1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 0.00 (0 Votes)

South Asia is among the world regions that are characterised by diversity of the inhabitants in terms of religion, culture and even linguistics. It comprised of very many sub groups of people who believed in a different religion, spoke in different tongues and had different living styles. It had groups like the Afghans, Marathas, Gond, Dakhinis, Phil as well as Telugus among many others. It is, therefore, imaginable that the politics of such a region would not be as stable as one would expect may be, from a region that had a common ancestry, or that had people who spoke one language and had same beliefs. That difference triggers other forms of differences especially ideological ones, and crises would be a common phenomenon (Munis, 2008). People of different beliefs or tribes would want to control others and superiority contests would emerge. As a result, the politics in such a region are bound to be dynamic as they tend to change as the communities in power change. This essay will look at the establishment of the state of Hyderabad and explore various issues that describe how the political entities maintained their power, as well as the accommodation of people of different tribes, in the administration.

Nizam was the name of the person who had the ambitions to establish and consolidate the state of Hyderabad. As he arrived in Deccan, he had to overcome the political and military strength of the Marathas. He could only do so by use of force and so; he forced the rulers of Mughal to grant tom and his army the right to tax Deccan inhabitants. Nizam met the opposition of the Marathas, who became the only threat he faced. Apart from the military resistance, Nizam had to struggle to overcome the Cultural chasms between the ruling elites of Hyderabad and their subjects (Munis, 2008).  This was especially in a relationship with the Persians who lived in the extreme south. The importance of the Persians had faded almost to insignificance, while in other places such as Mysore; local languages were used as the statecraft languages. He, therefore, had to overcome the different historical, political, as well as the cultural trajectories, if he was to establish his rule over the six provinces of Mughal.

In order to establish his rule; therefore, he had to gain enough support from all these groups of people. Nizam had one advantage; he had deep personal knowledge of the social, political, as well as the economic networks, thanks to the time he served as the commander of the reign of Aurangzeb. He, therefore, knew which tribe to be trusted, which was a threat and which to sideline. He used violence and threats when it became necessary against his opponents. More so, he had two powerful tools; experienced disciplined and well equipped royalists and a strong support from some of the regions that were formerly under Mughal control (Grewal, 2000).

So, the answer to our question as to how the political entities could maintain their political power can be seen as through quests and violence. These political leaders and founders of states used aggression against their former rulers and the imperial states as they exerted their power. The successors of the rulers were not always in agreement, and they could break up and each would form his own state by conquering weaker states. The main tactics that used apart from violence is to gather as great support as possible from these states and from as many tribes as possible. They were able to attract that loyalty by way of rewarding those who were loyal.

In spite of the great diversity, Nizam's supporters could prove their cohesiveness and loyalty to him. Therefore, the bonds among his supporters were cemented and these guaranteed conditions of outstanding service to Nizam. He also made his loyalists believe that he was kind, generous and principled, one who was spiritually blessed (Grewal, 2000). The loyalists, therefore, served him without any fear, and they fought relentlessly for his political future as they fought for their rights to live in Deccan. His power, though, came mostly from his family as well as his loyalists, most of whom were appointed to take over the most important positions in the imperial court.

In conclusion, the political entities in south Asia used a combination of strategies to maintain their political power. They included their family members as well as the loyalists in the administration and so; they were guaranteed of continued support (Munis, 2008).


Primary sources of historical information are usually firsthand information as given by persons who have witnessed happenings in the history of the people. The sources mostly give detailed, specific as well as personalised perspectives in history. They are, therefore, used mostly to complement scholarly narratives and are only useful when understood in the relevant contexts. This is because each narrator will give his or her own account of things based on how he or she understood them, displaying in most cases their own perceptions. These perceptions differ from narrator to narrator and even the scholars themselves may also differ with the perceptions of the narrator. Not that the narrators will give a different account, but they will one with details differing from each other and the extent of coverage may also differ. This essay will explore two of the primary sources of the history of Mughal, describing how they give descriptions of the same thing in different angles.

A historical account by Richard about the Deccan between the years 1300 to 1761 revolves around a person called Papadu (Richard, 2014). The narrator uses this account to give us an outlook of the social and political life of the Deccan as well as to introduce and expound on various theme, the most common being banditry. The account starts with describing the character of Papadu, a bandit who was known for his defiance to not only the imperial authority but also any other authority. He used his defiance to gain support that forced people to make crucial choices. The course and rise of Papadu are given, his origin and deeds as a historical narration. The history Mughal is given from its formation as a territory until later when it breaks up into several states (Richard, 2014).

A similar account of the rise and the fall of the Mughal state describes at a different dimension by another narrator by the name Munis. His account was on the breakup of the Mughal state in the 18th century. It starts with the history of the state and the history of some prominent people who made heroic acts such as the Nizam. It, however, gives details of some other social issues that include the diversity of the southern Asia and how the rulers maintained power by using various strategies (Munis, 2008). It gives light to contemporary issues affecting the society, challenges that people faced and how they overcome them. In short, it describes the processes of formation and dismantling of kingdoms and how the social diversity contributed to the emergence of the various states.

The account given by Munis displays several social dynamics. The most important is the political dynamics whereby the political systems of southern Asia changes over time from generation to generation. It describes the changes in time on the basis of the changes in the political aspect of the states. Similarly, the first account shows political dynamic though not through changes brought about by the new generations but on the basis rise and fall of states. It shows how ideological differences lead to the fall of old states and the rise of the newer states. It marks a time on the basis of the positions of the people under consideration, that is, the periods when a leader advances to power is brought down by aggressors (Richard, 2014).

It is clear, therefore, that primary sources give personal details of a historical account. Same historical period is described in different angles depending on the choice of the historian. The details given are not much different, but the perspectives of the historians differ. Therefore, as a scholar, it would only be helpful to understand these primary sources in the relevant context; otherwise one would be led astray or be confused by the different accounts. It is better to obtain the relevant facts and leave out the historian's perceptions.


Grewal, J. S. (2000). The Sikhs of Punjab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Munis, D. F. (2008). Modern Asian Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, M. E. (2014). Eight Indian Lives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Check below the PDF sample of the above Copy.