Imperial Sovereignty in Mughal and British Forms
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4495992 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David Gilmartin (North Carolina State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 80-88 |
| Publication date | 2017-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | History and Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0018-2656 • E-ISSN: 1468-2303 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/hith.12005 |
| OpenAlex | W2594813732 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
Azfar Moin's recent work on millennial sovereignty in Mughal India prompts a consideration of the evolution of sovereignty in modern South Asia more broadly. Although the sovereign principles of the Mughals differed from those of the British Indian empire, which ultimately succeeded it, these empires shared important similarities in their linking of sovereign authority to visions of a cosmos in immanent interaction with human affairs. This article explores these similarities and differences and speculatively considers their implications for both similarities and differences in Mughal and British principles of statecraft. These similarities and differences provide an important backdrop for thinking about the meanings attached to popular sovereignty in modern India as well
Ancient history · Empire · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · Vision · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Anthropology · History · Law · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Religion and Society Interactions
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2021 (2) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |