User:Fowler&fowler/Mysore sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of authors:

Sources for nature of Wodeyar "rule" up to 1761[edit]

Burton Stein, Vijayanagara 1[edit]

  • Stein, Burton (1987), Vijayanagara (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 156, ISBN 0521266939 Quote: "Odeyars (or 'wodeyars,' to add the Dravidian phonological glide) of Mysore arose as minor chiefs during the Vijaynagara times; they are first glimpsed in the early sixteenth century in a Kannada literary work of the time of the chief Chamaraja (1513–53), purportedly a local subordinate of Achyutadevaraya. Chamaraja's domain began as a handful of villages along the Kaveri where he established a small fortified place called Mahisura-nagara (from which Maisur and Mysore). The first inscriptions of these modest chiefs came in the time of Timmaraja Wodeyar, in 1551. By the 1570s the chieftaincy had expanded to thirty-three villages protected by a force of 300 soldiers, and in 1610, the last of the Vijayanagara agents at Srirangapatanam sold the fortress to Raja Wodeyar (1578–1617) under whom the chiefdom expanded into a major principality. (page 81)"

Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition 1[edit]

  • Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. Pp. xx, 548., ISBN 8125025960. Quote: "Originally a vice-royalty under the Vijayanagara empire in the sixteenth century, Mysore was gradually transformed into an autonomous principality by the Wodeyar dynasty. Its centralised military power began to increase from the late seventeenth century under Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar (1672–1704), but it reached it reached its real period of glory under Haidar Ali. A man of humble origin, Haidar had started his career as a junior officer in the Mysore army and gradually rose to prominence. By 1761 he took over political power in Mysore by ousting the corrupt dalwai (prime minister) Nanraj, who had in the meanwhile usurped real power in the kingdom by reducing the Wodeyar king into a mere titular head. (page 33)"

Ramusack, Indian Princes 1[edit]

  • Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0521039894 Quote:"(p.28) The Hindu dynasty of Mysore traditionally dates its origin to 1399 and so it might possibly be considered an antique state. However, because its greatest territorial and governmental expansion occurred from the late seventeenth century onward, Mysore seems more similar to warrior/conquest states such as Bhopal. Located in peninsular India, the rulers of Mysore were petty chieftains in the Vijayanagara state where the ruler held ritual sovereignty over little kings (known to the British as poligars) who collected the revenue and maintained law and order. By 1610 the last agent of the Vijayanagara king sold the Srirangapatanam fortress to Raja Wadiyar (1578–1617), who began the transition from petty chief to little king."

James Manor, "Princely Mysore before the Storm" 1[edit]

  • Manor, James (1975), "Princely Mysore before the Storm: The State-Level Political System of India's Model State, 1920-1936", Modern Asian Studies, 9 (1): 31–58, doi:10.1017/S0026749X00004868, JSTOR 311796 Quote:"(p.33) Prior to the rise of Haidar Ali in the 176os, the area which was to be known as Mysore state was a patchwork of highly localized agrarian 'little kingdoms'. A number of ambitious chieftains claimed to control portions of this area. But at best they exercised only a very loose suzerainty over the little kingdoms, most of which remained virtually autonomous. The Wadiyar family, ancestors of the Maharajas of Mysore, may be found among these chieftains and had at times claimed control over the southern and eastern parts of this area. But it was not until the time of Haidar Ali-a usurper who rose from the military service of the Wadiyars-and his son, Tipu Sultan, that the integration of these little kingdoms under supra-local authority began in earnest."

Peter Robb, History of India 1[edit]

  • Robb, Peter (2004), A History of India (Palgrave Essential Histories), Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. xiv, 344, ISBN 0333691296.Quote: "(p.103) New states also arose where Mughal authority had been weak or indirect. Mysore was established as an independent state in the seventeenth century; it was extended under Chikka Deva (1672–1704)."

John Keay, India: A History 1[edit]

  • Keay, John (2001), India: A History, Grove Press. Pp. 578, ISBN 0802137970 Quote: "(p.394) The so-called "kingdom" of Mysore had been one of the several dependent chieftancies of nayak-ships to survive from the ruins of the Vijayanagar empire. Although vulnerable to expansionist ambitions of the Deccan sultanates in the seventeenth century and of the Marathas in the eighteenth century, its relations with the Mughal empire had been inconspicuous. Exceptionally, therefore, it was not a legatee of Mughal authority. Unlike, say, Hyderabad or Awadh, it did not correspond to a Mughal province; unlike the rajput and Maratha ruling families, its Wodeyar rulers, had not been top-ranking mansabdars; and unlike the Nawab-Nizam of Hyderabad, the Nawab of Awadh or the Nawab of Bengal, the Mysore Wodeyars and their successors lacked the stature and legitimacy of high imperial office."
    • Ibid. Quote: "(In 1799) Mysore was pared down to something not much bigger that the statelet it was before Haidar Ali's conquests (p. 401)."

Encyclopaedia Britannica, "The case of Mysore" 1[edit]

  • Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (2008), "India: Regional States, c. 1700–1850:The Marathas:Mughal mystique in the 18th century:The case of Mysore", Encyclopaedia Britannica Quote:"This was the case, for example, in Mysore in the 1720s and '30s. Mysore had come under the sovereign umbrella of the Mughals in the late 1690s, as the result of an embassy sent to Aurangzeb by Cikka Deva Raja Vadiyar, the ruler of Mysore at the time. In effect, this meant that Mysore was to pay a periodic tribute (peshkash) to Mughal representatives in the south, but there was a problem in doing so. As Mughal authority in the Deccan and the south was itself fragmented, several possible channels of tribute existed. Mysore thus sought to make use of this ambiguity, playing off Chin Qilich Khan (still known as Nizam al-Mulk, a title his descendants would inherit), a powerful Mughal noble who in these years founded a dynasty at Hyderabad, against the Mughal representative at Arcot, thereby putting off the tribute payment. A further variable in the fiscal politics of Mysore was the presence of the Marathas; and some clans, such as the Ghorpades, made it a regular practice to raid the Mysore capital of Seringapatam. In this way, overlapping and at times conflicting claims were justified with reference to a Mughal centre that was distant and for the most part lacked interest in these affairs."

Imperial Gazetteer of India 1[edit]

  • Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II (1908), The Indian Empire, Historical, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxxv, 1 map, 573. Quote: "(p.470) After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the whole of Southern India became practically independent of Delhi. In the Deccan proper the Nizam-ul-Mulk founded an hereditary dynasty, with Hyderabad for its capital, which exercised a nominal authority over the entire South. The Carnatic, or the lowland tract between the central plateau and the eastern sea, was ruled by a deputy of the Nizam, known as the Nawab of Arcot. Farther south, Trichinopoly was the capital of a Hindu Raja; Tanjore formed another Hindu kngdom under a degenerate descendant of Sivaji. Inland, Mysore was gradually growing into a third Hindu State; while everywhere local chieftains, called poligars, or naiks, were in semi-independent possession of citadels or hill-forts. These represented the deputies of the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar, and many of them had maintained a practical independence since its fall in 1565."

Christopher Bayly, Indian Society ... British Empire 1[edit]

  • Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 0521386500 Quote: "The distinction between 'tribal' and Hindu India was never simple or static. But throughout north and central India and the Western Ghats (hills) were peoples only lightly touched by the major cultures and religions who lived in part by the skills of the pastoralist, the slash-and-burn farmer or the hunter and gatherer. Some of these people had chieftains who were designated rajas by outsides potentates, though often the individual nomadic camp or hunting family was the key political unit and the state hardly existed as an entity. The relationship between these petty kingdoms and local forms of production varied greatly. Sometimes as in the newly powerful state of Travancore on the south-west coast or Maratha Tanjore on the east coast, rulers intervened very closely in the production of rice or other valuable crops ... Between about 1600 and 1780 for instance the old Hindu state of Mysore progressively upped its nominal tax revenue progressively upped its nominal tax revenue from under 10 per cent of the gross produce to about 40 per cent under Tipu Sultan in the 1790s. Of course much of the enhanced revenue was never collected, but the growing costs of warfare and the desire for a new grandiose form of kingship spread across the subcontinent. (p.25)"

Susan Bayly, Saints, Goddesses, and Kings 1[edit]

  • Bayly, Susan (2004), Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, 1700-1900, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 532, ISBN 0521891035 Quote: "The nayaka stronghold of Jinji was overrun by Bijapur in 1638 and taken by the Marathas in 1677. In the seventeenth-century another new regime was formed up in Mysore, home of the Kannada-speaking Wodeyar rajas; this realm was taken over in the eighteenth century by the much-feared Muslim rulers Haidar Ali (c. 1722–82) and his son Tipu Sultan (1753–99) the famous 'tiger of Mysore'.) (p. 63)"

George Michell, Architecture of South India 1[edit]

  • Michell, George (1995), Architecture and Art of Southern India: Vijayanagara and the successor states: 1350–1750, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 250, ISBN 0521441102 Quote: "The Telugu warriors were not the only viceroys to rise to power under the Aravidus; several military groups in the Kannada region also achieved autonomy at this time. The most important were the Nayakas of Keladi. The first known member of this family Chaudappa, hailed from Keladi, a small town in the wooded hills in the western part of the Kannada zone, and was active by 1506. ... The Wodeyars of Mysore began their careers as provincial governors in the southernmost part of the Kannada region. The first prominent Wodeyar, Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja, also known as Timmaraja (1513–53) was responsible for laying out the fort beneath Chamundeshvari hill in 1524, naming it Mihisuru (Mysore). His son, Timmaraja II (1553–72), was a subordinate of Tirumala. ... The next Wodeyar, Raja (1578–1617), sought mastery of the adjacent territories belonging to the Aravidus of Penukonda. The Gowda chiefs of Yelahanka, an insignificant town in the country immediately north-east of the Wodeyar kingdom, also served as provincial governors under Vijayanagara. Hiriya Kempe I (1513–69), who was much favored by Krishnaraya and Achyutaraya, erected a fort at Bangalore in 1537, making it his headquarters. All the later Gowdas ruled from this city, which steadily grew in prosperity and influence. (p. 18)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "He was succeeded by his younger brother, Tirumala (1623–59), the outstanding personality of the era and perhaps the most powerful of all Nayaka rulers. Tirumala's first task was to restore Madurai as the principal Nayaka headquarters of the kingdom. He waged wars against the Wodeyars of Mysore, and in turn subjugated lesser chiefs, such as those of Ramanathapuram (Ramnad), often with Portuguese assistance. (p. 19)
    • Quote: "A number of lesser chiefs who rose to prominence at the same time as the Gowdas and Wodeyars were also active temple builders. The Nayakas of Chitradurga are of interest since they chose a strikingly archaic manner for their construction. (p. 71)"
    • Quote: "The renewed fortunes of several local dynasties in the nineteenth century led to the revival of large-scale building projects. The Wodeyars, who were restored to the throne by the British, sponsored temples at Mysore and nearby Nanjangud; ... (p. 275–76)"

Alam and Subrahmanyam, "Arcot" 1[edit]

Alam, Muzaffar; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, "Exploring the Hinterland: Trade and Politics in the Arcot Nizamat (1700–1732)", in Mukherjee, R.; Subramaniam, L. (eds.), Politics and Trade in the Indian Ocean World: Essays in Honour of Ashin Das Gupta, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 294, pp. 113–164, ISBN 0195664558 Quote: "(pages 113–114) As elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent, the early eighteenth century in the northern Tamil country saw the rise to prominence of a new type of state, the autonomous nizamat, or what the British were apt to call the 'Nawabi' state, operating under the carapace of Mughal sovereignty. In the northern Tamil country or Karnatak Payanghat in the Mughal terminology of the epoch, is another story. ... The present essay attempts to sketch, ..., the main lines of development in the hinterland, or the Arcot nizamat under first Da'ud Khan Panni, and then the founder of the Nawayat 'dynasty', Muhammad Sa'id, or Sa'adatullah Khan. ... (p.118) In the second half of the 1690s, Kumara Yachana Naidu of the Recherla clan was given a jagir extending over Venkatagiri, Nellore and Tirupati ... To compensate these large alienations, additional tributes were occasionally levied on the Maratha Rajas of Tanjavur, on the Wodeyars at Srirangapatnam, and the Madurai Nayakas. ... (p. 138) In 1711, for example, the Dutch letters report the temporary absence of Sa'adatullah Khan in Mysore, where he had gone on a tribute gathering mission from the Wodeyars ..."

    • Ibid. Quote: "(pp. 152-53) The year 1724 witnessed a substantial crises in Deccan politics, with the defeat of the subadar Mubariz Khan by Nizam-ul-mulk Asaf Jah, who managed as a consequence to impose himself on Arcot as a superior authority. ... The next year, trouble in the Mysore area reared their head, and the nazim was obliged himself to lead an expedition there against the Wodeyars.

Sources for Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan as rulers from 1761 to 1799 (without "de facto")[edit]

Metcalf and Metcalf, Concise History of India 1[edit]

  • Metcalf, Barbara; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxxiii, 372, ISBN 0521682258. Quote: "As they grew ever more desperate for funds, some rulers adopted an opposite scheme, that of bypassing intermediaries and collecting directly from the peasantry. This was the solution adopted by the Muslim conquest state of Mysore, founded by Haider Ali in 1761. Haider and his son Tipu Sultan introduced into their state a rigorous revenue management founded upon the encouragement of peasant agriculture and the elimination of zamindars and farmers. In so doing they bought Mysore an enviable degree of prosperity, and the funds to maintain an army of 60,000 men." (No mention of Wodeyar, Wadiar, or Wadiyar.)

Wolpert, New History of India 1[edit]

  • Wolpert, Stanley (2003), A New History of India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 544, ISBN 0195166787. Quote: "... especially the rich land of Mysore, which had been conquered in 1762 by an energetic Muslim soldier of fortune name Haidar Ali Khan. .... Haidar Ali was probably the most farsighted Indian monarch of his day, recognizing that Hindu-Muslim unity alone could successfully combat the ever-growing force of the British, who might still have been beaten in 1780, but who would never be stopped a decade or more later. (p. 193)." (No mention of Wodeyar, Wadiar, or Wadiyar.)

Dharama Kumar, "South India" 1[edit]

  • Kumar, Dharma (1983), "South India", in Kumar, Dharma; Raychaudhuri, Tapan; et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India: c. 1757 - c. 1970, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1078, ISBN 0521228026 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor2-last= (help) Quote: "By 1772, nearly all of south India was under three Muslim rulers: the Nizam in the north, the Nawab of Carnatic in the south-east and Haidar Ali in Mysore and parts of Kerala. The only Hindu rulers to survive were in Travancore and Thanjavur. (p. 208)."

T. Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj[edit]

  • Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 256, ISBN 0521589371 Quote: "While the Mughals, perceived as 'mild and humane' rulers, were largely exempted from severe criticism, such was not the case with their eighteenth century successors. These, whom the British set out to supplant as they extended their rule, had to be painted in the darkest colours. The archetypical representative of Islam in this period was unquestionably Tipu Sultan of Mysore (ruler from 1782 to 1799). As both a Muslim sovereign and as an implacable of the British Raj, he was portrayed (with no factual basis) as a man driven by a zealous fanaticism, while his regime was described as "the most perfect despotism in the world." In keeping with the differing characterizations projected onto Muslims and Hindus, his "Mahommedan tyranny" was contrasted unfavourably with the "ancient Hindoo constitution" allegedly enjoyed by Mysore before Tipu's father Haider Ali took over the throne in 1761. Tipu's fall in Seringapatnam in 1799 unloosed an orgy of self-congratulation among the British as their triumph ...(p. 139)" (No mention of Wodeyar, Wadiar, or Wadiyar.)

Majumdar et al, Advanced History of India 1[edit]

  • Majumdar, R. C.; Raychaudhuri, H. C.; Datta, Kalikinkar (1960), An Advanced History of India, London: Macmillan and Company Limited. 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 1122, 7 maps, 5 coloured maps. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help). Quote: "(p.689) After some hesitation the Nizam surrendered Guntur to the English in 1788 and in return sought their help, according to the treaty of 1768, to recover some of his districts which Tipu had siezed. Lord Cornwallis, the then Governor-General, found himself in a delicate position, because the right of the Mysore Sultans to those very territories had been recognised by the English by two separate treaties concluded with Hyder and Tipu respectively in 1769 and 1785."
    • Ibid. Quote: "(p.688) After some preliminary negotiations, the Treaty of Seringapatam was concluded in March, 1792. Tipu had to surrender half his dominions, out of which a large portion, stretching from the Krishna to beyond the Penar river, was given to the Nizam ... Some writers have criticised Lord Cornwallis for having concluding the treaty with the Sultan of Mysore instead of effecting his destruction, which, in their opinion, could have been easily done."
    • Ibid. Quote: "(p.682) Mysore under Hyder and Tipu was a source of danger to the rising British power in India during the second half of the eighteenth century. While the Carnatic was distracted by wars, and Bengal was passing through political revolutions, Hyder steadily rose to power in Mysore. Originally an adventurer, he entered the service of Nanraj, the Dalwai or prime minister of Mysore, who had made himself the practical dictator over the titular Hindu ruler of the State. Though uneducated and illiterate, Hyder was endowed with a strong determination, admirable courage, keen intellect and shrewd common sense. Taking advantage of the prevailing distractions in the south, he increased his power and soon supplanted his former patron."

Burton Stein, "State Formation ..." 1[edit]

  • Stein, Burton (1985), "State Formation and Economy Reconsidered: Part One", Modern Asian Studies, 19 (3, Special Issue: Papers Presented at the Conference on Indian Economic and Social History, Cambridge University, April 1984): 387–413, doi:10.1017/S0026749X00007678, JSTOR 312446 Quote: "Under the sultanship established by Haidar Ali, the structure of chiefly polities which had existed under the Vijayanagara state, and had survived the reforms of Chikkadevaraja, was brought under the vigorous and expanding power of Mysore. In the time of Haidar Ali (1761-82), a new system of fiscalism was gerry-built upon the foundation laid by Chikkadevaraja. Large territories were auctioned off to ambitious warriors-mostly Hindu-who as tax farmers ('amildars') pressed the accumulated liquidity from lesser of their likes, the many chieftains who had commanded rural resources in peninsular India during and after Vijayanagara. Sovereignty claims of the most militarily aggressive of such chiefs, paleyagararu in Karnataka, were rejected and such chiefs were driven off by Haidar Ali or his amildar agents; the locality dominance of most other chiefs was more slowly eroded, essentially by limiting the scope of their activities, rather than by abolishing their traditional authority."

Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Hyder Ali"[edit]

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica (2008), "Hyder Ali" Quote: "Muslim ruler of Mysore and military commander who played an important part in the wars in southern India in the mid-18th century. ... Hyder received an independent command in Mysore in 1749. Eventually, he displaced Nanjaraj, the prime minister, made the raja a prisoner in his own palace, and around 1761 made himself ruler of Mysore. He then conquered Bednore (now Haidarnagar), Kanara, and the petty poligars (feudal chiefs) of southern India."

Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Tipu Sultan"[edit]

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica (2008), "Tipu Sultan" Quote: "Sultan of Mysore, who won fame in the wars of the late 18th century in southern India. Tippu was instructed in military tactics by French officers in the employ of his father, Hyder Ali, who was the Muslim ruler of Mysore."

Bose and Jalal, Modern South Asia 1[edit]

  • Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (2003), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, London and New York: Routledge, 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 304, ISBN 0-415-30787-2. Quote: "The migration of peasants and weavers from Arcot to Mysore and the military strength of the Mysore sultans produced a confluence of interest between the company and its servants working in their private capacity. ... The state of Mysore and the Maratha confederacy presented the most formidable obstacle to British colonial expansionism in India. Haidar Ali and his son Tipu Sultan constructed a powerful state characterized by efficient revenue management and the elimination of the special privileges of intermediate social groups. Haidar Ali is generally acknowledged to have ruled over a prosperous peasantry and a thriving but not overweening merchant community. Tipu Sultan died fighting gallantly at the gates of his capital, Seringapatam, prefering to live a day like a tiger than a lifetime as a lamb cowering before the British. (p. 49-50)" (No mention of Wodeyar, Wadiar, or Wadiyar in the book.)

Vincent Smith, Oxford History of India, volume III 1[edit]

  • Smith, Vincent A. (1921), India in the British Period: Being Part III of the Oxford History of India, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 2nd edition. Pp. xxiv, 316 (469-784) {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help). Quote: (pp. 585–86). "Lord Wellesley's intention had been to cripple permanently rather than destroy utterly the power of Tipoo. The absolutely complete success of the operations of General Harris and the death of the Sultan were a surprise to the Governor-General, who was obliged to reconsider the problem of the disposal of Mysore. Wellesley explained in a dispatch addressed to the Directors that the Company and the allied Nizam enjoyed the "free and uncontrouled (sic) right of conquest," while the Marathas, having taken no share in the war, had "forfeited every pretension to share in the advantages of peace." ... The Governor-general was of opinion that the simple plan of dividing the conquests equally between the Company and the Nizam, who had given some help, would unduly aggrandize that Prince (i.e. the Nizam), while giving offense to other powers. He was convinced that no member of Haidar Ali's family possibly could prove an efficient and friendly ruler. After reviewing all conceivable alternatives, he came to the decision that the wisest course would be for the Company and the Nizam to take the districts that best suited each party and to make over the residue to a prince of the Hindu royal family which had been dispossessed by Haidar Ali. The prince selected for restoration as Raja being a child of five years of age, the whole of Mysore, except the districts assigned to the Nizam, practically became British territory." (No mention of Wodeyar, Wadiar, or Wadiyar by name.)

Kulke, History of India 1[edit]

  • Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India, 4th edition. Routledge, Pp. xii, 448, ISBN 0415329205 Quote: "At this stage, in 1782, Haider died but his equally brilliant son, Tipu Sultan, continued the war and, in 1784, imposed the peace treaty of Mangalore on the governor of Madras – which was very favourable to him. ... Tipu was defeated and died defending his capital, Seringapatam, in 1799. The British annexed north and south Kanara, Wynad, Coimbatore and Dharapuram and, in the much reduced Mysore state, they reinstated the old Hindu dynasty whose throne Haider Ali had usurped. (p. 240)" (No mention of Wodeyar, Wadiar, Wadiyar)

Christopher Bayly, Empire and Information 1[edit]

Kate Brittlebank, "Power of Tipu's Tiger" 1[edit]

  • Brittlebank, Kate (1995), "Sakti and Barakat: The Power of Tipu's Tiger. An Examination of the Tiger Emblem of Tipu Sultan of Mysore", Modern Asian Studies, 29 (2): 257–269, JSTOR 312813 Quote:"(p.261) The choice of emblem seems often to have been related to the religious affiliation of the holder. For example, the Wodeyars of Mysore, who were Vaishnavas, had among their insignia the boar, the discus (Chakra) and the garuda, all of which are associated with Vishnu. As for the tiger as an emblem, this was adopted by the Colas, who were Saivites, who used it on their crests and banners, as did the Hoysalas of Dvarasamudra. That there is an association of the tiger with rulers of Mysore is also suggested by the fact that the old city (later destroyed by Tipu) is described in the early eighteenth century as having 'tiger-faced' gates. The Wodeyars, however, do not appear to have used it as an emblem, which may have been significant from Tipu's point of view, since, no doubt, he would have wished to distance himself from the previous ruling dynasty."
    • Ibid. (p.265) Quote 2: "Rao, in his History of Mysore, wrote that 'The tiger . . . was adopted by Tipu as emblematic of himself and his power'. What is this power to which they refer and why should it be so represented? That a ruler should be seen to be powerful was extremely important. Buchanan found that the Wodeyar family had '. . . been so long in obscurity, that it [was] no longer looked up to in awe; which among the natives in general [was] the only thing that supplie[d] the place of loyalty.'"

Susan Bayly, Caste Society and Politics in India 1[edit]

Encarta Encyclopedia, "Rulers of Mysore"[edit]

  • Encarta Encyclopaedia (2008) mentions only two Mysore rulers Archived 2009-07-16 at the Wayback Machine:
    • Ali, Hyder Archived 2008-10-15 at the Wayback Machine Quote: "Haidar Ali (1722-1782), Muslim ruler of Mysore, who figured prominently in the fight against British encroachment in India during the 18th century. A soldier of fortune, he deposed the previous raja in 1761, soon extended his dominions over most of south India, ..."
    • Tipu Sahib Archived 2008-10-07 at the Wayback Machine Quote: "Tipu Sahib (1749-1799), Muslim ruler of Mysore, the son and successor of Haidar Ali. He fought in his father's campaigns against the British and after Haidar's death in 1782 continued his war to a successful conclusion."

John Keay, India: A History 2[edit]

  • Keay, John (2001), India: A History, Grove Press. Pp. 578, ISBN 0802137970 Quote: "(p.395) ... in the 1730s the incumbent Wodeyar raja had been relieved of authority by two brothers, and it was in their service that Haidar Ali Khan, a devout Muslim whose ancestors had fought in the armies of the sultans of Bijapur, rose to prominence. In 1749, while participating in the succession struggle which followed the death of Nizam-ul-Malik of Hyderabad (the first nizam), Haidar Ali had obtained both considerable wealth and the services of some French deserters. ... Thus in 1758, when Mysore was attacked by the Marathas, Haidar Ali was the obvious choice for commander of the Mysore forces. He acquitted himself well and, following a brief trial of strength with the incumbent brothers, had by 1761 become the undisputed ruler of Mysore."

Dirks, Castes of Mind 1[edit]

  • Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001), Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pp. 372, ISBN 0691088950 Quote: "The Mysore rulers Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan had to be engaged four times before their final defeat in 1799, before which many commentators noted the possibility of a very different political future for the subcontinent. (p. 28)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "Until the fall of Srirangapattinam in 1799, the most aggressive new state system was ruled from Mysore, first by Haidar Ali and then his son Tipu Sultan, who succeeded in large part because of their capacity to capitalize on the cultural transitions of the time even as they put in place new forms of bureaucratic systemization and regulation. Much of Haidar Ali's and Tipu Sultan's attention was taken up by an attempt to establish a central bureaucracy. They funded and provided the political basis for these innovations by attempting to absorb ... (p. 67)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "The rajas ("polligars," from palaiyakkarar) of places like Chitradurga had already been substantially subdued by Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan in the last decades of the eighteenth century. Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan had systematically attacked the forts of the rajas, capturing their entire royal family and carting them off to their capital city of Srirangapattinam. In their place, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan place amildars or managers who were charged with the task of maintaining order and collecting revenues. ... If anything, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan succeeded rather better than the British in dispensing with and displacing the local political elites of the Deccan, ... Colonialism had to ease into the forms of direct rule that the sultans of Mysore had already deployed, as part of their own strategy of developing the administrative infrastructure that would enable them to oppose the spread of British rule in India. (p. 87)"

Ramusack, Indian Princes 2[edit]

  • Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0521039894 Quote: "p.28) After a successful coup in 1761, Haidar Ali became the effective ruler of Mysore, though the Wadiyar king remained his nominal suzerain. Once again an aspirant to autonomy retained a militarily impotent source of legitimacy, much as the governors of successor states used the Mughal emperor. Haidar Ali sought to create a centrally controlled military force that would enable him to subdue the petty chieftains within his state and to oppose external threats. ... When Tipu Sultan (1753–99) succeeded his father in 1782, he bolstered revenues to support a centralised military machine and intensified state control downward into local political units. ..."
    • Ibid. Quote: "As a Muslim ruler of a predominantly Hindu kingdom and a staunch opponent of the East India Company, Tipu Sultan had multiple personae in the historical record, ... Kate Brittlebank has explored his diverse strategies to establish the legitimacy of his kingship, which was grounded on the material resources of a strong military force, an expanded tax base, and extended penetration of local politics. First, Tipu acted as a king, claiming universal kingship authorised by a farman (decree) from the Ottoman Caliph and minting coins in his own name. Second, he incorporated former enemies, neighbours and officials into a hierarchy of subordination ..."

Burton Stein, A History of India 1[edit]

  • Stein, Burton (2001), A History of India, New Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiv, 432, ISBN 0195654463 Quote: "(p.209) Yet there were a few native rulers who did sense the way the wind could blow. In Mysore, from the 1770s, Haidar Ali and his son Tipu Sultan set out to beat the Company at its own game; to this end Haidar concentrated on acquiring an independent army, free from Company influence, and on improving centralized control over his fiscal system. (p. 209)
    • Ibid. Quote: "All these attempts to resist the rising power of the Company came to nought. In Mysore, at least part of the reason lay in the failure of other rulers to share Haider's perspicacity and their great fear of his growing strength. ... in 1799, when Seringapatam was finally captured and Tipu killed, the Company received substantial help from scribal, commercial and gentry groups inside Mysorean territory itself. Indeed, following Tipu's death and the restoration of the Hindu dynasty that Haidar had replaced, ..."

Christopher Bayly, Indian Society ... 2[edit]

  • Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 0521386500 Quote: "Only Tipu Sultan of Mysore, uneasy as a newcomer with the traditions of the Indo-Persian nobility and contemptuous of the flaccidity of Mughal power, took up the title of emperor. Even Tipu maintained a respectful communication with the imperial (Mughal) court. (p. 16)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "This skein of peculation was coming to be seen as 'corrupt' in both England and India. It might have survived had not the further development of the Muslim state in south India exposed the impossibility of reconciling the interests of European creditors, the Company and the many varieties of indigenous fiscal and commercial entrepreneur. The Sultanate of Mysore, the major threat to British power in the South, became the catalyst for change. In 1769 and again in 1781–83 Mysore forces penetrated and ravaged the coast. Until its final defeat in 1799, Mysore was the sword of Damocles suspended over the Madras revenues. (p. 60)"

Wodeyar "rule" in princely state 1799 to 1947[edit]

Dirks, Castes of Mind 2[edit]

James Manor, "Princely Mysore before the Storm" 2[edit]

  • Manor, James (1975), "Princely Mysore before the Storm: The State-Level Political System of India's Model State, 1920-1936", Modern Asian Studies, 9 (1): 31–58, doi:10.1017/S0026749X00004868, JSTOR 311796 Quote: "(p. 33) After the British defeated Tipu in 1799, they cast about for an Indian who could rule over that portion of Tipu's dominions which they did not wish to administer themselves. They turned to the Wadiyars and raised one of their number from ignominy to be styled Maharaja of Mysore. The rulers of Mysore, then, owed their position almost wholly to British power."
    • Ibid. Quote: "(p.34) But what the British had bestowed, they could also take away. In I830, trouble developed among the fiercely independent inhabitants in the northwestern part of the state. These people had never been subjects of the Wadiyars before I80o and local magnates chafed bitterly under the zealous encroachments upon their little kingdoms by the Maharaja's lieutenants. The situation mushroomed into open insurgency and British forces had to assist in the restoration of order. This provided the British with an excuse to supersede the princely government in 1831. The British Commission or caretaker government was to rule for a half century and it was only with great difficulty that the princely house won reinstatement in 1881. The lessons of 1831 were clear. The approval of the British was crucial to the survival of princely authority. And disruptions by powerful elements at the local level could upset relations with the British and were to be avoided at all costs."
    • Ibid. Quote: "The task of the princely regime of winning British favour after the reinstatement was made easier by the policies of the British Commission prior to 1881. When the Maharaja was reinvested with powers, he was presented with a fully-developed administrative structure based upon Madras and Bombay models. The British had also inserted an Indian official of the highest calibre as Dewan, or head of the administration. He soon established the tradition of a strong centralization of powers in the Dewan's hands which was to be carried on by a number of brilliant successors. These men were able to maintain the high quality of the administration which the British had bequeathed to them. Consequently, before the century was out, Mysore was being cited by knowledgeable and highly critical British observers as 'the best administered native state in India'."

Copland, Princes of India 1[edit]

  • Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 0521894360. Quote: "(p.7) Of Sir Mirza Ismail, the chief minister successively of Mysore, Jaipur, and Hyderabad, the American ambassador in New Delhi wrote effusively: "I have not ... met anyone else in India ... either Indian or European, who is in his class." <footnote 22: Ambassador to sec. state Washington 13 June 1945, US State Dept. decimal file 845.00/1-1345. In Mirza's case, the hierarchy was reversed: it was the dewan who to all intents and purposes rule Mysore. During the reign of Krisnarajendra Wodeyar, Mirza had absolute control over administration. When his successor came to the throne in 1941 he found a situation in which, in effect, "he was merely presented with a while sheet [of paper] with Sir Mirza Ismail's decisions typed upon it, and asked to sign." Note of interview between viceroy and maharaja of Mysore 6 March 1941, Mirza Ismail Papers, SF1.>
    • Ibid (p. 193) "But others of this younger generation were made of much poorer stuff. 'The Maharaja himself ... is not noted for his intelligence, initiative, or administrative qualities,' observed the American consul in Madras of Mysore's Jaya Chamaraja Wadiyar. (Consul, Madras to Secretary of State, Washington, 11 Jan 1947. US State Department decimal file 845.00/1-1147.)"

Majumdar et al, Advanced History of India 2[edit]

  • Majumdar, R. C.; Raychaudhuri, H. C.; Datta, Kalikinkar (1950), An Advanced History of India, London: Macmillan and Company Limited. 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 1122, 7 maps, 5 coloured maps. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help). Quote: "Mysore was at the disposal of the English. ... The English took for themselves Kanara on the west; Wynaad in the south-east; ... A boy of the old Hindu reigning dynasty of Mysore was given the rest of the kingdom. This new State of Mysore became virtually a dependency of the English. ... A subsidy was to be paid by its ruler which could be increased by the Governor-General in time of war; and the Governor-General was further empowered to take over the entire internal administration of the country if he was dissatisfied on any account with its government. This arrrangement, Wellesley hoped, would enable him "to command the whole resources of the Raja's territory." The Governor-General "acted wisely," in Thornton's opinion, "in not making Mysore ostensibly a British possession. He acted no less wisely in making it substantially so." Because of misgovernment, Lord William Bentinck brought Mysore under the direct administration of the company, and it remained so till 1881, when Lord Ripon restored the royal family to power."

Ramusack, Indian Princes 3[edit]

  • Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0521039894 Quote: "(p68) After the defeat of Mysore in 1799, the British treaty added some Mysorean districts to their expanding Madras Presidency and rewarded their ally Hyderabad with other districts. As noted earlier, the British then returned a truncated by geographically compact Mysore to the Wadiyars, the Hindu dynasty that had been usurped in 1761 by its Muslim military ally, Haider Ali. They emphatically proclaimed the subordinate position of the restored infant ruler, Krishnaraja Wadiyar, by mandating the exclusion of all French influence and the stipulation that Mysore could not communicate with any foreign power without the prior knowledge and sanction of the British. A more onerous sign of Mysore's subordination was the imposition of an annual subsidy of Rs 24.5 lakhs, which represented 57 per cent of the presumed state revenue. This sum came to constitute 50 per cent of the British tribute collected from 198 princely states. Burton Stein has argued that the need to secure revenues to pay this subsidy was one of the factors that led the durbar to reform its tax-farming system. Subsequently, this extension of central control into previously semi-autonomous local areas in Mysore provoked the Nagar insurrection in 1830–31. The British then used their suppression of this disorder to legitimate their direct management of Mysore state for the next fifty years."

Ikegame, "Capital of rajadharma 1[edit]

  • Ikegame, Aya (2007), "The capital of rajadharma: modern space and religion in colonial Mysore", International Journal of Asian Studies, 4 (1): 15–44, doi:10.1017/S1479591407000563 Quote: "... Our examples are drawn from the state of Mysore, where the royal family was actually (re-) installed in power by the British following the defeat of the former ruler Tipu Sultan in 1799. After 1831, Mysore further saw the imposition of direct British control over the state administration. ... it is also possible, more than any other Indian State, to call Mysore a 'child of imperialism' or a 'puppet sovereignty'."

Dharma Kumar, "South India" 2[edit]

  • Kumar, Dharma (1983), "South India", in Kumar, Dharma; Raychaudhuri, Tapan; et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India: c. 1757 - c. 1970, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1078, ISBN 0521228026 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor2-last= (help) Quote: "After the defeat of Tipu and the restoration of the Wadeyars in 1799, the famous Divan Purnaiya attempted to restore the old system of direct revenue collection ... After Purnaiya's death the contracting out of revenue collections increased greatly. During this period, too, the ruler gave lavishly to temples and charities. The general fall in prices contributed to the decline in receipts since a fifth of the revenue were collected in kind. As a result the treasury that Purnaiya had built up was exhausted and the state borrowed heavily from the moneylenders. This financial incompetence was one of the major reasons cited by the British for taking over Mysore in 1831. (p. 226)"

John Keay, India: A History 3[edit]

  • Keay, John (2001), India: A History, Grove Press. Pp. 578, ISBN 0802137970 Quote: "The 'settlement' which followed left the British unchallenged throughout the peninsula. ... (The pared down Mysore) was then awarded to a child of the old Wodeyar dynasty, assisted by a sufficient British presence, and burdened by a sufficient British safeguards, to ensure subordination. (p. 401)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "(p. 416) ... and further military intervention was required in Mysore in 1830 to wrest the government from the perceived incompetence of its restored Wodeyar maharaja and in Coorg in 1834 to end by annexation the ambiguous status of this hilly enclave in the south-west corner of Karnataka. And all this, be it noted, during a twenty-year period of vigorous British retrenchment which is usually accounted one of peace and consolidation."

Nehru, Discovery of India[edit]

  • Nehru, Jawaharlal (1946), The Discovery of India, The John Day Company, OCLC 186312138 Quote: "How did these states come into existence? Some are quite new, created by the British; others were vice-royalties of the Mughal Emperor, and their rulers were permitted to continue as feudatory chiefs by the British; yet others, notably the Maratha chiefs, were defeated by British armies and then made into feudatories. Nearly all these can be traced back to the beginnings of British rule; they have no earlier history. If some of them functioned as independent states for a while that independence was of brief duration, and ended in defeat in war or threat of war. Only a few of the states, and these are chiefly in Rajputana, date back to pre-Mughal times(p. 309-310)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "Hyderabad, the premier state today, was small in area to begin with. Its boundaries were extended twice, after Tipu Sultan's defeat by the British and the Maratha wars. These additions were at the instance of the British, an on the express stipulation that the Nizam was to function in a subordinate capacity to them. ... Kashmir, the next largest state, was sold by the East India Company after the Sikh wars to the great-grandfather of the present ruler. It was subsequently taken under direct British control on a plea of misgovernment. Later the ruler's powers were restored to them. The present state of Mysore was created by the British after Tipu's wars. It was also under direct British rule for a lengthy period. The only truly independent kingdom in India is Nepal ... (p. 310)"

Wolpert, New History of India 2[edit]

  • Wolpert, Stanley (2003), A New History of India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 544, ISBN 0195166787. Quote: "The other half of Mysore, its isolated center, was restored to the child maharaja, whose Hindu family had been deposed by Haidar Ali. The subidiary alliance system, as perfected by Wellesley in his dealings with Mysore and the nizam, proved a most economical and convenient method for the rapid expansion of British power and effectively removed from the commonplace position it had acquired in the hitherto turbulent world of native states' politics. By reducing all Indian princes–one at a time–to virtual impotence, British power gradually brought an almost revolutionary state of peace and tranquillity to most of the subcontinent. (p. 201)."

Judith Brown, Modern India 1[edit]

  • Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 474, ISBN 0198731132 Quote: "The British had never annexed territory for its own sake, but for political, strategic or commercial reasons, or a complex blend of these. Consequently, where an Indian ruler was prepared to enter into an alliance and seemed able to secure his territory, the British welcomed him as a part of a cheap method of indirect rule, involving them in none of the expense of direct administration or the problem of gaining the acquiescence of alien subjects. They undertook to defend such subordinate allies, and treated them with traditional respect and marks of honour. But they also sent a political officer as 'resident' to each princely court to keep a watching brief on events and to tender advice, to control succession and to educate heirs, and to eliminate undesirable influences at court: or at times to remonstrate with the prince if his administration seemed through corruption or inattention to threaten a minimum degree of order and local content. In the early part of the nineteenth century considerable intervention did sometimes occur, as in the case of Mysore. (p.68)"

Vincent Smith, Oxford History of India, III 2[edit]

  • Smith, Vincent A. (1921), India in the British Period: Being Part III of the Oxford History of India, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 2nd edition. Pp. xxiv, 316 (469-784) {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help). Quote: "The administration of the territory reserved for the child Raja was entrusted to Purnia or Purnaiya (Poornea), the capable Brahman minister who had served Tipoo to the end. The arrangements were embodied in the supplementary treaty of Seringapatam, which included the usual articles providing for the payment of a subsidiary force, prohibiting political relations with other states, and excluding Europeans from employment. Articles 4 and 5 went far beyond the standard model by giving the Governor-general power to introduce regulations for the better internal government of the country, or even, if he should think proper, to bring the state under the direct management of the servants of the Company. ... Although the independence of Mysore was avowedly destroyed by orders clothed in the form of a treaty, the mistake of introducing a British code of regulations was not committed. Purnia was allowed to manage his business in his own fashion. ...

Bandyopadhyay, Plassey to Partition 2[edit]

  • Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. Pp. xx, 548., ISBN 8125025960. Quote: "(p.52–53) In 1799 Srirangapatnam, the capital of Mysore, fell to the Company, while Tipu died defending it. Mysore, then once again placed under the former Wodeyar dynasty, was brought under the 'Subsidiary Alliance' system of Lord Wellesley. This meant an end to the independent state of Mysore. Under this system, it would not henceforth enter into any relationship with other European powers; a contingent of Company army would be stationed in Mysore and the provision for its maintenance would come from the treasury. Part of Mysore territory was given to the Nizam who had already accepted a 'Subsidiary Alliance'; and parts of it, such as Wynad, Coimbatore, Canara and Sunda were directly annexed by the Company."

Janaki Nair, "...Public life in Bangalore"[edit]

  • Nair, Janaki (2002), "Past Perfect: Architecture and Public Life in Bangalore", The Journal of Asian Studies, 61 (4): 1205–1236, doi:10.2307/3096440, JSTOR 3096440 Quote: "(p.1212) We may note here that British paramountcy left the princely states of India with a very circumscribed authority and little sovereignty in the strict sense of the term. Indeed, the grandeur of the palaces of the restored Wodeyar princely order was in inverse proportion to the power of the occupants."

Christopher Bayly, Indian Society ... British Empire[edit]

  • Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 0521386500 Quote: "Residents such as Mark Wilks at Mysore and Mark Cubbon in Padukottai became 'step fathers' to royal heirs, assuming the position of close personal adviser which had been occupied by uncles or royal mothers in the independent courts. Through carefully selected tutors, residents began to implant western notions of 'progressive' governments in the minds of their Indian charges, ... (p. 111)"

Sources for some ideological issues related to this topic[edit]

Jaffrelot, Hindu Nationalist Movement in India 1[edit]

  • Jaffrelot, Christophe (1998), The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India, New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 536, ISBN 0231103352 Quote: "As well as pursuing its own mission in the socio-cultural field, the VHP or World Hindu Organization expanded the edifice of Hindu nationalism. In symbiosis with the hard core cadres formed in the RSS – represented here by S. S. Apte – two new networks were established. One was linked to important personalities deriving their power either from landholdings or personal wealth who were attracted to the organisation because of its role in defending Hinduism in accordance with their traditional vocation as patrons of Hindu institutions; thus the Maharajah of Mysore served as president of the VHP before being succeeded by the Maharana of Udaipur in 1968. (p. 202)"
    • Ibid. Quote: "Moreover, except in Mangalore, the RSS-VHP-BJP cadres were not present in force and the latter had to nominate new recruits, often ex-Congressmen such as the son of the last Mahrajah of Mysore, S. N. Wodiyar, who lost in the capital of the former princely state. (p. 443)"

Waghome, Diaspora of the Gods 1[edit]

Christopher Bayly, "British Military-Fiscal ... Indigenous Resistance" 1[edit]

  • Bayly, C. A. (1994), "The British Military-Fiscal State and Indigenous Resistance: India 1750–1820", in Stone, Lawrence (ed.), An Imperial State at War: Britain from 1689 to 1815, London: Routledge. Pp. 372, pp. 322–354, ISBN 0415061423 Quote: "The great figures of anti-British resistance have also been the object of popular veneration, but, here again, it has proved difficult to assimilate them wholeheartedly into a nationalist pedegree. Tipu Sultan was revered as a martyr very soon after his death. Various outbreaks of millenarian revolt were associated with his name, and Muslim preachers invoked his spirit at the time of an outbreak of mutiny in the military station of Vellore in 1806. The myth of Tipu the 'Muslim fanatic' sedulously cultivated by the British had also taken root so that up to the present day there has been an argument between those who see him as a 'secular' (that is, confessionally dispassionate) ruler and the Hindu right which sees him as a Muslim 'communalist'. (p. 348)"

Kate Brittlebank, Tipu Sultan[edit]

Brittlebank, Kate (1997), Tipu Sultan's Search for Legitimacy: Islam and Kingship in a Hindu Domain, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 184, ISBN 0195639774 Quote: “To the Muslims, however, upon his death he immediately became a ... it is perhaps ironic that the aggressive Hinduism of some members of the Indian Community in the 1990s should draw upon an image of Tipu which, as we shall see, was initially constructed by the Subcontinent’s colonisers. (page 2)."

Ashis Nandy, Exiled at Home 1[edit]

Nandy, Ashis, Exiled at Home: Comprising At the Edge of Psychology, The Intimate Enemy and Creating a Nationalityn, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 244, ISBN 0195641779 Quote: "The VHP or World Hindu Organization was formally registered in 1966 with Swami Chinmayananda and S. S. Apte as its working President and General Secretary. Jaichamraj Wodeyar, the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore and at the time Governor of Madras, was its first chairman. The decision to constitute the VHP was, however, taken in 1964, at the conference convened in Bombay at the instance of the then head of the RSS, Golwalkar.(Footnote: The decision to found the VHP during the mid-sixties was no accident. M. K. Gandhi's assassination by a Hindu nationalist in 1948, the political success of Nehru's secular policies, and the post-independence consensus on the style of 'nation-building', all combined to push the aspirations of the RSS leadership for a Hindu state into the background for well over a decade. The failure of their political wing, the Jan Sangh, in the general elections of 1952, 1957, and 1962 marginalized the RSS family even further. But in 1962, Nehru's image was severely damaged by the Indian debacle in the India-China border war. It marked the beginning of the end of the Nehruvian era. In 1963 the idea of founding the RSS was floated.)"

Mankekar, Screening Culture[edit]

Mankekar, Purnima (1999), Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: An Ethnography of Television, Womanhood, and Nation in Postcolonial India, Raleigh, NC: Duke University Press. Pp. 429, ISBN 0822323907 Quote: "Similarly, The Sword of Tipu Sultan was surrounded by controversy regarding whether the protagonist, Tipu Sultan, an eighteenth-century Muslim king, had been "truly secular" or, as Hindu right-wing organizations claimed, a "demolisher of temples. (p. 66)"

Farmer, Mass Media ... Communalism[edit]

Farmer, Victoria L. (1996), "Mass Media: Images, Mobilization, and Communalism", in Ludden, David (ed.), Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pp. 346, pp. 98–118, ISBN 0812215850 Quote: "What was depicted inside the public sphere created by Doordarshan, therefore, included a fuzzy conflation of state authority, Hindu legitimacy, Hindi supremacy, cinema tunes (filmi geet), and commercial promotions. Identifying what is absent from or marginal to this television public sphere is more difficult, but protests against specific Doordarshan presentations do indicate some boundaries. For example, Tipu Sultan—a story about an eighteenth-century Indian Muslim ruler who tormented British armies for decades before being conquered—did not fit easily into Doordarshan's nationalist paradigm, because it depicted Muslim, Tipu, as being modern and progressive, and it was broadcast on Doordarshan only after lengthy arbitration. The result of the court battle was that a disclaimer was aired before each episode to say that the story was fiction, not history, thus marginalizing Tipu Sultan as a historical figure and contributing to a nationalist history in which Muslims somehow become non-Indian."

Burton Stein, "Notes on Peasant Insurgency" 1[edit]

  • Stein, Burton (1985), "Notes on 'Peasant Insurgency' in Colonial Mysore: Event and Process", South Asia Research, 5 (1): 11–27, doi:10.1177/026272808500500102 Quote: "In August of 1830, armed followers of a man calling himself the 'raja of Nagar' attacked but failed to seize a royal fortress in Shimoga district of Nagar in Mysore; shortly after, letters were circulated by the Nagar insurgents calling upon cultivating groups to protest against the government of the Mysore Raja's (Krishnajraja Wodeyar III, r.d. 1799–1831) by convening assembles of protest at government offices, by refusing to pay taxes, and by absconding from their villages. In late September, cultivators in all parts of Nagar were following this course, and by December of 1830 the cultivators of Chittledrug, 100 miles from Nagar, and of Bangalore, 180 miles away, had risen in armed revolt against the Mysore government, refusing to pay taxes, assembling in violent protest, and clashing with arms against state authorities. Early in 1831`, the rebel tide rolled on, with the fortress in Nagar previously attacked now taken from one of the best commanders of the Mysore durbar, and successful defences mounted of other previously seized places. East India Company troops were introduced at this point, and by June 1831 Nagar was taken and the revolt broken, though anti-government opposition was not completely quelled until 1834. By then the administration of Mysore had been taken over by the Company, and direct British administration was to obtain until 1881, during which time the state was ruled by Britons of the Mysore Commission. (para) The Governor-General, Lord William Bentinck, appointed a committee to investigate 'the recent disturbances in Mysore', and the report of that committee in December 1833, is the principal existing source of evidence about the event. Since the uprising of 1830–31 was the ostensible cause for the assumption of direct administration over Mysore by the Company, the government of Krishnaraja III was severely criticised for having permitted 'corrupt' agents of the durbar to perpetrate such oppressions as to drive the Mysore peasantry into rebellion, and thereby to risk what was most vital to the British, a deficiency in revenue collections to meet the heavy subsidy payments due to the Company! As if to expunge retrospectively that criticism of the Mysore royal family, possibly in the service of contemporary Karnataka nationalism (another complexity ignored by Guha) a century and half later, senior academics in Karnataka have discouraged most young scholars from writing about the event. (p. 187–188)"

Quality of sources in Kingdom of Mysore article[edit]

There are a total of 166 footnotes (counting repeats) in the article; of these, 75 belong to (a) lead and the first three sections: History, Economy, and Administration, and the remaining 91 to (b) the remaining two sections: Culture and Architecture. In group (a) 45 footnotes refer to one book: Kamath, 2001 (see below), 11 to Chopra et al, and 7 to Pranesh. None of these books, in my view, would belong to a standard bibliography for this topic. Most of the remaining footnotes in group (a) are to books published anywhere between 50 and a 100 years ago and are described in the sections below. The single exception is a minor reference to a book of Burton Stein. I should add that Group (a), i.e. the lead and the first three sections (History, Economy, and Administration) are my areas of concern for the purposes of this FAR.

Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (2001)[edit]

Kamath, Suryanath U. (2001) [1980], A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present, Bangalore: Jupiter books, LCCN 8095179, OCLC 7796041 {{citation}}: Check |lccn= value (help)

This is a reprint of the 1980 edition. The book has not been reviewed in any journal that I could find in any of the databases.

Chopra, History of South India (2003) 1[edit]

  • Chopra, Ravindran, Subrahmanian, P.N., T.K., N. (2003) [2003], History of South India (Ancient, Medieval and Modern) Part III, New Delhi: Chand publications, ISBN 81-219-0153-7{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This book has not been reviewed in any journal that I could locate. In addition, it is not clear if the 2003 is a reprint of the 1979 edition or a new edition (since the ISBN refers to the 1979 edition).

Pranesh, Musical Composers (2003)[edit]

  • Pranesh, Meera Rajaram (2003) [2003], Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638-1947 A.D.), Bangalore: Vee Emm Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Department of Music, Bangalore University, and published in Bangalore by a local (i.e. not India-wide publisher).

Sastri, History of South India (1955)[edit]

  • Sastri, Nilakanta K.A. (1955), A history of South India from prehistoric times to the fall of Vijayanagar, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-560686-8
    • Review 1: Harrison, Barbara J.; Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta (1956), "Reviewed work(s): A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar. by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri", The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15 (3): 452–455, doi:10.2307/2941900, JSTOR 2941900 Quote:"It will not be long, if scholarship continues, until Nilakanta Sastri's book is outdated, for his is the initial South Indian history. His conclusions, even his facts, may be contested by others as additional data is produced. The history of South India will be written time and again as new interpretations are written. (p.455)"
    • Review 2: Allchin, F. R. (1960), "Reviewed work(s): A History of South India from Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 23 (1): 206, JSTOR 609962 Quote:"The author presents his often unwieldy material in a brisk and balanced manner. The earlier chapters may appear somewhat lacking in integration: thus chapter 3 relies entirely on archaeological material, while 4 (which covers much common ground) turns to mainly literary sources. But this is an oft repeated device which reflects the unsatisfactory nature of the source material. We regret that, though this book is clearly aimed at the informed general reader, matters which are still under debate are not shown in this light."

Aiyangar, Ancient India (1911)[edit]

  • Aiyangar, Krishnaswami S. (2004) [2004], Ancient India: Collected Essays on the Literary and Political History of Southern India, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, ISBN 8120618505 Although this source is listed as being published in 2004, it is in fact a facsimile reprint of a 1911 edition brought out by a publisher that has in recent years had been publishing many older works illegally in India. Notice that the title page is printed in a completely different (and modern) type than the rest of the book. Here is a reference to the original 1911 edition. No acknowledgment is made in the page that this is really a 1911 publication.

Narasimhacharya History of Kannada Literature (1934)[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fowler%26fowler/Mysore_sources&oldid=1151784207"