compare and contrast the administrative techniques of tipu sultan and haider ali as rulers of mysore
Answers
Writing this will give you 8 - 12 marks
Haider Ali
Haider Ali was born a soldier, a capable commander and a good diplomat. He was courageous and faced all dangers during the course of wars along with his soldiers. He was a very good cavalry commander. He realised the superiority of the European war-methods and military training and therefore, took the help of the French in training his army. He also learnt the use of European artillery for the same purpose. Haider Ali was not educated but he was intelligent and possessed a good memory. He could pay attention towards many affairs at one and the same time. He possessed liberal religious views. He honoured Hindu scholars and gave charity to Hindu temples. He was a good diplomat and succeeded several times in dividing his enemies. He was a capable administrator. Of course, being mostly busy in wars, he could not pay much personal attention towards administration and, therefore, gave extensive powers to his subordinates. But he was a good judge of human character and, therefore, selected capable officers, punished the guilty ones and rewarded the loyal ones. He thus, managed his administration well. His subjects were happy under his rule. Haider Ali rose to power under very difficult conditions. The Nizam of Hyderabad did not like the rise of a powerful state near his kingdom. The Marathas could never tolerate the rise of a new Muslim state in south India. The English became his enemies because Haider Ali depended on French alliance from the very beginning of his rise to power. Therefore, each of them attempted to destroy him and many times acted in collaboration with each other against him. Yet, he succeeded in keeping his hold over Mysore. Haider Ali fought two wars against the English. He succeeded against them in the first war while he died of cancer during the course of the second war. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that he failed against the English. However, it can be accepted that he could not build up a strong navy which alone could assure his success against the English. But, he had realised his weakness and, probably, that was one reason why he sought the support of the French. Therefore we regard Haider Ali as a fairly successful ruler. Sarkar and Datt write : “A completely self-made man, who found Mysore weak and divided but raised it to the position of one of the foremost powers of India in the latter half of the eighteenth century.”
Tipu Sultan
Tipu was different from his father. However, there is no unanimity among historians about his character and personality. Both contemporary and modern historians have expressed contradictory opinions regarding the character and abilities of Tipu. The one view is that he was a cruel tyrant and a Muslim fanatic. He was a proud man who expressed his views concerning science, medicine, engineering, trade, military administration etc. while he had command over none. He got Khutbah read not in the name of the Mughal emperor who was the recognized de jure sovereign of India but in his own name. He was fond of changing the names of places and rules of administration without any need. He was not a good judge of human character and could seldom take correct decisions. Colonel Wilks wrote : “Haider was seldom wrong and Tipu was seldom right in his estimate of character.” He was a tyrant and got killed many innocent persons. He was a bigot. His Hindu subjects, therefore, were not happy under his rule. He lacked statesmanship. Instead of seeking support from Indian rulers, he sought the support of rulers of distant places like Turkey, Afghanistan, Persia and France. Therefore he failed.
But, this estimate of Tipu Sultan is not completely acceptable to the other set of historians. They have given a different estimate of the character and achievements of Tipu. Nobody denies that Tipu was well educated. He was well versed in foreign affairs. He sent ambassadors to different countries to seek their support because, probably, he realised the futility of courting friendship of the Nizam and the Marathas as they, in no case, could tolerate the establishment of a strong state in their neighbourhood. He was a courageous, a determined soldier, and a fearless commander. His power was seriously crippled in the third Mysore War, yet, he refused to accept his failure and attempted to regain the lost ground against the English. His determination to fight the English even single-handed was a unique example in the politics of south India.
Make me as Brainiest Answer
also......
Rate me 5 stars and foLloW me.