Mughal hegemony and the emergence of South Asia as a “region” for regional order-building

Abstract

The region known as South Asia today emerged as the locus for order-building only in the early modern period (~1500–1750) as a “region” of Islamicate Asia. I demonstrate this through a cognitive-strategic process based on the interactions between polities and resources within and outside of South Asia. While the practices associated with the primary institutions of warfare, great power management, diplomacy, and political economy did not meaningfully differentiate South Asia from Eurasia in the pre-Mughal millennium, the deep rules associated with them marked South Asia off from Islamicate Asia after the rise of the Mughals. The practices of these four primary institutions were co-constituted with Mughal hegemony. Unlike recent scholarship, I show that the regional level existed before the emergence of a global-scale international system. My analysis has two major theoretical implications. First, I clarify the distinction between hegemonic and imperial orders, and argue that coercive hegemony must be understood as a primary institution of an international/regional society. Since all hegemonies are not alike, I explain why some hegemonic orders are based on coercion while others mix coercion with legitimacy/acquiescence by elucidating the structural differences between Mughal and Ming/Qing hegemonies. Second, I advance the debate on balance of power versus hegemony by providing a historically grounded explanation that demonstrates why the injection of extra-regional resources into early modern South Asia produced hegemony while fostering systemic balancing behavior in Europe (post-1500). My findings raise questions related to regionalization (order-building) without regionalism (shared identities/threat perceptions), while showing that region (trans)formation effects order.

Company-states and the creation of the global international system

“…A burgeoning field of study has profoundly enriched our understanding of non-Western international systems (e.g. Crawford, 1994; Deudney, 1995; Neumann and Wigan, 2018; Pardesi, 2019). Nevertheless, with rare exceptions (e.g.…”

“…Likewise, the turn toward a Global IR has demonstrated the vitality and historical significance of an equally eclectic range of polities beyond Europe besides the sovereign state (e.g. Crawford, 1994; Deudney, 1995; Kang, 2010; Neumann and Wigen, 2018; Pardesi, 2019; Schulz, 2019).…”

Of nomads and khanates: heteronomy and interpolity order in 19th-century Central Asia

“…First, on the basis of the existing literature (e.g. Kwan, 2016; MacKay, 2013; Pardesi, 2018), the paper does acknowledge their presence and their importance in the intra-regional, Central Asian dynamics of the 19th century. As will be made evident in the empirical section of the paper, especially in matters of trade, diplomacy, and suzerainty, the relations between Central Asian polities and the surrounding polities were significant.…”

Is the English School still an underexploited resource? And whither the English School? An introduction

“…The ES is now more engaged with international security, as well as with issues that are of contemporary relevance, such as populism, Brexit, the rise of environmentalism, the digitalisation of international politics, health governance, and the refugee crisis among other topics (Diez 2019;Nantermoz 2020;Wilson and Oliver 2019;Youde 2018;Barrinha and Renard 2017). Second, already consolidated themes continue to be exploited and researched, such as historical international societies, regionalism, the contours of world society, as well as primary and secondary institutions (Falkner and Buzan 2019;Goh 2020;Spandler 2018;Pardesi 2019;Giumelli and Costa Buranelli 2020;Ba 2019). Third, within the ES there seems to be more geographical diversity, in terms of both research and researchers.…”