India in the Eighteenth Century
Until recently, historians portrayed the eighteenth century in Indian history as a “dark age” characterized by widespread disorder and chaos. The prevailing narrative suggested that the Mughal Empire collapsed under internal weaknesses and foreign invasions, regional powers failed to establish stable empires, and stability returned only when British supremacy was established by the century’s end. According to this interpretation, British rule proved a blessing for this dark period, and June 23, 1757, marked the end of India’s medieval era and the beginning of the modern age.
However, accepting this viewpoint presents significant difficulties. First, the Mughal Empire’s influence across the Indian subcontinent was neither as deep nor as extensive as commonly portrayed. Large portions of the subcontinent—particularly the northeastern and southern regions—remained outside Mughal control, and many social groups escaped Mughal influence entirely. Therefore, using the Mughal Empire’s decline as the basis for analyzing pan-Indian transformations is inappropriate. The reality is that the establishment of regional political powers was a far more significant feature of the eighteenth century than the rise and fall of pan-Indian empires.
The Mughal Empire’s decline was a prolonged process involving multiple factors. Nadir Shah’s 1739 invasion further weakened the already fragile empire, but economic crises and other factors also contributed to its downfall. Although the Mughal Empire couldn’t survive, its institutions and traditions continued in regional states and British territories. The emergence of regional powers represents the century’s second major development. Regional powers can be classified into three categories: successor states like Hyderabad, Bengal, and Awadh, which were formerly Mughal provinces that gained independence; new states established by rebels like the Jats, Marathas, Sikhs, and Afghans; and independent states with Hindu political systems, including Mysore, Rajput states, and Kerala. The third significant development was the East India Company’s transformation from a trading enterprise into a political power.
The Decline of the Mughal Empire
The conventional view attributes the Mughal Empire’s decline primarily to personal failures of Mughal emperors and nobles—their misconduct and indulgence in luxury. Some historians characterize Mughal rule as Muslim governance and portray Maratha, Sikh, and Bundela rebellions as Hindu reactions against Islamic oppression.
Challenging this traditional concept, historians like Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib have depicted the Mughal Empire’s decline as an economic system crisis. Satish Chandra argues that the jagirdari system’s crisis caused the empire’s fall—there were too many jagirdars but too few jagirs available. According to Irfan Habib, the agricultural system under the Mughals became increasingly exploitative, leading to peasant rebellions that destroyed the empire’s stability. While economic crisis and struggle for jagirs may have contributed to Mughal decline, other factors also played roles, including internal weaknesses and external invasions.
Power struggles and Aurangzeb’s misguided policies had hollowed out the Mughal Empire’s political system. However, the empire’s two main pillars—the army and administration—remained fully functional until 1707. Succession wars, Mughal court intrigues, the rise of the Sayyid brothers, and weak puppet rulers created disorder between 1707 and 1719.
Muhammad Shah’s long reign from 1719 to 1748 provided sufficient opportunity to reestablish the empire, but the emperor’s incompetence and pleasure-seeking ended this possibility. During his reign, Nizam-ul-Mulk resigned as wazir and established the independent state of Hyderabad in 1724. Bengal, Awadh, and Punjab followed this path, leading to the empire’s fragmentation into successor states. The Marathas took advantage of this situation and vigorously pursued their empire-building ambitions.
External Challenges
Iranian emperor Nadir Shah invaded India in 1738-39, quickly conquering Lahore and defeating the Mughal army at the Battle of Karnal on February 13, 1739. Delhi was brutally plundered and massacred before the helpless Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah. The most valuable items in his loot were the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor diamond. Nadir Shah seized areas west of the Indus River, including strategically important Kabul.
After Nadir Shah’s death, his general Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded India repeatedly between 1748 and 1767. In 1761, Abdali achieved his most significant victory not against the Mughals but against the Marathas in the Third Battle of Panipat.
Despite the Mughal Empire’s rapid regional fragmentation, Mughal tradition survived. By 1761, the empire had shrunk to just Delhi. However, the emperor’s prestige remained so great that approval was needed for acquiring territory, throne, or empire. Even rebellious Maratha and Sikh chiefs sometimes recognized the emperor as the source of sovereignty. In 1783, the Sikhs sent tribute to the Mughal emperor’s court, despite Mughal persecution of their gurus. The British and Marathas also struggled to control the Mughal emperor to legitimize their claims to imperial succession. After the Battle of Buxar, the Company made Emperor Shah Alam II their pensioner, though he preferred Maratha protection in Delhi. When the British captured Delhi in 1803, the Mughal emperor again came under British protection.
Regional political powers also adopted Mughal administrative methods. This was natural for successor states, but even states like the Marathas—where popular movements against imperial rule had begun—followed Mughal administrative practices.
However, this doesn’t mean the Mughal political system survived. The new political systems were regional in character, and none could assume a pan-Indian character. Regional rulers and later the British reorganized the new political systems along with some old institutions. Under the colonial system, old Mughal institutions performed different functions. The land revenue system remained largely unchanged, but colonialism brought massive wealth extraction from India. British historians’ emphasis on institutional continuity merely aimed to prove that British rulers were no different from their predecessors.
The Rise of Regional Political Systems
The emergence of regional political systems alongside the Mughal Empire’s decline was the eighteenth century’s second important feature. Generally, three types of states arose: successor states that broke away from the Mughal Empire, new states established by rebels against the Mughals, and new independent regional states.
Successor States
Hyderabad, Bengal, and Awadh were three states where Mughal provincial governors established independent kingdoms. These successor regional states maintained connections with the center and continued Mughal traditions. When Nadir Shah attacked Delhi, Awadh and Hyderabad assisted Mughal rulers. Therefore, calling this period’s political system changes “decline” rather than “transformation” is more appropriate. A new political system was created within the Mughals’ institutional framework.
Hyderabad
Nizam-ul-Mulk established Hyderabad’s independent state in the Deccan in 1724 when the Sayyid brothers controlled the Delhi court. Zulfiqar Khan first dreamed of creating an independent state in the Deccan. In 1708, he became Deccan subedar through Bahadur Shah’s generosity, administering Deccan affairs through his deputy Daud Khan. After his death, the Sayyid brothers appointed Chin Qilich Khan as Deccan viceroy in 1715.
Nizam-ul-Mulk Chin Qilich Khan helped Muhammad Shah remove the Sayyids and received the Deccan subedari in return. From 1720 to 1722, he reorganized administration and strengthened the revenue system. After briefly serving as wazir in Delhi from 1722 to 1724, he decided to return to the Deccan due to the emperor and his selfish nobles. As wazir, he had Malwa and Gujarat included in the Deccan subedari. In late 1723, he departed for the Deccan under the pretext of hunting and laid Hyderabad state’s foundation.
Muhammad Shah became very angry at the Nizam’s action. He appointed Mubariz Khan as full Deccan subedar with orders to present Nizam-ul-Mulk dead or alive at court. The Nizam was more powerful than Mubariz Khan. In October 1724, he defeated and killed Mubariz Khan at the Battle of Shakur Kheda and became Deccan’s master. The emperor was forced to make Nizam-ul-Mulk Deccan subedar and gave him the title “Asaf Jah.”
Although Nizam-ul-Mulk maintained continuous loyalty to the Mughal emperor, he practically functioned as an independent ruler—waging war, establishing peace, granting titles, and distributing jagirs without Delhi’s reference. Revenue system improvements, control over zamindars, and tolerance toward Hindus (appointing Puran Chand as diwan) were Nizam-ul-Mulk’s commendable policies. The Marathas caused him some difficulty. Maratha armies raided the state at will and collected chauth from helpless people. He participated in the Battle of Karnal against Nadir Shah. However, after his death in 1748, Hyderabad’s weaknesses became apparent to the Marathas and foreign companies.
Succession struggle occurred between Nizam-ul-Mulk’s son Nasir Jang and grandson Muzaffar Jang. The French under Dupleix seized this opportunity and supported Muzaffar Jang. In return, Muzaffar Jang gave the French substantial money and territorial gifts.
Bengal
Practically independent while theoretically loyal to Delhi’s authority characterized Bengal nawabs’ rule. In 1717, Murshid Quli Khan became Bengal’s governor under Mughal authority, but his relationship with Delhi had been limited to sending tribute since 1700 when he was appointed Bengal diwan. Since Aurangzeb’s time, Murshid Quli Khan held Bengal’s diwani and deputy governorship. First under Prince Azimush-Shan, then under Prince Farrukhsiyar, Murshid Quli Khan was appointed Bengal governor in 1713.
Murshid Quli Khan was a capable ruler; Bengal made great progress in trade and commerce under him. He established peace by freeing Bengal from internal and external threats and successfully suppressed rebellions during his rule.
After Murshid Quli Khan’s death in 1727, his son-in-law Shuja-ud-Din became nawab, ruling until 1739. In 1733, Emperor Muhammad Shah also entrusted him with Bihar’s administration. After Shuja-ud-Din’s death in 1739, his son Sarfaraz Khan became nawab, but in 1740, Bihar’s deputy subedar Alivardi Khan defeated and killed Sarfaraz Khan at the Battle of Giria in April 1740 and became nawab of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. He obtained the emperor’s approval by sending 2 crore rupees as tribute. After his grandfather Alivardi Khan’s death in 1756, Siraj-ud-Daulah became Bengal’s nawab.
Bengal’s nawabs maintained peace and good governance for a long time, promoting agriculture, trade, and industries. The nawabs recruited Hindus and Muslims to public service without discrimination and appointed many Bengalis to military positions, most of whom were Hindus. Bengal’s nawabs tried to firmly maintain their independence despite repeated British East India Company military threats and kept close watch on foreign companies in their territories. However, ultimately, underestimating Company threats, viewing it merely as a trading company, and neglecting military strength proved costly, leading to defeat at Company hands. Finally, the British victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 inaugurated a new era in Anglo-Indian relations.
Awadh
Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk, appointed Awadh subedar in 1722, founded Awadh’s independent state. Saadat Khan was a Shia and descendant of Nishapur’s Sayyids. In 1720, he was appointed Bayana’s faujdar. He participated in conspiracies against the Sayyid brothers, pleasing the emperor who gave him first a five-thousand-rank mansab, then seven-thousand-rank, and the title “Burhan-ul-Mulk.” From 1720-22, he was also Agra’s governor, administering through Nilkanth Nagar. When later appointed Awadh governor, he established an independent Muslim state in Awadh.
Saadat Khan was a courageous, energetic, iron-willed, intelligent ruler. He subdued Awadh’s unruly anarchic zamindars and implemented a new land system protecting peasants from zamindar exploitation. The jagirdari system was reformed, and jagirs were given to local elites with high positions in administration and military. In 1739, Saadat Khan was summoned to Delhi to fight Nadir Shah, where he was imprisoned. He had invited Nadir Shah to attack Delhi, but the gambit backfired, and he had to commit suicide by poison.
After Saadat Khan’s death (1739-1754), his nephew and son-in-law Safdarjung became Awadh’s nawab. Emperor Muhammad Shah declared Safdarjung Awadh’s nawab by firman. Safdarjung successfully followed Saadat Khan’s policy, sternly suppressing zamindars. Later, he made an agreement with the Peshwa whereby the Peshwa would help the Mughal Empire against Ahmad Shah Abdali and protect it from internal rebels like Bangash Pathans and Rajput rajas. Upon completing the agreement, Safdarjung would give the Peshwa 50 lakh rupees and chauth of several districts in Punjab, Sindh, and northern India. Additionally, the Peshwa would be made subedar of Agra and Ajmer. However, the Peshwa’s short-sightedness caused this agreement’s failure because he joined Safdarjung’s opponents in Delhi.
Like Bengal and Hyderabad’s nawabs, Awadh’s nawabs were not communal in outlook. They adopted an impartial policy in high-level appointments without discriminating between Hindus and Muslims. During Safdarjung’s time, the highest position was held by a Hindu, Maharaja Nawab Rai.
In 1748, the Mughal emperor appointed Safdarjung his wazir, and his successors came to be called “Nawab Wazir.” The peace and economic prosperity of these nawabs’ period resulted in the development of a distinctive “Lucknow culture” around the Awadh court. In 1819, this dynasty’s seventh ruler, Saadat Khan, assumed the title “Raja” of Awadh.
New Rebel States
If the eighteenth century’s two main events were Mughal power’s decline and colonial rule’s establishment, the third important event was regional states’ rise and fall. These regional states were established by Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and Afghans through rebellion against the Mughals. Mughal rulers found it impossible to control all these forces disintegrating the entire country.
The Maratha State
The most important among regional states was the Maratha state’s rise. By mid-eighteenth century, most of India came under Maratha political rule. Chhatrapati Shivaji created the background for political awakening and organization among Marathas. The main feature of the Maratha state system was Peshwas’ or prime ministers’ dominance, which developed during Balaji Vishwanath’s rule. He was a loyal officer of Shivaji’s grandson Shahu, who became Maratha king in 1707 after release from Mughal prison. During his rule, Peshwa power increased rapidly, and the Maratha emperor became a nominal ruler. After Balaji Vishwanath’s death in 1712, his son Bajirao became Peshwa.
By this time, the Marathas had become not a regional power but an expansionist force. To maintain control over Maratha chiefs, Bajirao (1720-1740) personally led military campaigns and conquered fertile regions of Gujarat and Malwa along with other areas. Unfortunately, he became entangled with Hyderabad’s ruler Nizam-ul-Mulk, the Deccan power.
Bajirao’s armies decisively defeated the Nizam’s armies twice, but the struggle between them continued for control of southern provinces. When the British jumped into this conflict, it became triangular, proving very beneficial for the British.
During Balaji Bajirao’s rule, Maratha power reached its zenith. No part of India escaped witnessing Maratha conquest and plunder. Subduing southern India was easy for them. After Hyderabad’s defeat in 1760, it left many of its territories to the Marathas for collecting chauth and sardeshmukhi. Mysore and other states sent them tribute. In the east, continuous conquests of Bengal gave them Orissa in 1751. In central India, Bajirao thoroughly integrated areas of Malwa, Gujarat, and Bundelkhand that he had conquered with the rest of the Maratha empire.
Following their expansionist policy, Maratha rulers established influence over Delhi’s Mughal rulers and declared Imad-ul-Mulk the empire’s wazir, but practically the Marathas ruled in every way. However, the Marathas weren’t satisfied with merely controlling Delhi. They cast greedy eyes toward Punjab, then ruled by Abdali’s feudatory. This was their terrible mistake. In the process of conquering and administering this part of the empire, several powers became Maratha enemies. Besides Imad-ul-Mulk, the Marathas had defeated Mughal nobles in power struggles. Their conquests also alienated Jat and Rajput rulers. Sikhs were already disappointed by foreign invasions, so nobody was ready to help the Marathas’ efforts to include Punjab in their empire.
Third Battle of Panipat (1761)
Abdali had returned after plundering India, but he decided to return to face Maratha challenges. Rohilkhand’s chief and Awadh’s nawab joined Abdali because Maratha armies had trampled their territories. The result was that the Marathas had to face Abdali alone at Panipat.
The Third Battle of Panipat occurred on January 14, 1761. On the battlefield, 28,000 soldiers were killed along with the commander, the Peshwa’s younger son Vishwasrao, and cousin Sadashiv Rao Bhau. Hearing this painful defeat’s news, Peshwa Balaji Bajirao didn’t survive long.
The Third Battle of Panipat proved decisive for establishing dominance over India. This Maratha defeat buried their ambition to establish a Maratha empire. The Maratha defeat gave the British ample opportunity to increase their influence in Bengal and then India.
Peshwa Madhavrao (1761-1772) successfully trampled old northern enemies—Rohillas, Rajputs, Jats—and southern states Mysore and Hyderabad. This briefly suggested the Marathas’ fortune had risen again. However, Madhavrao’s death in 1772 at age 28 decisively shattered Maratha dreams. The Maratha defeat at British hands in the First Anglo-Maratha War also revealed intrigues and conflicts between Maratha factions competing for power.
Weaknesses of the Maratha State
The Marathas’ administrative and financial weaknesses caused their defeat. Dependence on plunder was one weakness of the Maratha system. The Marathas institutionalized plunder as chauth to increase income, and it became a legitimate part of the Maratha state system. The Marathas adopted parts of Mughal administrative system but relied on their own techniques for collecting surplus production, which lacked extensive administrative structure. In the absence of well-defined provincial dominance, the Marathas couldn’t organize their influence with necessary coordination, resulting in their defeat. Additionally, the Marathas lagged in using advanced military technology and didn’t adopt contemporary innovations like artillery, small arms—especially rigid rifles—and advanced firearms.
Sikhs
The new democratic religion Sikhism spread in the strategically important Punjab province in the late fifteenth century. Compared to other rebels, Sikh rebels were unwilling to compromise with the Mughals. Guru Nanak founded Sikhism. For the next two centuries, it remained limited to specific individuals, but the tenth and final Guru, Gobind Singh, transformed it into a well-organized community by creating political aspirations and militancy among the faith’s followers. Guru Gobind Singh’s rebellion against Aurangzeb and Banda Bahadur’s rebellion (1708-1716) against Aurangzeb’s successors were suppressed with full force by the Mughals. Banda Bahadur was executed in 1715 during Farrukhsiyar’s time.
After suppressing Banda Bahadur’s rebellion in 1715, the Sikhs remained quiet for nearly a quarter century. However, the Mughal Empire’s bad days proved beneficial for the Sikhs. Nadir Shah and Abdali’s invasions were devastating for northern India, but after Abdali and his supporters returned, the Sikhs rapidly established control in Punjab, and 12 misls or unions together formed Punjab province. Among these, five were extremely powerful misls: Bhangi, Ahluwalia, Sukerchakia, Kanhaiya, and Nakkai. The Bhangi misl was most powerful, controlling Amritsar, Lahore, and parts of western Punjab. Maha Singh headed the Sukerchakia misl. In late eighteenth century, after Maha Singh’s death in 1792, Ranjit Singh established a significant Sikh empire. However, the Sikh state wasn’t a religious state as portrayed. Like other parts of the country at that time, it was a secular state.
Jats
The Jats were an agricultural caste settled in the Delhi-Agra region. In the late seventeenth century, Jat peasants engaged in agriculture in areas near Delhi, Mathura, and Agra rebelled against Mughal dominance, creating a crisis for the Mughal Empire. Though the rebellion was suppressed, Jat power increased with Mughal power’s decline, and a peasant rebellion transformed into an insurrection that proved devastating for other factions in the region, including Rajput zamindars. Despite the peasant rebellion, the Jat state’s structure remained feudal, with administrative and revenue powers in zamindars’ hands, and land revenue under Suraj Mal’s rule was much higher than under the Mughals.
Churaman built a strong fort at Thun and challenged Mughal authority in the region. In 1721, the Mughal army under Agra subedar Jai Singh campaigned against him and conquered the fort. Churaman committed suicide.
Afterward, Churaman’s nephew Badan Singh assumed Jat leadership. Taking advantage of the disorder after Nadir Shah’s invasion, Badan Singh also captured Agra and Mathura and laid Bharatpur state’s foundation. Ahmad Shah Abdali, compromising with circumstances, gave Badan Singh the title “Raja,” to which he added the word “Mahendra.”
In 1755, Suraj Mal succeeded to this Jat state. He gave this Jat state cleverness, subtle intelligence, and clear vision. He was called the “Plato of the Jats.” He strengthened his army and established four forts at Deeg, Kumbher, Weir, and Bharatpur. However, after Suraj Mal’s death in 1763, the Jat state declined.
Rohilkhand
Rohilkhand and Farrukhabad’s Bangash Pathan states’ establishment resulted from seventeenth-century Afghan displacement. After Nadir Shah’s invasion, chaos arose in northern India. Taking advantage of this, Muhammad Khan established a small state in Rohilkhand. This region was located in the Himalayan foothills between Kumaon hills in the north and the Ganges River in the south. The Rohillas, known by their region Rohilkhand, had to face defeat at the hands of other regional powers like Jats, Awadh’s rulers, and later Marathas and British.
Farrukhabad
East of Delhi in Farrukhabad, Muhammad Khan Bangash, an Afghan chief, established an independent state. Afghans’ political role was negative. They not only accelerated the Mughal Empire’s decline but also helped Abdali defeat Awadh’s nawab, who could have prevented British expansion in India.
Rajputs
In the eighteenth century, Rajput rajas, like other rulers, took advantage of the Mughal Empire’s disintegration and made themselves nearly independent of central control. However, none of the Rajput rajas were powerful enough to challenge the Marathas and British for supreme power status. Almost all Rajput states adopted an expansionist policy and tried to annex their neighbors whenever possible.
Rajputs participated in power struggles and intrigues at the Delhi court and obtained attractive and influential subedaris from Mughal rulers. During Farrukhsiyar and Muhammad Shah’s reigns, Amber and Marwar’s rulers were appointed governors of important Mughal provinces like Agra, Gujarat, and Malwa.
Among Rajput rulers, Amber’s Raja Sawai Jai Singh (1681-1743) was very popular; he founded Jaipur city and constructed observatories in Delhi, Jaipur, Ujjain, Varanasi, and Mathura. He prepared a table of tables titled “Zij-i-Muhammadshahi” for astronomical observations.
However, most Rajput states remained continuously involved in mutual quarrels and intrigues as before—for example, Marwar’s Ajit Singh was killed by his own son. Due to Rajputs’ internal quarrels, they couldn’t consolidate their position and fell victim to Maratha interference.
Independent Regional States
Mysore
In mid-eighteenth century, Mysore state emerged in southern India beside Hyderabad. Mysore state had preserved its uncertain independence since the Vijayanagar Empire’s end and was only nominally part of the Mughal Empire.
In early eighteenth century, two ministers, Nanjaraj (Sarvadhikari) and Devraj (Dulwai), seized power by making King Chikka Krishnaraja merely a puppet in Mysore. However, Hyder Ali laid Mysore power’s foundation, which his son Tipu Sultan organized.
Although Hyder Ali was a small officer in Mysore state’s army, he progressed to a commander’s position through his ability. Hyder Ali’s important achievement was forming a modern powerful army, for which he recruited French experts to train his army in Western methods and for arms storage. With French experts’ help, he established a modern arsenal at Dindigul in 1755. Hyder soon became so powerful that in 1761 he overthrew Nanjaraj and took control of Mysore state.
Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan
Hyder not only maintained complete control over rebellious poligars and zamindars but also included Malabar and Karnataka’s prosperous coastal regions in Mysore state’s boundaries. Being centrally located, Hyder Ali had to contend with the region’s other powers like the Marathas, Hyderabad’s Nizam, and the newly emerging British power. He defeated English armies near Madras in 1769. He died in 1782 during the Second Anglo-Mysore War, and his son Tipu became Mysore’s sultan. Tipu also followed his father’s initiated policies.
Kerala
In early eighteenth century, Kerala was divided among several feudatories and kings. The present Kerala state was formed by combining three states: Kochi, Travancore, and Calicut. However, Mysore state’s expansion proved devastating for Kerala’s stability. Hyder Ali invaded Kerala in 1766 and captured Malabar and Calicut. Travancore was now a significant and secure state in the south.
Travancore state became important when after 1729, Raja Martanda Varma suppressed feudal chiefs with a modern army trained in Western methods and equipped with modern weapons, and expelled the Dutch from Kerala. Martanda Varma developed irrigation, transportation, and communication for his state’s development and encouraged foreign trade.
Martanda Varma’s successor Rama Varma was a great creator and scholar with knowledge of the West. He took personal interest in making his capital Trivandrum a center of education and art.
Weaknesses of Regional Politics
Regional states proved powerful enough to destroy Mughal authority, but none could provide a stable political system at the pan-Indian level in place of the Mughal Empire. Actually, weaknesses were inherent in these regional states’ political systems. Although some—especially Mysore—attempted modernization, overall they were technologically backward. These states couldn’t change the economic stagnation process that had crushed the Mughal Empire’s economy. The jagirdari crisis deepened as agricultural income declined and the number claiming surplus production increased rapidly.
The Rise of British Power
The most decisive and far-reaching feature of eighteenth-century politics was the East India Company’s transformation from a trading company to a political power in mid-century. From its establishment on December 31, 1600, until 1744, the English East India Company had been gradually expanding its trade and influence in India. Through a combined policy of war and infiltration into the Mughal court, this Company destroyed Portuguese and Dutch influence.
By the eighteenth century, only the French East India Company remained as the major foreign power opposing the English East India Company in India. Although the British Empire in India is generally dated from 1757 when the British defeated Bengal’s nawab on Plassey’s field, the background for 1757’s victory was prepared in southern India when the British successfully tested their military power and diplomacy in conflict with the French Company. This Anglo-French rivalry continued from 1744 to 1763. Starting with trade, the English-French companies became inevitably entangled in Indian politics. Both companies’ objective was to earn maximum profit from trade, so they engaged in eliminating each other to maintain trading monopoly. The Mughal Empire’s decline in India clearly provided great opportunities for these companies’ influence expansion.
