Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Afghanistan: Trump’s Gift to the Taliban


Afghanistan: Trump’s Gift to the Taliban


The just-announced "agreement in principle" between the US and the Taliban should be called what it is: a Faustian bargain that will lead to still more violence in the region, and perhaps in the West. By abandoning Afghanistan, the Trump administration is repeating one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes of the past few decades.

     After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, thereby eliminating a key nexus of international terrorism. But now, a war-weary US, with a president seeking to cut and run, has reached a tentative deal largely on the Taliban’s terms. The extremist militia that once harbored al-Qaeda and now carries out the world’s deadliest terrorist attacks has secured not just the promise of a US military exit within 18 months, but also a pathway to power in Kabul.

History is repeating itself. The US is once again abandoning war-ravaged Afghanistan, just as it did three decades ago following a successful covert operation by the CIA to force the Soviets out of the country. The US, desperate to end its longest-ever war, appears to have forgotten a key lesson of that earlier abandonment: it turned Afghanistan into a citadel of transnational terrorism, leading to civil war and eventually bloodshed in the West.

The accord reached between the Taliban and the US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, reads like a wholesale capitulation on the part of the Trump administration. In 2014, the US signed a security pact with the Afghan government that granted the Americans access to nine military bases at least until 2024. But the US has now agreed to withdraw all of its forces in exchange for a mere promise from a terrorist militia that it will deny other terrorist networks a foothold on Afghan territory. Never mind that the Islamic State is already operational in Afghanistan and poses a challenge to the Taliban itself.

Though the agreement has been dubbed a “peace” deal, it will almost certainly lead to even more Islamist violence, not least against Afghanistan’s women. The Taliban are determined to re-impose the medieval practices they enforced during their harsh rule from 1996 to 2001. Whatever gains Afghanistan has made in terms of women’s and civil rights may soon be reversed.
Make no mistake: the Taliban are brutal and indiscriminate in their use of violence, and they refuse even to recognize the country’s legitimate government, which will make fleshing out the new “framework” accord exceedingly difficult. A number of key issues must be spelled out unambiguously, including when the ceasefire between the Taliban and US-backed Afghan forces will take effect. And even then, it is highly doubtful that the Taliban will agree to a power-sharing arrangement with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s government.
In fact, having been emboldened by a series of US concessions over the past six years, the Taliban have escalated their terrorist attacks and made significant battlefield gains against Afghan forces. So, if anything, they will see the new agreement as an implicit validation of their impending victory. They know that time is on their side, and that most Americans favor a US exit. That means they will probably play hardball when negotiating the details of a final deal.
In addition to representing a major victory for the Taliban, the accord is also a win for Pakistan, which harbors the militia’s leadership and provides cross-border sanctuaries for its fighters. Just last year, Trump cut US security assistance to Pakistan, tweeting, “   [ PAKISTAN] they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help.”

It is worth remembering that when Trump took office, he promised to reverse the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan by “winning again.” But just two years later, he has apparently decided that it is the extremists who will be winning again.

Far from breaking with former US President Barack Obama’s failed approach, as he promised, Trump has now fulfilled his predecessor’s quest for a deal with the Taliban. Having also recently announced a military drawdown in Syria, Trump has made it clear that the US will readily throw its Kurdish and Afghan allies under the bus in order to extricate itself from foreign entanglements of its own making.

To be sure, America’s Faustian bargain with the Taliban has been in the making for years, which explains why the group is conspicuously absent from the US Department of State’s annual list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, despite having killed more civilians in the past year alone than any other outfit. To facilitate talks with the Taliban, Obama allowed the militia to establish a de facto diplomatic mission in Qatar’s capital, Doha, in 2013. And a year later, he traded five senior Taliban leaders for a US Army sergeant (who was later charged with desertion)
Moreover, to lay the groundwork for a deal, the US war planners have long refrained from targeting the Taliban’s command-and-control base in Pakistan, thereby effectively undercutting its own military mission in Afghanistan. As the top US military commander in Afghanistan admitted in 2017, “It is very difficult to succeed on the battlefield when your enemy enjoys external support and safe haven.” [ read  PAKISTAN ]
The US has come full circle. The Taliban, like al-Qaeda, evolved from the violent jihadist groups that the CIA trained in Pakistan to wage war against the Soviets in the 1980s. After suffering the worst terrorist attack in modern world history, the US turned against the Taliban, driving their leaders out of Afghanistan.
But now, in search of a face-saving exit from the Afghan quagmire, America is implicitly preparing to hand the country back to the same thuggish group that it removed from power 17 years ago. Sadly, once American troops leave Afghan soil, the ability of the US to influence events there, or to prevent a new terrorist attack on the US homeland, will be severely limited.

Thursday, January 17, 2019





JANUARY 16, 2019

On April 16, 1919, the troop transport Ohioan docked at Hoboken, New Jersey. Among the various disembarking members of the American Expeditionary Forces was a small detachment of 21 men of the U.S. Army Signal Corp’s Pigeon Service Company No. 1. Pier-side newspaper reporters flocked around the officer in charge, Capt. John L. Carney, to ask about the exploits of the distinguished hero pigeons the Army chose to bring home. Foremost among the latter was an English-bred black check hen named Cher Ami. As Carney told the story, it was Cher Ami who on October 4, 1918 braved shot and shell to deliver a message from the besieged men of a composite force surrounded in the Charlevaux Ravine of the Argonne Forest, forever known as  “The Lost Battalion.” Cher Ami arrived at her loft with the intact message from the force’s commander, Maj. Charles W. Whittlesey, albeit minus a right leg and with a wound clear across the chest cutting through the breast bone. Cher Ami survived her injuries and Whittlesey’s message provided the exact position of his force back to the regimental and divisional headquarters, information which contributed to the eventual relief of the men.
Cher Ami’s story remains legendary to this day, a testament to the bravery of animals in war. The story, although the records are uncertain if Cher Ami or another pigeon delivered Whittlesey’s message, often obscures the purposes underlying the use of homing pigeons by the U.S. Army. From 1917 to 1957, the Signal Corps maintained pigeon breeding and training facilities, and birds saw service in World War II and Korea. When the pigeon service disbanded in 1957, the Army contended that advances in electronic communications rendered the peacetime maintenance of pigeon breeding and training facilities unnecessary. The remaining pigeons were sold at auction, with a select few being donated to zoos around the nation. Today the use of homing pigeons is viewed as novelty, a quirky vignette of the early 20th century battlefield.
Over 60 years later, the military homing pigeon warrants reexamination. The electromagnetic spectrum’s influence extends throughout the systems and operations of the battlespace into the fabric of civil society. Offensive and defensive operations in the cyber space realm, combined with kinetic strikes on air, land, sea, or space-based infrastructure, could potentially disable or severely damage entire communication or power grids. Adversaries with electronic warfare dominance would then be positioned to control the battlespace and restrict the options presented to American or allied commanders. Reflecting on electronic warfare’s potential, some communications between the front lines of the battlefield and rear echelon command and control elements may need to rest on the legs or back of a feathered messenger when a human runner or more visible vehicle or aircraft may prove too vulnerable to interception or destruction.
In an era where military innovation may conjure up thoughts about futuristic weapons and high-dollar research, development, and acquisition, perhaps consider an innovation redux: the homing pigeon. A brief examination of the American military experience with homing pigeons offers insights into both the utility of the birds and their advantages in the modern electronic warfare battlespace.
Pigeon Primer
Homing pigeons are relatives of the rock dove, Columba livia, which frequently conduct seize and hold or tactical air strikes on urban residents and residences worldwide. Homing pigeons, however, are more akin to race horses, carefully bred and nursed to maximize speed, endurance, and navigational prowess. As with race horses, loft owners do not shy from spending $1,000s to 100s of $1,000s for champion pigeons in hopes of breeding future generations of race success. The exact science is unclear, but theories postulate as to how the pigeons navigate, returning to their home lofts either through visual, magnetorepton, or olfactory means. The distances flown by homing pigeons can vary from 10s to over a 1,000 miles over unfamiliar terrain or open water, at speeds from 60 to over 90 miles per hour. A pigeon can sustain grievous injury in flight and continue on its journey home, as was the case with Cher Ami and other military pigeons in both world wars.
The use of pigeons for military purposes extends back centuries, but World War I introduced widespread battlefield use of the birds by both the Central and Entente powers Previously, pigeons saw use in the 1800s primarily in journalism, with military use only rekindled in the Franco-Prussian War during the Siege of Paris. Following American entry into World War I, French and British officials championed the value of homing pigeons after the experiences at Verdun and the Somme. In trench warfare, where artillery bombardments turned carefully laid telephone lines into confetti, pigeons proved the only reliable means of communication between the front trenches and the artillery and command elements in the rear. Neither bombardment, dust, smoke, poison gas, or fog grounded the feathered messengers. For the British at the Somme, pigeon liaison was “always . . . able to operate regularly. In many cases it was the only one which was able to resist the weather and the means of destruction of the enemy.” Thereafter, the Army Signal Corps wasted little time in establishing a pigeon service in July 1917, utilizing Allied experience with a proven technology to address communication issues. Work continued to refine and improve wired and wireless communication systems for the battlefield, but off-the-shelf pigeon technology ensured the men of the American Expeditionary Forces would not be caught ill-prepared in a communication blackout when electronic means or runners fell to enemy fire.
Pigeons demonstrated reliability as messengers and the ability for usage with a variety of forces. In World War I, the Signal Corps reported an overall message delivery rate of 95 percent.  In 1944, the Army reported pigeon-delivered tactical message rates at 99 percent. After success with combat operations in Europe in World War I, the U.S. military employed pigeons in the Pacific, Europe, and North Africa in the second war. Messages evolved from small pieces of rice paper to sections of map grids to eventual exposed photographic film. In World War I, pigeons served in the Tank Corps, Air Service, and with naval aviation. In World War II, pigeons served everywhere with everyone. They took part in Operation Overlord with paratroopers in the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, and were carried up the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc with the Rangers in special containers. Other birds parachuted into Burma with members of the Office of Strategic Services, carrying messages behind enemy lines, while others found a home inside the confines of Sherman tanks. Thousands of birds found work aboard the heavy bombers of the Army Air Forces in raids over Europe. In the Italian campaign, pigeons proved invaluable in transmitting messages over rugged terrain to coordinate fire missions for aircraft or artillery. Much as pigeons can adapt and thrive in practically every environ on the planet, the same held true for military employment of the birds.
Beginning in 1917 and continuing with World War II, the Army’s pigeon force drew from the civilian racing pigeon community. In 1917, the American Expeditionary Forces’ Pigeon Service tapped two founding members of the American Racing Pigeon Union — John L. Carney and David C. Buscall — to receive direct commissions as first lieutenants to build up the pigeon force from scratch. Both men, coincidentally current or former non-commissioned officers in the Army and Marine Corps, respectively, brought with them the highly specialized knowledge and background required to acquire, train, breed, and distribute pigeons to forces in the field. Through their civilian contacts, the men acquired via purchase or donation large numbers of quality racing pigeons and helped recruit the non-commissioned officers necessary to staff and train pigeon handlers in Northern France. The necessity to build and field pigeons for the American Expeditionary Forces further demonstrated how the specialized nature of pigeon work put a premium on civilian pigeon knowledge within the ranks.
Postwar, the Army continued the pattern of working closely with civilian organizations, such as the American Racing Pigeon Union, in recruiting men from the pigeon racing community. When the Army needed to rapidly expand the pigeon force in World War II, the civilian community responded with donations of tens of thousands of birds and even World War I “retread” volunteers for the officer and enlisted ranks to tend and train the pigeons. Never a large or overly expensive force, Army “pigeoneers” ensured communication continuity for the fighting men at the front, albeit always as a secondary or emergency method of transmission. Regardless of its size or lack of panache, the men of the Pigeon Service represent a solid example of a civil-military partnership able to respond to a wartime necessity in an orderly, efficient fashion.
Pigeons Presently?
For the contemporary challenges of cyberwarfare and electronic warfare, Army Futures Command should examine the record of the Army’s disbanded Pigeon Service. From the experience of the two world wars, the pigeon effort took off through partnership with civilian organizations. Akin to the Cyber Direct Commissioning Program, by recruiting and providing advanced grade to pigeon specialists for their civilian training, the Army staffed the officer and non-commissioned ranks with knowledge and skills essential for rapid expansion at minimum cost in training and the associated infrastructure therein. Furthermore, the connections of these citizen-soldiers further provided entre into acquiring quality homing pigeon stock from the civilian community for the Army with minimal delay. The ability to then “surge” a pigeon force became possible, in part to the small peacetime Pigeon Service then in existence.
In the arena of technology, pigeons are decidedly mundane messengers yet proven and reliable. The use of off-the-shelf technology at a time of need in 1917 served the Army faithfully for half a century. A similar acquisition success is found in the Army’s “Big Five” acquisition. Col. David C. Trybula concludes that by incorporating mature or maturing technologies into the systems, the results proved “extraordinary and perhaps revolutionary” when compared to the systems being replaced. While not arguing that homing pigeon technology can replace the advanced communications technologies of today, there are advantages to contemplate in the electronic warfare environment.
As the fighting in the Donbass region of Ukraine and in Syria have demonstrated, electromagnetic security can be a matter of life and death, of light and darkness. Through electronic warfare methods, Russian-backed separatist forces have caused an array of difficulties for Ukrainian forces. In the current fighting in Syria, American forces have likewise come face to face with Russian electronic warfare technologies and tactics, an electronic warfare battlefield-turned-proving ground for future conflicts. Monitoring, jamming, or infiltrating electronic-based systems to enable or deny kinetic effects places a premium on protecting signal communication.
Pigeons are certainly no substitute for drones, but they provide a low-visibility option to relay information. Considering the storage capacity of microSD memory cards, a pigeon’s organic characteristics provide front line forces a relatively clandestine mean to transport gigabytes of video, voice, or still imagery and documentation over considerable distance with zero electromagnetic emissions or obvious detectability to radar. These decidedly low-technology options prove difficult to detect and track. Pigeons cannot talk under interrogation, although they are not entirely immune to being held under suspicion of espionage. Within an urban environment, a pigeon has even greater potential to blend into the local avian population, further compounding detection. The latter presumably factored into the use of pigeons to clandestinely smuggle drugs, defeating even the most sophisticated of walls.
Furthermore, pigeons provide an asymmetric tool available for hybrid warfare purposes. The low-cost, low-technology use of pigeons to transport information or potentially small amounts of chemical agents — or even coded cyber weapons — makes them a quick and easy asset to distribute among a civilian population for wider military purposes. During World War II, the British Confidential Pigeon Service of MI14(d) dropped baskets of homing pigeons behind enemy lines for espionage purposes, gathering invaluable military intelligence in the process from a wide array of French, Dutch, and Belgian civilians. Even as a one-way means of communication, the pigeon proved an invaluable military asset.
The ideas herein are not claimed to be unique or refined. Military pigeon forces are all but extinct, but yet the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and French Ground Army maintain small pigeon forces in the event that electronic warfare should disrupt or disable military communications. As for the American military, the only traces of its pigeon force can be found in artifacts or photographs in museums around the country. The use of military homing pigeons in the 21st century in similar or more creative ways is limited only by initiative and imagination — a statement true for most any battlefield innovation and the disrupting potential of electronic warfare.

Dr. Frank Blazich is a curator of modern military history at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. This article does not represent the views of his employer.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Syria’s Kurds: The new frontline in confronting Iran and Turkey


  Syria’s Kurds
The new frontline in confronting Iran andTurkey
                   James M. Dorsey

US President Donald J. Trump’s threat to devastate Turkey’s economy if Turkish troops attack Syrian Kurds allied with the United States in the wake of the announced withdrawal of American forces potentially serves his broader goal of letting regional forces fight for common goals like countering Iranian influence in Syria.

Mr. Trump’s threat coupled with a call on Turkey to create a 26-kilometre buffer zone to protect Turkey from a perceived Kurdish threat was designed to pre-empt a Turkish strike against the People’s Protection Units (YPG) that Ankara asserts is part of the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a Turkish group that has waged a low-intensity war in predominantly Kurdish south-eastern Turkey for more than three decades.

Like Turkey, the United States and Europe have designated the PKK as a terrorist organization.`

Turkey has been marshalling forces for an attack on the YPG since Mr. Trump’s announced withdrawal of US forces. It would be the third offensive against Syrian Kurds in recent years.

In a sign of strained relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkish media with close ties to the government have been reporting long before the October 2 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul that Saudi Arabia is funding the YPG. There is no independent confirmation of the Turkish allegations.

Yeni Safak reported in 2017, days after the Gulf crisis erupted pitting a Saudi-UAE-Egyptian alliance against Qatar, which is supported by Turkey, that US, Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian officials had met with the PKK as well as the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which Turkey says is the Syrian political wing of the PKK, to discuss the future of Syrian oil once the Islamic State had been defeated.

Turkey’s semi-official Anadolu Agency reported last May that Saudi and YPG officials had met to discuss cooperation. Saudi Arabia promised to pay Kurdish fighters that joined an Arab-backed force US$ 200 a month, Anadolu said. Saudi Arabia allegedly sent aid to the YPG on trucks that travelled through Iraq to enter Syria.

In August last year, Saudi Arabia announced that it had transferred US$ 100 million to the United States that was earmarked for agriculture, education, roadworks, rubble removal and water service in areas of north-eastern Syria that are controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces of which the YPG is a significant part.

Saudi Arabia said the payment, announced on the day that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in the kingdom, was intended to fund stabilization of areas liberated from control by the Islamic State.

“The delivery of $100 million is considered as the latest move by Saudi Arabia in support of the partnership between the U.S. and YPG. Using the fight against Daesh as a pretext, the U.S. has been cooperating with the YPG in Syria and providing arms support to the group. After Daesh was cleared from the region with the help of the U.S., the YPG tightened its grip on Syrian soil taking advantage of the power vacuum in the war-torn country,” Daily Sabah said referring to the Islamic State by one of its Arabic acronyms.

Saudi Arabia has refrained from including the YPG and the PKK on its extensive list of terrorist organizations even though then foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir described in 2017 the Turkish organization as a “terror group.”

This week’s Trump threat and his earlier vow to stand by the Kurds despite the troop withdrawal gives Saudi Arabia and other Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt political cover to support the Kurds as a force against Iran’s presence in Syria.

It also allows the kingdom and the UAE to attempt to thwart Turkish attempts to increase its regional influence. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt have insisted that Turkey must withdraw its troops from Qatar as one of the conditions for the lifting of the 18-month old diplomatic and economic boycott of the Gulf state.

The UAE, determined to squash any expression of political Islam, has long led the autocratic Arab charge against Turkey because of its opposition to the 2013 military coup in Egypt that toppled Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and the country’s first and only democratically elected president; Turkey’s close relations with Iran and Turkish support for Qatar and Islamist forces in Libya.

Saudi Arabia the UAE and Egypt support General Khalifa Haftar, who commands anti-Islamist forces in eastern Libya while Turkey alongside Qatar and Sudan supports the Islamists.

Libyan and Saudi media reported that authorities had repeatedly intercepted Turkish arms shipments destined for Islamists, including one this month and another last month. Turkey has denied the allegations.

“Simply put, as Qatar has become the go-to financier of the Muslim Brotherhood and its more radical offshoot groups around the globe, Turkey has become their armorer,” said Turkey scholar Michael Rubin.

Ironically, the fact that various Arab states, including the UAE and Bahrain, recently reopened their embassies in Damascus with tacit Saudi approval after having supported forces aligned against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for much of the civil war, like Mr. Trump’s threat to devastate the Turkish economy, makes Gulf support for the Kurds more feasible.

Seemingly left in the cold by the US president’s announced withdrawal of American forces, the YPG has sought to forge relations with the Assad regime. In response, Syria has massed troops near the town of Manbij, expected to be the flashpoint of a Turkish offensive.

Commenting on last year’s two-month long Turkish campaign that removed Kurdish forces from the Syrian town of Afrin and Turkish efforts since to stabilize the region, Gulf scholar Giorgio Cafiero noted that “for the UAE, Afrin represents a frontline in the struggle against Turkish expansionism with respect to the Arab world.”

The same could be said from a Saudi and UAE perspective for Manbij not only with regard to Turkey but also Iran’s presence in Syria. Frontlines and tactics may be shifting, US and Gulf geopolitical goals have not.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa and just published China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom

MR MODI & THE BEAR ; The famous 'bear hug' of PM Narendra Modi


The famous 'bear hug' of PM Narendra Modi



Tuesday, January 8, 2019

List of Indian monarchs


            List of Indian Monarchs

The following list of Indian monarchs is one of several lists of incumbents.
Early mythical and later documented rulers and dynasties who are deemed to have ruled a portion of the Indian subcontinent are included in this list.

Magadha dynasties

This list includes the legendary kings of Magadha.

Brihadratha dynasty

  • Brihadratha
  • Jarasandha
  • Sahadeva
  • Somapi
  • Srutasravas
  • Ayutayus
  • Niramitra
  • Sukshatra
  • Benipal
  • Brihatkarman
  • Senajit
  • Srutanjaya
  • Vipra
  • Suchi
  • Kshemya
  • Subrata
  • Dharma
  • Susuma
  • Dridhasena
  • Sumati
  • Subhala
  • Sunita
  • Satyajit
  • Biswajit
  • Ripunjaya

Pradyota dynasty (c. 779 BCE–544 BCE)

  • Pradyota
  • Palaka
  • Visakhayupa
  • Ajaka
  • Varttivarddhana

Haryanka dynasty (c. 544 BCE–413 BCE)

  • Bimbisara (558–491 BCE), founder of the first Magadhan empire
  • Ajatashatru (491–461 BCE)
  • Udayin
  • Anirudha
  • Munda
  • Darshaka (from 461 BCE)
  • Nāgadāsaka (last ruler of the Haryanka dynasty)

Shishunaga dynasty (c. 413 BCE–345 BCE)

  • Shishunaga (412–395 BCE), established the Magadha Kingdom
  • Kakavarna
  • Kshemadharman
  • Kshatraujas
  • Nandivardhana
  • Mahanandin (until 345 BCE), his empire was inherited by his illegitimate son Mahapadma Nanda

Nanda dynasty (c. 345 BCE–321 BCE)

  • Mahapadma Nanda (from 345 BCE), son of Mahanandin, founded the Nanda Empire after inheriting Mahanandin's empire
  • Pandhukananda
  • Panghupatinanda
  • Bhutapalananda
  • Rashtrapalananada
  • Govishanakananda
  • Dashasidkhakananda
  • Kaivartananda
  • Dhana Nanda (AgrammesXandrammes) (until 321 BCE), lost his empire to Chandragupta Maurya after being defeated by him.
  • Karvinatha Nand (Illegitimate son of Mahapadna Nanda)

Maurya dynasty (c. 321 BCE–184 BCE)

Main article: Maurya Empire

Shunga dynasty (c. 185 BCE–73 BCE)

  • Pushyamitra Shunga (185–149 BCE), founded the dynasty after assassinating Brhadratha
  • Agnimitra (149–141 BCE), son and successor of Pushyamitra
  • Vasujyeshtha (141–131 BCE)
  • Vasumitra (131–124 BCE)
  • Andhraka (124–122 BCE)
  • Pulindaka (122–119 BCE)
  • Ghosha
  • Vajramitra
  • Bhagabhadra (c. 110 BCE), mentioned by the Puranas
  • Devabhuti (83–73 BCE), the last Shunga king

Kanva dynasty (c. 73 BCE–26 BCE)

  • Vasudeva (c. 75 BCE–66 BCE)
  • Bhumimitra (c. 66 – c. 52 BCE)
  • Narayana (c. 52 – c. 40 BCE)
  • Susarman (c. 40 – c. 26 BCE)

Western Kshatrapas (c. 35–405 CE)

Gupta dynasty (c. 240–550 CE)

Ancient southern dynasties

Pandyan dynasty (c. 550 BCE–1345 CE)

Central Pandyas
  • Kadunkoen (c. 550–450 BCE)
  • Pandion (c. 50 BCE – 50 CE), known as Pandion to Greeks and Romans
Early Pandyas
  • Nedunj Cheliyan I (Aariyap Padai Kadantha Nedunj Cheliyan )
  • Pudappandiyan
  • Mudukudumi Paruvaludhi
  • Nedunj Cheliyan II (Pasumpun Pandiyan)
  • Nan Maran
  • Nedunj Cheliyan III (Talaiyaalanganathu Seruvendra Nedunj Cheliyan )
  • Maran Valudi
  • Musiri Mutriya Cheliyan
  • Ukkirap Peruvaluthi
First Empire
  • Kadungon (c. 600–700 CE), revived the dynasty
  • Maravarman Avani Culamani (590–620 CE)
  • Cezhiyan Cendan (620–640 CE)
  • Arikesari Maravarman Nindraseer Nedumaaran (640–674 CE)
  • Kochadaiyan Ranadhiran (675–730 CE)
  • Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman Rajasinga (730–765 CE)
  • Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan (765–790 CE)
  • Rasasingan II (790–800 CE)
  • Varagunan I (800–830 CE)
  • Sirmara Srivallabha (830–862 CE)
  • Varaguna II (862–880 CE)
  • Parantaka Viranarayana (862–905 CE)
  • Rajasima Pandian II (905–920 CE)
Pandyan Revival
  • Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan (1251–1268), revived Pandyan glory, considered one of the greatest conquerors of Southern India
  • Maravarman Sundara Pandyan
  • Maravarman Kulasekaran I (1268–1308)
  • Sundara Pandya (1308–1311), son of Maravarman Kulasekaran, fought with his brother Vira Pandya over the throne
  • Vira Pandya (1308–1311), son of Maravarman Kulasekaran, fought with his brother of Sundara Pandya over the throne, Madurai was conquered by the Khilji dynasty
Pandalam Dynasty (c. 1200)

Chera dynasty (c. 300 BCE–1124 CE)

Note that years are still highly disputed among the scholars, the given is only a version.
Ancient Chera kings
  1. Udiyancheralatan
  2. Antuvancheral
  3. Imayavaramban Nedun-Cheralatan (56–115 CE)
  4. Cheran Chenkutuvan (from 115)
  5. Palyanai Sel-Kelu Kuttuvan (115–130)
  6. Poraiyan Kadungo (from 115)
  7. Kalankai-Kanni Narmudi Cheral (115–140)
  8. Vel-Kelu Kuttuvan (130–185)
  9. Selvak-Kadungo (131–155)
  10. Adukotpattu Cheralatan (140–178)
  11. Kuttuvan Irumporai (178–185)
  12. Tagadur Erinda Perumcheral(185–201)
  13. Yanaikat-sey Mantaran Cheral(201–241)
  14. Ilamcheral Irumporai (241–257)
  15. Perumkadungo (257–287)
  16. Ilamkadungo (287–317)
  17. Kanaikal Irumporai (367–397)
Kulashekhara dynasty (1020–1314 CE)
  1. Kulashekhara Varman (800–820 CE), also called Kulashekhara Alwar
  2. Rajashekhara Varman (820–844 CE), also called Cheraman Perumal
  3. Sthanu ravi Varman (844–885 CE), contemporary of Aditya Chola
  4. Rama Varma Kulashekhara (885–917 CE)
  5. Goda Ravi Varma (917–944 CE)
  6. Indu Kotha Varma (944–962 CE)
  7. Bhaskara Ravi Varman I (962–1019 CE)
  8. Bhaskara Ravi Varman II (1019–1021 CE)
  9. Vira Kerala (1021–1028 CE)
  10. Rajasimha (1028–1043 CE)
  11. Bhaskara Ravi Varman III (1043–1082 CE)
  12. Rama Varman Kulashekhara(1090–1122 CE), also called Cheraman Perumal
  13. Ravi Varman Kulashekhara (c. 1250 – 1314), last of the Cheras

Chola dynasty (c. 300 BCE–1279 CE)

Imperial Cholas (848–1279 CE)

Foreign emperors in north-western India

These empires were vast, centered in Persia or the Mediterranean; their satrapies (provinces) in India were at their outskirts.

Satavahana dynasty (c. 271 BCE–220 CE)

The beginning of the Satavahana rule is dated variously from 271 BCE to 30 BCE.[1] Satavahanas dominated the Deccan region from 1st century BCE to 3rd century CE.[2] It lasted till the early 3rd century CE. The following Satavahana kings are historically attested by epigraphic records, although the Puranas name several more kings (see Satavahana dynasty#List of rulers):

Vakataka dynasty (c. 250 – c. 500 CE)

  • Vindhyasakti (250–270)
  • Pravarasena I (270–330)

The Pravarapura-Nandivardhana branch

  • Rudrasena I (330–355)
  • Prithvisena I (355–380)
  • Rudrasena II (380–385)
  • Divakarasena (385–400)
  • Prabhavatigupta (fem.), Regent (385–405)
  • Damodarasena (Pravarasena II) (400–440)
  • Narendrasena (440–460)
  • Prithvishena II (460–480)

The Vatsagulma branch

  • Sarvasena (330–355)
  • Vindhyasena (Vindhyashakti II) (355–442)
  • Pravarasena II (400–415)
  • Unknown (415–450)
  • Devasena (450–475)
  • Harishena (475–500)

Indo-Scythian rulers (c. 90 BCE – 45 CE)

Northwestern India (c. 90 BCE – 10 CE)

Mathura area (c. 20 BCE – 20 CE)

  • Hagamasha (satrap)
  • Hagana (satrap)
  • Rajuvula (Great Satrap) (c. 10 CE)
  • Sodasa, son of Rajuvula

Apracharaja rulers (12 BCE – 45 CE)

  • Vijayamitra (12 BCE – 15 CE)
  • Itravasu (c. 20 CE)
  • Aspavarma (15–45 CE)

Minor local rulers

  • Bhadrayasha Niggas
  • Mamvadi
  • Arsakes

Indo-Parthian rulers (c. 21–100 CE)

Kushana dynasty (80–225)

Pallava dynasty (275–882)

Early Pallavas (275–355)

  • Simha Varman I (275–300 or 315–345)
  • Skanda Varman I (345–355)

Middle Pallavas (355–537)

  • Visnugopa (350–355)
  • Kumaravisnu I (355–370)
  • Skanda Varman II 370–385)
  • Vira Varman (385–400)
  • Skanda Varman III (400–438)
  • Simha Varman II (438–460)
  • Skanda Varman IV (460–480)
  • Nandi Varman I (480–500)
  • Kumaravisnu II (c. 500–510)
  • Buddha Varman (c. 510–520)
  • Kumaravisnu III (c. 520–530)
  • Simha Varman III (c. 530–537)

Later Pallavas (537–882)

Kadambas of Banavasi (345–525 CE)

  • Mayura Sharma (Varma) (345–365)
  • Kangavarma (365–390)
  • Bagitarha (390–415)
  • Raghu (415–435)
  • Kakusthavarma (435–455)
  • Santivarma (455–460)
  • Mrigeshavarma (460–480)
  • Shivamandhativarma (480–485)
  • Ravivarma (485–519)
  • Harivarma (519–525)

Western Ganga dynasty of Talakad (350–1024 CE)

  • Konganivarma Madhava (350–370)
  • Madhava II (370–390)
  • Harivarman (390–410)
  • Vishnugopa (410–430)
  • Tadangala Madhava (430–466)
  • Avinita (466–495)
  • Durvinita (495–535)
  • Mushkara (535–585)
  • Srivikrama (585–635)
  • Bhuvikarma (635–679)
  • Shivamara I (679–725)
  • Sripurusha (725–788)
  • Shivamara II (788–816)
  • Rajamalla I (817–853)
  • Nitimarga Ereganga (853–869)
  • Rajamalla II (870–907)
  • Ereyappa Nitimarga II (907–919)
  • Narasimhadeva (919–925)
  • Rajamalla III (925–935)
  • Butuga II (935–960)
  • Takkolam in (949)
  • Maruladeva (960–963)
  • Marasimha III (963–974)
  • Rajamalla IV (974–985)
  • Rakkasa Ganga (985–1024)

Maitrakas of Vallabhi (470–776 CE)

  • Bhatarka (c. 470–c. 492)
  • Dharasena I (c. 493–c. 499)
  • Dronasinha (also known as Maharaja) (c. 500–c. 520)
  • Dhruvasena I (c. 520–c. 550)
  • Dharapatta (c. 550–c. 556)
  • Guhasena (c. 556–c. 570)
  • Dharasena II (c. 570–c. 595)
  • Siladitya I (also known as Dharmaditya) (c. 595–c. 615)
  • Kharagraha I (c. 615–c. 626)
  • Dharasena III (c. 626–c. 640)
  • Dhruvasena II (also known as Baladitya) (c. 640–c. 644)
  • Chkravarti king Dharasena IV (also known as Param Bhatarka, Maharajadhiraja, Parameshwara) (c. 644–c. 651)
  • Dhruvasena III (c. 651–c. 656)
  • Kharagraha II (c. 656–c. 662)
  • Siladitya II (c. 662–?)
  • Siladitya III
  • Siladitya IV
  • Siladitya V
  • Siladitya VI
  • Siladitya VII (c. 766–c. 776)[3]

Chalukya dynasty (543–1156)

Chalukyas of Badami (543–757)

Chalukyas of Kalyani (973–1156)

Shashanka dynasty (600–626)

  • Shashanka (600–625), first recorded independent king of Bengal, created the first unified political entity in Bengal
  • Manava (625–626), ruled for 8 months before being conquered by Harshavardana and Bhaskarvarmana

Harsha dynasty (606–647)

  • Harsha Vardhana (606–647), unified Northern India and ruled it for over 40 years, he was the last non-Muslim emperor to rule a unified Northern India

Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty (650–1036 CE)

Rashtrakutas of Manyaketha (735–982)

Pala dynasty (c. 750–1174)

Most of the Pala inscriptions mention only the regnal year as the date of issue, without any well-known calendar era. Because of this, the chronology of the Pala kings is hard to determine.[4] Based on their different interpretations of the various epigraphs and historical records, different historians estimate the Pala chronology as follows:[5]
RC Majumdar(1971)[6]AM Chowdhury (1967)[7]BP Sinha (1977)[8]DC Sircar (1975–76)[9]D. K. Ganguly (1994)[4]
Gopala I750–770756–781755–783750–775750-774
Devapala810–c. 850821–861820–860812–850806-845
MahendrapalaNA (Mahendrapala's existence was conclusively established through a copper-plate charter discovered later.)845-860
Shurapala I850–853861–866860–865850–858860-872
Vigrahapala I858–60872-873
Gopala II940–957952–969952–967952–972959-976
Vigrahapala II960–c. 986969–995967–980972–977976-977
Mahipala I988–c. 1036995–1043980–1035977–1027977-1027
Vigrahapala III1054–10721058–10751050–10761043–10701043–1070
Mahipala II1072–10751075–10801076–1078/91070–10711070-1071
Gopala III1140–11441129–11431136–11441128–11431128–1143
Govindapala1155–1159NA1162–1176 or 1158–11621161–11651161–1165
  • Earlier historians believed that Vigrahapala I and Shurapala I were the two names of the same person. Now, it is known that these two were cousins; they either ruled simultaneously (perhaps over different territories) or in rapid succession.
  • AM Chowdhury rejects Govindapala and his successor Palapala as the members of the imperial Pala dynasty.
  • According to BP Sinha, the Gaya inscription can be read as either the "14th year of Govindapala's reign" or "14th year after Govindapala's reign". Thus, two sets of dates are possible.

Paramara dynasty of Malwa (9th century to c. 1305)

The Paramara rulers mentioned in the various inscriptions and literary sources include:[10]

Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri (850–1334 CE)

  • Dridhaprahara
  • Seunachandra (850–874)
  • Dhadiyappa (874–900)
  • Bhillama I (900–925)
  • Vadugi (Vaddiga) (950–974)
  • Dhadiyappa II (974–975)
  • Bhillama II (975–1005)
  • Vesugi I (1005–1020)
  • Bhillama III (1020–1055)
  • Vesugi II (1055–1068)
  • Bhillama III (1068)
  • Seunachandra II (1068–1085)
  • Airamadeva (1085–1115)
  • Singhana I (1115–1145)
  • Mallugi I (1145–1150)
  • Amaragangeyya (1150–1160)
  • Govindaraja (1160)
  • Amara Mallugi II (1160–1165)
  • Kaliya Ballala (1165–1173)
  • Bhillama V (1173–1192), proclaimed independence from Kalyani Chalukya
  • Jaitugi I (1192–1200)
  • Singhana II (1200–1247)
  • Kannara (1247–1261)
  • Mahadeva (1261–1271)
  • Amana (1271)
  • Ramachandra (1271–1312)
  • Singhana III (1312–1313)
  • Harapaladeva (1313–1318)
  • Mallugi III (1318–1334)

Brahmin Shahi dynasty (c. 890–964)

  • Lalliya (c. 890–895)
  • Kamaluka (895–921)
  • Bhima (921–964), son of Kamaluka

Shahi dynasty (964–1026 CE)

  • Jayapala (964–1001)
  • Anandapala (1001–1011)
  • Trilochanpala (1011–1022)
  • Bhímapála (1022–1026)

Hoysala dynasty (1000–1346)

  • Nripa Kama (1000–1045)
  • Vinayaditya I (1045–1098)
  • Ereyanga (1098–1100)
  • Ballala (1100–1108)
  • Vishnuvardhana (1108–1142)
  • Narasimha I (1142–1173), proclaimed independence from Kalyani Chalukya
  • Ballala II (1173–1220)
  • Narasimha II (1220–1235)
  • Vira Someshwara (1235–1253)
  • Narasimha III and Ramanatha (1253–1295)
  • Ballala III (1295–1342)

Sena dynasty rule over Bengal (1070–1230 CE)

  • Hemanta Sen (1070–1096)
  • Vijay Sen (1096–1159)
  • Ballal Sen (1159–1179)
  • Lakshman Sen (1179–1206)
  • Vishwarup Sen (1206–1225)
  • Keshab Sen (1225–1230)

Eastern Ganga dynasty (1078–1434)

  • Anantavarman Chodaganga (1078–1147)
  • Ananga Bhima Deva II (1170–1198)
  • Anangabhima Deva III (1211–1238)
  • Narasimha Deva I (1238–1264)
  • Bhanu Deva I (1264–1279)
  • Narasimha Deva II (1279–1306)
  • Bhanu Deva II (1306–1328)
  • Narasimha Deva III (1328–1352)
  • Bhanu Deva III (1352–1378)
  • Narasimha Deva IV (1378–1414)
  • Bhanu Deva IV (1414–1434)

Kakatiya dynasty (1083–1323 CE)

  • Beta I (1000–1030)
  • Prola I (1030–1075)
  • Beta II (1075–1110)
  • Prola II (1110–1158)
  • Prataparudra I/Rudradeva I (1158–1195)
  • Mahadeva (1195–1198). Brother of King Rudradeva
  • Ganapathi deva (1199–1261)
  • Rudrama devi (1262–1296)
  • Prataparudra II/ Rudradeva II (1296–1323). Grandson of Queen Rudramba

Kalachuris of Kalyani (Southern) dynasty (1130–1184)

  • Bijjala II (1130–1167), proclaimed independence from Kalyani Chalukyas in 1162 CE
  • Sovideva (1168–1176)
  • Mallugi → overthrown by his brother Sankama
  • Sankama (1176–1180)
  • Ahavamalla (1180–83)
  • Singhana (1183–84)

Sutiya dynasty ruled over eastern Assam (1187–1524)

  • Birpal (1187–1224)
  • Ratnadhwajpal (1224–1250)
  • Vijayadhwajpal (1250–1278)
  • Vikramadhwajpal (1278–1302)
  • Gauradhwajpal (1302–1322)
  • Sankhadhwajpal (1322–1343)
  • Mayuradhwajpal (1343–1361)
  • Jayadhwajpal (1361–1383)
  • Karmadhwajpal (1383–1401)
  • Satyanarayan (1401–1421)
  • Laksminarayan (1421–1439)
  • Dharmanarayan (1439–1458)
  • Pratyashnarayan (1458–1480)
  • Purnadhabnarayan (1480–1502)
  • Dharmadhajpal (1502–1522)
  • Nitypal (1522–1524)

Bana dynasty rule over Magadaimandalam (c. 1190–1260 CE)

Kadava dynasty (c. 1216–1279 CE)

  • Kopperunchinga I (c. 1216 – 1242)
  • Kopperunchinga II (c. 1243 – 1279)

Muslim rule (1206–1526)

Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)

Despite the name, the capital was repeatedly elsewhere than Delhi city, and not always near.

Mamluk dynasty of Delhi (1206–1290)

Khilji dynasty (1290–1320)

Tughlaq dynasty (1321–1414)

Invasion of Timur in 1398 and the end of the Tughluq Dynasty as known earlier.

Sayyid dynasty (1414–1451)

  • Khizr (1414–1421)
  • Mubarik II (1421–1434)
  • Muhamed IV (1434–1445)
  • Alem I (1445–1451)

Lodi dynasty (1451–1526)

Bahmani Sultanate (1347–1527)

  • Ala ud din Bahman Shah (1347–1358), established his capital at Gulbarga
  • Muhammad Shah I (1358–1375)
  • Ala ud din Mujahid Shah (1375–1378)
  • Daud Shah I (1378)
  • Muhammad Shah II (1378–1397)
  • Ghiyas ud din Tahmatan Shah (1397)
  • Shams ud din Daud Shah II (1397)
  • Taj ud din Feroz Shah (1397–1422)
  • Shahab ud din Ahmad Shah I (1422–1435), established his capital at Bidar
  • Ala ud din Ahmad Shah II (1436–1458)
  • Ala ud din Humayun Shah (1458–1461)
  • Nizam ud din Ahmad Shah III (1461–1463)
  • Shams ud din Muhammad Shah III (1463–1482)
  • Mahmud Shah (1482–1518)
  • Ahmad Shah IV (1518–1521)
  • Ala ud din Shah (1521–1522)
  • Waliullah Shah (1522–1524)
  • Kalimullah Shah (1524–1527)

Malwa Sultanate (1392–1562)

Ghoris (1390–1436)

  • Dilavar Khan Husain (1390–1405)
  • Alp Khan Hushang (1405–1435)
  • Ghazni Khan Muhamnmad (1435–1436)
  • Mas'ud Khan (1436)

Khiljis (1436–1535)

Under Gujarat (1530–1534)
  • Amit parsagandites (1534–1535)

Qadirid (1535–1555)

  • Qadir Shah (1535–1542)
Under the Mughal Empire (1542–1555)

Shaja'atid (1555–1562)

Ahom dynasty ruled over Assam (1228–1826)

Reddy dynasty (1325–1448 CE)

  • Prolaya Vema Reddy (1325–1335)
  • Anavota Reddy (1335–1364)
  • Anavema Reddy (1364–1386)
  • Kumaragiri Reddy (1386–1402)
  • Kataya Vema Reddy (1395–1414)
  • Allada Reddy (1414–1423)
  • Veerabhadra Reddy (1423–1448)

Vijayanagara Empire (1336–1646)

Sangama dynasty (1336–1487)

Saluva dynasty (1490–1567)

  • Narasimha (1490–1503)
  • Narasa (Vira Narasimha) (1503–1509)
  • Achyuta (1530–1542)
  • Sadasiva (1542–1567)

Tuluva dynasty (1542–1576)

  • Sri Krishnadevrayalu (1509 - 1530)
  • Achyuthadevarayalu (1530 - 1542)
  • Sadasiva rayalu (1543 - 1576)
ARAVEETI DYNASTY (1565 - 1680)
  • Aliya Rama rayalu (1542–1565)unofficial ruler
  • Tirumala rayalu (1570 - 1572)
  • Ranga rayalu I (1572 - 1585)
  • Venkatapathi rayalu II (1586–1614)
  • Ranga rayalu II (1614)
  • Venkatapathi rayalu III (1630 - 1642)
  • Ranga rayalu III (1642)

Rulers of Mysore/Khudadad (1399–1950)

Wodeyar dynasty (first rule, 1399–1761)

  • Yaduraya (1399–1423)
  • Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja Wodeyar I (1423–1459)
  • Thimmaraja Wodeyar I (1459–1478)
  • Hiriya Chamaraja Wodeyar II (1478–1513)
  • Hiriya bettada Chamaraja Wodeyar III (1513–1553)
  • Thimmaraja Wodeyar II (1553–1572)
  • Bola Chamaraja Wodeyar IV (1572–1576)
  • Bettada Devaraja Wodeyar (1576–1578)
  • Raja Wodeyar I (1578–1617)
  • Chamaraja Wodeyar V (1617–1637)
  • Raja Wodeyar II (1637–1638)
  • (Ranadhira) Kantheerava Narasaraja Wodeyar I (1638–1659)
  • Dodda Devaraja Wodeyar (1659–1673)
  • Chikka Devaraja Wodeyar (1673–1704)
  • Kantheerava Narasaraja Wodeyar II (1704–1714)
  • Dodda Krishnaraja Wodeyar I (1714–1732)
  • Chamaraja Wodeyar VI (1732–1734)
  • (Immadi) Krishnaraja Wodeyar II (1734–1766), ruled under Hyder Ali from 1761
  • Nanajaraja Wodeyar (1766–1772), ruled under Hyder Ali
  • Bettada Chamaraja Wodeyar VII (1772–1776), ruled under Hyder Ali
  • Khasa Chamaraja Wodeyar VIII (1776–1796), ruled under Hyder Ali until 1782, then under Tipu Sultan until his deposition in 1796
The reign of the Kings of Mysore (Wodeyar line) was interrupted from 1761 to 1799.

Hyder Ali's dynasty of Mysore (1761–1799)

  • Hyder Ali (1761–1782), Muslim commander deposing the Hindu Maharaja, fought the British and Nizams of Hyderabad in the first of 4 Anglo-Mysore Wars
  • Tipu Sultan (Tiger of Mysore) (1782–1799), son of Hyder Ali, considered the greatest ruler of Mysore, assumed the novel style Badhshah Bahadur of Khudadad (thus claiming the paramountcy of India instead of the Mughal 'mere' Badhshah), fought the BritishMarathas and Nizams of Hyderabad in the 3 Anglo-Mysore Wars (where iron rockets) were first used, allied to the French, and lost everything

Wodeyar dynasty (second rule, 1799–1950)

Gajapati Kingdom (1434–1541 CE)

  • Kapilendra Deva (1434–67)
  • Purushottama Deva (1467–97)
  • Prataparudra Deva (1497–1540)
  • Kalua Deva (1540–41)
  • Kakharua Deva (1541)

Maharajas of Cochin (Perumpadapu Swaroopam, 1503–1964)

Veerakerala Varma, nephew of Cheraman Perumal, is supposed to have been the first king of Cochin around the 7th century CE. But the records we have start in 1503.
  1. Unniraman Koyikal I (?–1503)
  2. Unniraman Koyikal II (1503–1537)
  3. Veera Kerala Varma (1537–1565)
  4. Keshava Rama Varma (1565–1601)
  5. Veera Kerala Varma (1601–1615)
  6. Ravi Varma I (1615–1624)
  7. Veera Kerala Varma (1624–1637)
  8. Godavarma (1637–1645)
  9. Veerarayira Varma (1645–1646)
  10. Veera Kerala Varma (1646–1650)
  11. Rama Varma I (1650–1656)
  12. Rani Gangadharalakshmi (1656–1658)
  13. Rama Varma II (1658–1662)
  14. Goda Varma (1662–1663)
  15. Veera Kerala Varma (1663–1687)
  16. Rama Varma III (1687–1693)
  17. Ravi Varma II (1693–1697)
  18. Rama Varma IV (1697–1701)
  19. Rama Varma V (1701–1721)
  20. Ravi Varma III (1721–1731)
  21. Rama Varma VI (1731–1746)
  22. Veera Kerala Varma I (1746–1749)
  23. Rama Varma VII (1749–1760)
  24. Veera Kerala Varma II (1760–1775)
  25. Rama Varma VIII (1775–1790)
  26. Shaktan Thampuran (Rama Varma IX) (1790–1805)
  27. Rama Varma X (1805–1809) - Vellarapalli-yil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Vellarapali")
  28. Veera Kerala Varma III (1809–1828) - Karkidaka Maasathil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "karkidaka" month (Malayalam Era))
  29. Rama Varma XI (1828–1837) - Thulam-Maasathil Theepett1a Thampuran (King who died in "Thulam" month (ME))
  30. Rama Varma XII (1837–1844) - Edava-Maasathil Theepett1a Thampuran (King who died in "Edavam" month (ME))
  31. Rama Varma XIII (1844–1851) - Thrishur-il Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Thrishivaperoor" or Thrishur)
  32. Veera Kerala Varma IV (1851–1853) - Kashi-yil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Kashi" or Varanasi)
  33. Ravi Varma IV (1853–1864) - Makara Maasathil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Makaram" month (ME))
  34. Rama Varma XIV (1864–1888) - Mithuna Maasathil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Mithunam" month (ME))
  35. Kerala Varma V (1888–1895) - Chingam Maasathil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Chingam" month (ME))
  36. Rama Varma XV (1895–1914) - a.k.a. Rajarshi, abdicated (d. in 1932)
  37. Rama Varma XVI (1915–1932) - Madrasil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in Madras or Chennai)
  38. Rama Varma XVII (1932–1941) - Dhaarmika Chakravarthi (King of Dharma), Chowara-yil Theepetta Thampuran (King who died in "Chowara")
  39. Kerala Varma VI (1941–1943) - Midukkan (syn: Smart, expert, great) Thampuran
  40. Ravi Varma V (1943–1946) - Kunjappan Thampuran (Brother of Midukkan Thampuran)
  41. Kerala Varma VII (1946–1948) - Ikya-Keralam (Unified Kerala) Thampuran
  42. Rama Varma XVIII (1948–1964) - Pareekshit Thampuran

Qutb Shahi dynasty (1518–1687)

Mughal Empire (1526–1857)

Mewar Dynasty

Mewar (Sisodia)

Suri dynasty (1540–1555)

Chogyal, monarchs of Sikkim and Ladakh (1642–1975)

Main article: Chogyal

Deccan Sultanates

Adil Shahi dynasty (1490-1686)

Nizam Shahi dynasty (1490–1636)

Berar Sultanate (1490-1572)

  • Fathullah Imad-ul-Mulk (1490–1504)
  • Ala-ud-din Imad Shah 1504–1530)
  • Darya Imad Shah (1530–1562)
  • Burhan Imad Shah (1562–1574)
  • Tufal Khan (usurper) 1574

Bidar Sultanate(1492-1542)

  • Qasim Barid I (1492–1504)
  • Amir Barid I (1504–1542)
  • Ali Barid Shah (1542–1580)
  • Ibrahim Barid Shah (1580–1587)
  • Qasim Barid Shah II (1587–1591)
  • Ali Barid Shah II (1591)
  • Amir Barid Shah II (1591–1600)
  • Mirza Ali Barid Shah III (1600–1609)
  • Amir Barid Shah III (1609–1619).[11]
  • Amir Barid I 1504–1542

Qutb Shahi dynasty(1518-1687)

Maratha Empire (1674–1818)

Shivaji era

The Empire was divided between two branches of the family c. 1707–10; and the division was formalized in 1731.

Bhosale Chhatrapatis at Kolhapur (1700–1947)

  • Chhatrapati Shivaji II (b. 1696, ruled 1700–14)
  • Sambhaji II of Kolhapur (b. 1698, r. 1714–60)
  • Rajmata Jijibai of Kolhapur|Rajmata Jijibai, regent (1760–73), senior widow of Sambhaji II
  • Rajmata Durgabai of Kolhapur|Rajmata Durgabai, regent (1773–79), junior widow of Sambhaji II
  • Shahu Shivaji II of Kolhapur (r. 1762–1813); adopted by Jijibai, his predecessor's senior widow
  • Sambhaji III of Kolhapur (b. 1801, r. 1813–21)
  • Shivaji III of Kolhapur (b. 1816, r. 1821–22) (council of regency)
  • Shahaji I of Kolhapur (b. 1802, r. 1822–38)
  • Shivaji IV of Kolhapur (b. 1830, r. 1838–66)
  • Rajaram I of Kolhapur (r. 1866–70)
  • Council of regency (1870–94)
  • Shivaji V of Kolhapur (b. 1863, r. 1871–83); adopted by his predecessor's widow
  • Rajarshi Shahu IV of Kolhapur (b. 1874, r. 1884–1922); adopted by his predecessor's widow
  • Rajaram II of Kolhapur (b. 1897 r. 1922–40)
  • Indumati Tarabai of Kolhapur, regent (1940–47), widow of Rajaram II
  • Shivaji VI of Kolhapur (b. 1941, r. 1941–46); adopted by his predecessor's widow
  • Shahaji II of Kolhapur (b. 1910, r. 1947, d. 1983); formerly Maharaja of Dewas Senior; adopted by Indumati Tarabai, widow of Rajaram II
The state acceded unto the Dominion of India following the independence of India in 1947.[13]

Bhosale Chhatrapatis at Satara (1707–1839)

  • Shahu I (1708–1749). Son of Sambhaji I.
  • Ramaraja (1749–1777). Grandson of Rajaram and Tarabai; adopted son of Shahu I.
  • Shahu II of Satara (1777–1808). Son of Ramaraja.
  • Pratapsinh (1808–1839)
  • Shahaji III (1839–1848)
  • Pratapsinh I (adopted)
  • Rajaram III
  • Pratapsinh II
  • Raja Shahu III (1918–1950)

The Peshwas (1713–1858)

Technically they were not monarchs, but hereditary prime ministers, though in fact they ruled instead of the Maharaja, and were hegemon of the Maratha confederation.
  • Balaji Vishwanath (1713 – 2 April 1720) (b. 1660, died 2 April 1720)
  • Peshwa Bajirao I (17 April 1720 – 28 April 1740) (b. 18 Aug. 1700, died 28 April 1740)
  • Balaji Bajirao (4 July 1740 – 23 June 1761) (b. 8 Dec. 1721, d. 23 Jun. 1761)
  • Madhavrao Ballal (1761 – 18 Nov. 1772) (b. 16 Feb. 1745, d. 18 Nov. 1772)
  • Narayanrao Bajirao (13 Dec. 1772 – 30 Aug. 1773) (b. 10 Aug. 1755, d. 30 Aug. 1773)
  • Raghunath Rao Bajirao (5 Dec. 1773 – 1774) (b. 18 Aug. 1734, d. 11 Dec. 1783)
  • Sawai Madhavrao (1774 – 27 Oct. 1795) (b. 18 April 1774, d. 27 Oct. 1795)
  • Baji Rao II (6 Dec. 1796 – 3 June 1818) (d. 28 Jan. 1851)
  • Nana Sahib (1 July 1857 – 1858) (b. 19 May 1825, d. 24 Sep. 1859)

Bhosale Maharajas of Thanjavur (?–1799)

For more details on this topic, see Thanjavur Maratha kingdom.
Descended from a brother of Shivaji; ruled independently and had no formal relationship with the Maratha Empire.
The state was annexed by the British in 1799.[14]

Bhosale Maharajas of Nagpur (1799–1881)

  • Raghoji I (1738–1755)
  • Janoji (1755–1772)
  • Sabaji (1772–1775)
  • Mudhoji I (1775–1788)
  • Raghoji II (1788–1816)
  • Parsoji Bhonsle (18??–1817)
  • Mudhoji II (1816–1818)
  • Raghoji III (1818–1853)
  • 1853 to Great Britain
  • Janoji II (1853–1881) (adopted)
  • Raghujideo (1881)
  • The kingdom was annexed by the British under the Doctrine of Lapse.[15]

Holkar rulers of Indore (1731–1948)

  • Malharrao Holkar (I) (r. 2 November 1731 – 19 May 1766)
  • Malerao Khanderao Holkar (r. 23 August 1766 – 5 April 1767)
  • Punyaslok Rajmata Ahilyadevi Holkar (r. 5 April 1767 – 13 August 1795)
  • Tukojirao Holkar (I) (r. 13 August 1795 – 29 January 1797)
  • Kashirao Tukojirao Holkar (r. 29 January 1797 – 1798)
  • Yashwantrao Holkar (I) (r. 1798 – 27 November 1811)
  • Malharrao Yashwantrao Holkar (III) (r. November 1811 – 27 October 1833)
  • Martandrao Malharrao Holkar (r. 17 January 1834 – 2 February 1834)
  • Harirao Vitthojirao Holkar (r. 17 April 1834 – 24 October 1843)
  • Khanderao Harirao Holkar (r. 13 November 1843 – 17 February 1844)
  • Tukojirao Gandharebhau Holkar (II) (r. 27 June 1844 – 17 June 1886)
  • Shivajirao Tukojirao Holkar (r. 17 June 1886 – 31 January 1903)
  • Tukojirao Shivajirao Holkar (III) (r. 31 January 1903 – 26 February 1926)
  • Yashwantrao Holkar (II) (r. 26 February 1926 – 1961)
Following the independence of India in 1947, the state acceded unto the Dominion of India. The monarchy was ended in 1948, but the title is still held by Usha Devi Maharaj Sahiba Holkar XV Bahadur, Maharani of Indore since 1961.

Scindia rulers of Gwalior (?–1947)

  • Ranojirao Scindia (1731 – 19 July 1745)
  • Jayapparao Scindia (1745 – 25 July 1755)
  • Jankojirao I Scindia (25 July 1755 – 15 January 1761). Born 1745
  • Meharban Dattaji Rao Scindia, Regent (1755 – 10 January 1760). Died 1760
  • Vacant 15 January 1761 – 25 November 1763
  • Kedarjirao Scindia (25 November 1763 – 10 July 1764)
  • Manajirao Scindia Phakade (10 July 1764 – 18 January 1768)
  • Mahadaji Scindia (18 January 1768 – 12 February 1794). Born c. 1730, died 1794
  • Daulatrao Scindia (12 February 1794 – 21 March 1827). Born 1779, died 1827
  • Jankojirao II Scindia (18 June 1827 – 7 February 1843). Born 1805, died 1843
  • Jayajirao Scindia (7 February 1843 – 20 June 1886). Born 1835, died 1886
  • Madho Rao Scindia (20 June 1886 – 5 June 1925). Born 1876, died 1925
  • George Jivajirao Scindia (Maharaja 5 June 1925 – 15 August 1947, Rajpramukh 28 May 1948 – 31 October 1956, later Rajpramukh). Born 1916, died 1961
Following the independence of India in 1947, the state acceded unto the Dominion of India.

Gaekwad rulers of Baroda (Vadodara) (1721–1947)

The major Muslim vassals of the Mughal/British Paramountcy (1707–1856)

Nawabs of Bengal (1707–1770)

Nawabs of Oudh (1719–1858)

Nizams of Hyderabad (1720–1948)

Kingdom of Travancore (1729–1947)

Sikh Empire (1801–1849)

The British Empire annexed the Punjab c. 1845–49; after the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars

Emperors of India (1857–1947)

Dominion of India (1947–1950)

Dominion of Pakistan (1947–1956)

See also


  1. ↑ However the title "Emperor of India" did not disappear with Indian independence from Britain in 1947, but in 1948, as when India became the Dominion of India (1947–1950) after independence in 1947, George VI retained the title "Emperor of India" until 22 June 1948, and thereafter he remained monarch of India until it became the Republic of India in 1950.[16]


  1. ↑ Upinder Singh (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Pearson Education India. pp. 381–384. ISBN 9788131711200.
  2. ↑ Charles Higham (2009). Encyclopedia of Ancient Asian Civilizations. Infobase Publishing. p. 299. ISBN 9781438109961.
  3. ↑ Mahajan V.D. (1960, reprint 2007). Ancient India, S.Chand & Company, New Delhi, ISBN 81-219-0887-6, pp.594–6
  4. Dilip Kumar Ganguly (1994). Ancient India, History and Archaeology. Abhinav. pp. 33–41. ISBN 978-81-7017-304-5.
  5. Susan L. Huntington (1984). The "Påala-Sena" Schools of Sculpture. Brill Archive. pp. 32–39. ISBN 90-04-06856-2.
  6. ↑ R. C. Majumdar (1971). History of Ancient Bengal. G. Bharadwaj. p. 161–162.
  7. ↑ Abdul Momin Chowdhury (1967). Dynastic history of Bengal, c. 750-1200 CE. Asiatic Society of Pakistan. pp. 272–273.
  8. ↑ Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha, Cir. 450–1200 A.D. Abhinav Publications. pp. 253–. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4.
  9. ↑ Dineshchandra Sircar (1975–76). "Indological Notes - R.C. Majumdar's Chronology of the Pala Kings". Journal of Indian HistoryIX: 209–10.
  10. ↑ Jain, Kailash Chand (1972). Malwa Through the Ages, from the Earliest Times to 1305 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-0824-9.
  11. Michell, George & Mark Zebrowski. Architecture and Art of the Deccan Sultanates (The New Cambridge History of India Vol. I:7), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, ISBN 0-521-56321-6, p.274
  12. ↑ Michell, George & Mark Zebrowski. Architecture and Art of the Deccan Sultanates (The New Cambridge History of India Vol. I:7), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, ISBN 0-521-56321-6, p.275
  13. ↑ "kolhap2". Retrieved 2015-11-03.
  14. ↑ "tanjore2". Retrieved 2015-11-03.
  15. ↑ Prabhakar Gadre (1994). Bhosle of Nagpur and East India Company. Publication Scheme. Retrieved 2015-11-03.
  16. The London Gazetteno. 38330. p. 3647. 22 June 1948. Retrieved 25 August 2014. Royal Proclamation of 22 June 1948, made in accordance with the Indian Independence Act 1947, 10 & 11 GEO. 6. CH. 30.('Section 7: ...(2)The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words " Indiae Imperator " and the words " Emperor of India " and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm.'). According to this Royal Proclamation, the King retained the Style and Titles 'George VI by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith', and he thus remained King of the various Dominions, including India and Pakistan, though these two (and others) eventually chose to abandon their monarchies and became republics.

Sources and External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.