India in the Persianate Age - 1000-1765 (Richard Eaton, 2019)

(397 pages)

Main premise seems to be what author considers a new and improved thesis - we shouldn't view this era so much on Muslim-Hindu axis, but instead Sanskrit-Persianate.  It's interesting to read about but the difference is pretty subtle for a reader like me. Does point out that Muslim rulers typically were relatively tolerant - even if for practical considerations like inability to regulate behavioral minutiae of a large population over great distances. Perhaps the author is commenting on (chiding) Islamic fundamentalists and/or Hindu nationalists? 

In any event it's a very helpful overview of the years 1000-1765.

Persianate (author's term) rulers arrive in the north, based in Delhi; pushed by Mongols from Persia/Iraq; also from Afghanistan, Hindu Kush. Not always pushed - some saw opportunity.  Expand past the Vindhya mountains into the south; first ring of territory is conquered/administered; further territories are left pretty much alone but required to pay tribute, and take on some Persianate influence.  This is happening starting around 1200.

Deccan peninsula is far from Delhi relative to ability to project power.  Pretty quickly - rebellions.  14th century - Vijayanagar - in the second ring of territories south of the Vindhyas.  Some Persianate forms, but far less influence than further north.  Religious tradition not Persianate - Siva, Rama (evolving, not clear to this reader!)

Vijayanagar as immense; forays into deep south.  1564 - Battle of Talikota - a quick ending to Hampi; what remains of Vijayanagar is centered further south. (Vijayanagar (and the Battle of Talikota) written up in this book . . . which this author dislikes as incorrectly emphasizing Muslim v. Hindu (in his opinion).)

Malabar coast - less influenced by Persianate.  Major trading - mostly due to pepper - all the way back to Roman times.  Tolerant. Syriac Christians, Hindu, Muslim esp around Calicut (the version from Horn of Africa etc,) - even the Islamic influence not so much Persianate.  Not dominated by the various sultanates, not even Vijayanagar.  Portuguese upset the balance.

Sikhs emerge - Guru Nanak dies 1539.  Succession issues.  Amritsar (Punjab).

Discusses the major northern rulers - the Mughals.  Early 16th century.  Babur - Mongol.  Big transition from nomadic/horse to more pastoral life, they didn't always like it at first.  A lucky series of mostly long-tenured, talented rulers.  Abkar.  Jahangir.  Some Europeans at court now.  Jahan (crowned 1628) - perhaps the peak of Mughul power and reach?  Builds Taj Mahal, Red Fort.  Aurangzeb (much less tolerant, more reactionary).  Burning resources in Deccan, Bengal, etc.  Rajasthan. Hard to subdue; expensive; Mughals weakening in general.

At end of book - 1765 -  European presence more and more noticeable; British starting to out-compete European rivals; India growing as part of global trade.

Something missing - there's almost nothing about life of the "common man" anywhere in India - though I guess the book probably doesn't set out to do that.  Lots of discussion about how state revenues were collected, little about taxpayer squeeze, which must have been intense in view of the wealth getting to the top layers.