyderabad

• (b) wazir of the Mughal Empire, with the province of Allahabad

• (c) Peshwa of the Marathas

• (d) Nawab of Bengal

Q10. A feature COMMON to the successor states of Hyderabad, Bengal and Avadh was that they:

• (a) did not discriminate on religious grounds and followed secular politics, but failed to arrest the economic crisis

• (b) discriminated against Hindus in appointments

• (c) built powerful navies

• (d) modernised their industry and commerce

UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

The successor states are a high-yield Prelims topic — expect founder-state matching (Nizam-ul-Mulk–Hyderabad, Murshid Quli Khan–Bengal, Saadat Khan–Avadh), the successor-vs-rebel classification, and Bengal's wealth/exports (the real PYQ below, UPSC CSE 2018) — and a recurring one historian Mains question on their policies.

Q1. The staple commodities of export by the English East India Company from Bengal in the middle of the 18th century were: (UPSC CSE 2018)

• (a) Raw cotton, oil-seeds and opium

• (b) Copper, silver, gold, spices and tea

• (c) Sugar, salt, zinc and lead

• (d) Cotton, silk, saltpetre and opium

Mains Practice Questions

Use these to frame full-length answers. You don't have to answer one exactly — they show the angles UPSC tests, so let them guide which points you cover.

• Examine the policies followed by the rulers of the states of Hyderabad, Bengal and Avadh in the 18th century.

• What were the common features of the 18th-century successor states? Why did none of them arrest the economic crisis?

• Distinguish between the 'successor states' and the 'rebel/new states' that rose on the ruins of the Mughal Empire.

• “The successor states were strong enough to rule but too blind to resist the Europeans.” Discuss with reference to Bengal and the Carnatic.