Farsi    Arabic    English   

The Russo-Turkish Difficulty.
Ducking and Dodging of The British Cabinet.
Nesselrode's Last Note.
The East India Question.[146]

Karl Marx

London, Tuesday, July 12, 1853

The Parliamentary farce of Thursday last was continued and brought to a close in the sitting of Friday, 8th inst. Lord Palmerston requested Mr. Layard not only to put off his motion to Monday, but never to make any mention of it again. "Monday was now to go the way of Friday." Mr. Bright took the opportunity of congratulating Lord Aberdeen on his cautious policy, and generally to assure him of his entire confidence.

"Were the Peace Society[147] itself the Cabinet," says The Morning Advertiser, "it could not have done more to encourage Russia, to discourage France, to endanger Turkey, and discredit England, than the very good Aberdeen. [...] Mr. Bright's speech was meant as a sort of Manchester manifesto in favor of the tremblers of the Cabinet."[a]

The Ministerial efforts for burking the intended question of Mr. Layard originated in a well-founded fear that the internal dissensions in the Cabinet could have no longer been kept a secret to the public. Turkey must fall to pieces, that the Coalition may keep together. Next to Lord Aberdeen, the Ministers most favorable to the tricks of Russia, are the following: The Duke of Argyll, Lord Clarendon, Lord Granville, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Cardwell, and the "Radical" Sir William Molesworth. Lord Aberdeen is said to have threatened at one time to offer his resignation. The "vigorous" Palmerston (civis Romanus sum[148]) party, of course, was but wanting such a pretext for yielding. They resolved that a common representation should be addressed to the Courts of St. Petersburg and Constantinople, recommending that the "privileges demanded by the Czar for the Greek Christians should be secured to Christians of all denominations in the Turkish dominions, under a treaty of guaranty, to which the great powers should be parties." This identical proposition was, however, already made to Prince Menchikoff, on the eve of his departure from Constantinople, and was made, as everybody knows, to no purpose. It is, therefore, utterly ridiculous to expect any result from its repetition, the more so, as it is now a matter beyond all doubt that what Russia insists upon having is exactly a treaty which the great powers, viz.: Austria and Prussia, now no longer resist. Count Buol, the Austrian Premier, is brother-in-law to Count Pouilly Meyendorff, the Russian Minister, and acts in perfect agreement with Russia. On the same day on which the two Coalition parties, the slumbering and the "vigorous," came to the above resolution, the Patrie published the following:

"The new Internuncio of Austria, at Constantinople, M. de Bruck, commenced by calling upon the Porte to pay 5,000,000 piasters as an indemnity, and to consent to the delivery of the ports of Kleck and Suttorina. This demand was considered as a support given to Russia."[b]

This is not the only support given by Austria to the Russian interests at Constantinople. In 1848, it will be remembered, that whenever the Princes wanted to shoot their people, they provided a "misunderstanding." The same stratagem is now being employed against Turkey. The Austrian Consul at Smyrna causes the kidnapping of a Hungarian[c] from an English coffee house on board an Austrian vessel, and after the refugees have answered this attempt by the killing of an Austrian officer and the wounding [of] another one, M. de Bruck demands satisfaction from the Porte within 24 hours[149]. Simultaneously with this news, The Morning Post of Saturday reports a rumor that the Austrians had entered Bosnia. The Coalition, questioned as to the authenticity of this rumors in yesterday's sitting of both Houses of Parliament, had, of course, received "no information;" Russell alone venturing the suggestion[d] that the rumor had probably no other foundation than the fact that the Austrians collected troops at Peterwardein. Thus is fulfilled the prediction of M. de Tatistcheff, in 1828, that Austria, when things were come to a decisive turn, would eagerly make ready for sharing in the spoil.

A dispatch from Constantinople, dated 26th ult., states:

"The Sultan[e], in consequence of the rumors that the whole Russian fleet has left Sebastopol and is directing its course toward the Bosphorus, has inquired of the Ambassadors of England and France[f] whether, in the event of the Russians making a demonstration before the Bosphorus, the combined fleets are ready to pass the Dardanelles. Both answered in the affirmative. A Turkish steamer, with French and English officers on board, has just been sent from the Bosphorus to the Black Sea, in order to reconnoitre."[g]

The first thing the Russians did after their entry into the Principalities, was to prohibit the publication of the Sultan's firman confirming the privileges of all kinds of Christians, and to suppress a German paper edited at Bucharest, which had dared to publish an article on the Eastern question. At the same time, they pressed from the Turkish Government the first annuity stipulated for their former occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, in 1848-49. Since 1828 the Protectorate of Russia has cost the Principalities 150,000,000 piasters, beside the immense losses caused through pillage and devastation. England defrayed the expenses of Russia's wars against France, France that of her war against Persia, Persia that of her war against Turkey, Turkey and England that of her war against Poland; Hungary and the Principalities have now to pay her war against Turkey.

The most important event of the day is the new circular note of Count Nesselrode dated St. Petersburg, 20th June, 1853. It declares that the Russian armies will not evacuate the Principalities until the Sultan shall have yielded to all the demands of the Czar[h], and the French and English fleets shall have left the Turkish waters. The note in question reads like a direct. scorn of England and France. Thus it says:

"The position taken by the two maritime Powers is a maritime occupation which gives us a reason for reestablishing the equilibrium of the reciprocal situations by taking up a military position."[i]

Be it remarked, that Besika Bay is at a distance of 150 miles from Constantinople. The Czar claims for himself the right of occupying Turkish territory, while he defies England and France to occupy neutral waters without his special permission. He extols his own magnanimous forbearance in having left the Porte complete mistress of choosing under what form She will abdicate her sovereignty whether "convention, sened, or other synallagmatic act, or even under the form of signing a simple note." He is persuaded that "impartial Europe" must understand that the treaty of Kainardji, which gives Russia the right of protecting a single Greek chapel at Stamboul[150], proclaims her eo ipso the Rome of the Orient. He regrets that the West is ignorant of the inoffensive character of a Russian religious protectorate in foreign countries. He proves his solicitude for the integrity of the Turkish Empire by historical facts "the very moderate use he made in 1829 of his victory of Adrianople," when he was only prevented from being immoderate by the miserable condition of his army, and by the threat of the English admiral, that, authorized or not authorized, he would bombard every coast-place along the Black Sea; when all he obtained was due to the "forbearance" of the Western Cabinets, and the perfidious destruction of the Turkish fleet at Navarino.[151]

"In 1833, he alone in Europe saved Turkey from inevitable dismemberment."

In 1833 the Czar concluded, through the famous treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, a defensive alliance with Turkey, by which foreign fleets were forbidden to approach Constantinople[152], by which Turkey was saved only from dismemberment, in order to be saved entire for Russia.

"In 1839 he took the initiative with the other Powers in the propositions which, executed in common, prevented the Sultan from seeing his throne give place to a new Arabian Empire."

That is to say, in 1839 he made the other Powers take the initiative in the destruction of the Egyptian fleet, and in the reduction to impotence of the only man[j] who might have converted Turkey into a vital danger to Russia, and replaced a "dressed up turban" by a real head.

"The fundamental principle of the policy of our august master has always been to maintain, as long as possible, the status quo of the East."

Just so. He has carefully preserved the decomposition of the Turkish State, under the exclusive guardianship of Russia.

It must be granted that a more ironical document the East has never dared to throw in the face of the West. But its author is Nesselrode —a nettle, at once, and a rod[k]. It is a document, indeed, of Europe's degradation under the rod of counter-revolution. Revolutionists may congratulate the Czar on this masterpiece. If Europe withdraws, she withdraws not with a simple defeat, but passes, as it were, under furcae Caudinae.[153]

While the English Queen[l] is, at this moment, feasting Russian Princesses; while an enlightened English aristocracy and bourgeoisie lie prostrate before the barbarian autocrat, the English proletariat alone protests against the impotency and degradation of the ruling classes. On the 7th July the Manchester School held a great Peace meeting in the Odd-Fellows Hall, at Halifax. Crossley, M. P. for Halifax, and all the other "great men" of the School had especially flocked to the meeting from "town"[m]. The hall was crowded, and many thousands could obtain no admittance. Ernest Jones (whose agitation in the factory districts is gloriously progressing, as you may infer from the number of Charter petitions presented to Parliament, and from the attacks of the middle-class provincial press), was, at the time, at Durham. The Chartists of Halifax, the place where he has twice been nominated and declared by show of hands[154] as a candidate for the House of Commons, summoned him by electric telegraph, and he appeared just in time for the meeting. Already the gentlemen of the Manchester School believed they would carry their resolution, and would be able to bring home the support of the manufacturing districts to their good Aberdeen, when Ernest Jones rose and put an amendment pledging the people to war, and declaring that before liberty was established peace was a crime. There ensued a most violent discussion, but the amendment of Ernest Jones was carried by an immense majority.

The clauses of the India Bill are passing one by one, the debate scarcely offering any remarkable features[n], except the inconsistency of the so-called India Reformers. There is, for instance, my Lord Jocelyn, M. P., who has made a kind of political livelihood by his periodical denunciation of Indian wrongs, and of the maladministration of the East India Company. What do you think his amendment amounted to? To give the East India Company a lease for 10 years. Happily, it compromised no one but himself. There is another professional "Reformer," Mr. Jos. Hume, who, during his long Parliamentary life, has succeeded in transforming opposition itself into a particular manner of supporting the ministry. He proposed not to reduce the number of East India Directors from 24 to 18. The only amendment of common sense, yet agreed to, was that of Mr. Bright, exempting Directors nominated by the Government from the qualification in East India Stock, imposed by the Directors elected by the Court of Proprietors. Go through the pamphlets published by the East Indian Reform Association[155], and you will feel a similar sensation as when, hearing of one great act of accusation against Bonaparte, devised in common by Legitimists, Orleanists, Blue and Red Republicans, and even disappointed Bonapartists. Their only merit until now has been to draw public attention to Indian affairs in general, and further they cannot go in their present form of eclectic opposition. For instance, while they attack the doings of the English aristocracy in India, they protest against the destruction of the Indian aristocracy of native princes.

After the British intruders had once put their feet on India, and made up their mind to hold it, there remained no alternative but to break the power of the native princes by force or by intrigue. Placed with regard to them in similar circumstances as the ancient Romans with regard to their allies, they followed in the track of Roman politics. "It was," says an English writer, '"a system of fattening allies, as we fatten oxen, till they were worthy of being devoured." After having won over their allies in the way of ancient Rome, the East India Company executed them in the modern manner of Change-Alley[156]. In order to discharge the engagements they had entered into with the Company, the native princes were forced to borrow enormous sums from Englishmen at usurious interest. When their embarrassment had reached the highest pitch, the creditor got inexorable, "the screw was turned" and the princes were compelled either to concede their territories amicably to the Company, or to begin war; to become pensioners on their usurpers in one case, or to be deposed as traitors in the other. At this moment the native States occupy an area of 699,961 square miles, with a population of 52,941,263 souls, being, however, no longer the allies, but only the dependents of the British Government, upon multifarious conditions, and under the various forms of the subsidiary[157] and of the protective systems. These systems have in common the relinquishment, by the native States of the right of self-defense, of maintaining diplomatic relations, and of settling the disputes among themselves without the interference of the Governor-General. All of them have to pay a tribute, either in hard cash, or in a contingent of armed forces commanded by British officers. The final absorption or annexation of these native States is at present eagerly controverted between the Reformers who denounce it as a crime, and the men of business who excuse it as a necessity.

In my opinion the question itself is altogether improperly put. As to the native States they virtually ceased to exist from the moment they became subsidiary to or protected by the Company. If you divide the revenue of a country between two governments, you are sure to cripple the resources of the one and the administration of both. Under the present system the native States succumb under the double incubus of their native Administration and the tributes and inordinate military establishments imposed upon them by the Company. The conditions under which they are allowed to retain their apparent independence are at the same time the conditions of a permanent decay, and of an utter inability of improvement. Organic weakness is the constitutional law of their existence, as of all existences living upon sufferance. It is, therefore, not the native States, but the native Princes and Courts about whose maintenance the question revolves. Now, is it not a strange thing that the same men who denounce "the barbarous splendors of the Crown and Aristocracy of England" are shedding tears at the downfall of Indian Nabobs, Rajahs, and Jagheerdars[158], the great majority of whom possess not even the prestige of antiquity, being generally usurpers of very recent date, set up by English intrigue! There exists in the whole world no despotism more ridiculous, absurd and childish than that of those Schazenans and Schariars of the Arabian Nights. The Duke of Wellington, Sir J. Malcolm, Sir Henry Russell, Lord Ellenborough, General Briggs, and other authorities, have pronounced in favor of the status quo; but on what grounds? Because the native troops under English rule want employment in the petty warfares with their own countrymen, in order to prevent them from turning their strength against their own European masters. Because the existence of independent States gives occasional employment to the English troops. Because the hereditary princes are the most servile tools of English despotism, and check the rise of those bold military adventurers with whom India has and ever will abound. Because the independent territories afford a refuge to all discontented and enterprising native spirits. Leaving aside all these arguments, which state in so many words that the native princes are the strongholds of the present abominable English system and the greatest obstacles to Indian progress, I come to Sir Thomas Munro and Lord Elphinstone, who were at least men of superior genius, and of real sympathy for the Indian people. They think that without a native aristocracy there can be no energy in any other class of the community, and that the subversion of that aristocracy will not raise but debase a whole people. They may be right as long as the natives, under direct English rule, are systematically excluded from all superior offices, military and civil. Where there can be no great men by their own exertion, there must be great men by birth, to leave to a conquered people some greatness of their own. That exclusion, however, of the native people from the English territory, has been effected only by the maintenance of the hereditary princes in the so-called independent territories. And one of these two concessions had to be made to the native army, on whose strength all British rule in India depends. I think we may trust the assertion of Mr. Campbell, that the native Indian Aristocracy are the least enabled to fill higher offices; that for all fresh requirements it is necessary to create a fresh class; and that

"from the acuteness and aptness to learn of the inferior classes, this can be done in India as it can he done in no other country."[o]

The native princes themselves are fast disappearing by the extinction of their houses; but, since the commencement of this century, the British Government has observed the policy of allowing them to make heirs by adoption, or of filling up their vacant seats with puppets of English creation. The great Governor-General, Lord Dalhousie, was the first to protest openly against this system. Were not the natural course of things artificially resisted, there would be wanted neither wars nor expenses to do away with the native princes.

As to the pensioned princes, the £2,468,969 assigned to them by the British Government on the Indian revenue is a most heavy charge upon a people living on rice, and deprived of the first necessaries of life. If they are good for any thing, it is for exhibiting Royalty in its lowest stage of degradation and ridicule. Take, for instance, the Great Mogul[p], the descendant of Timour Tamerlane[159]: He is allowed £120,000 a year. His authority does not extend beyond the walls of his palace, within which the Royal idiotic race, left to itself, propagates as freely as rabbits. Even the police of Delhi is held by Englishmen above his control. There he sits on his throne, a little shriveled yellow old man, trimmed in a theatrical dress, embroidered with gold, much like that of the dancing girls of Hindostan. On certain State occasions, the tinsel-covered puppet issues forth to gladden the hearts of the loyal. On his days of reception strangers have to pay a fee, in the form of guineas, as to any other saltimbanque exhibiting himself in public; while he, in his turn, presents them with turbans, diamonds, etc. On looking nearer at them, they find that the Royal diamonds are, like so many pieces of ordinary glass, grossly painted and imitating as roughly as possible the precious stones, and jointed so wretchedly, that they break in the hand like gingerbread.

The English money-lenders, combined with the English Aristocracy, understand, we must own, the art of degrading Royalty, reducing it to the nullity of constitutionalism at home, and to the seclusion of etiquette abroad. And now, here are the Radicals, exasperated at this spectacle![q]

Written on July 12, 1853
First published in the New York Daily Tribune, No. 3828, July 25, 1853;
reprinted in the New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune, No. 852, July 26, 1853
Reproduced from the New-York Daily Tribune
Signed: Karl Marx


[a] "The 'Interpellations' on 'Monday'", The Morning Advertiser, July 11, 1853.—Ed.

[b] La Patrie, No. 190, July 9, 1853.—Ed.

[c] M. Koszta (arrested by order of Consul Weckbecker).—Ed.

[d] In his House of Commons speech of July 11, 1853, published in The Times, No. 21478, July 12, 1853.—Ed.

[e] Abdul Mejid.—Ed.

[f] Stratford de Redcliffe and Edmond De la Cour.—Ed.

[g] Quoted from The Morning Post, No. 24821, July 11, 1853. Part of the passage is freely rendered.—Ed.

[h] Nicholas I .—Ed.

[i] Here and below Marx quotes from The Times, No. 21478, July 2, 1853.—Ed.

[j] Mohammed Ali.—Ed.

[k] A pun: "Nessel" in German means "nettle" and "rode" reminds of "rod".—Ed.

[l] Victoria.—Ed.

[m] London.—Ed.

[n] The debate in the House of Commons on July 8, 1853.—Ed.

[o] G. Campbell, Modern India: a Sketch of the System of Civil Government, p. 64.—Ed.

[p] Bahadur Shah II.—Ed.

[q] This sentence was omitted in the New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune.—Ed.

[146] This article, excluding the section "The East India Question", was published in The Eastern Question.

[147] The Peace Society (the Society for Promoting Permanent and Universal Peace)--a pacifist organisation founded by the Quakers in London in 1816. It was strongly supported by the Free Traders, who believed that, given peace, free trade would enable Britain to make full use of her industrial superiority and thus gain economic and political supremacy.

[148] An allusion to Palmerston's speech during a parliamentary debate on the Anglo-Greek conflict in June 1850. In January 1850 the British Government presented Greece with an ultimatum and sent ships to blockade Piraeus using as a pretext the burning (in Athens in 1847) of the house of the Portuguese merchant Pacifico, who was a British subject. The real object of the move, however, was to make Greece surrender several strategically important islands in the Aegean Sea. In his speech of June 25, 1850 Palmerston justified Britain's action by the need to safeguard the prestige of British subjects, and drew an analogy between them and Roman citizens. The Latin phrase he cited: "civis Romanus sum" ("I am a Roman citizen"), was used to indicate the high status and privileges afforded by British citizenship.

[149] A reference to the Smyrna incident caused by the arrest of Martin Koszta, a Hungarian refugee and US subject, by order of the Austrian consul, who had him put on board the Austrian warship Hussar. This led to an armed clash between the refugees and Austrian naval officers. Ingraham, the captain of the American warship Saint Louis, had to intervene and demanded the release of Koszta. Thanks to the mediation of the consuls of other powers an armed conflict was averted. After the negotiations, which lasted for several months, Koszta was released and left for the USA.

[150] The Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, signed between Russia and Turkey on July 21, 1774, put an end to the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-74, in which Turkey was defeated. By that treaty Russia obtained the section of the Black Sea coast between the Southern Bug and the Dnieper, with the fortress of Kinburn, and also Azov, Kerch and Jenikale, and secured independent status for the Crimea facilitating its incorporation into Russia. Russian merchant ships were granted the right of free passage through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. The Sultan was to grant a number of privileges to the Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey, in particular Article 14 of the treaty provided for the construction of an Orthodox church in Constantinople. For the Treaty of Adrianople see Note 35 ↓.

[35] The Treaty of Adrianople—a peace treaty signed between Turkey and Russia in September 1829 to end the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-29. By the treaty Russia obtained the Danube Delta with its islands and a considerable portion of the eastern Black Sea coast south of the Kuban estuary. Turkey was to recognise the autonomy of Moldavia and Wallachia, granting them the right to elect their Hospodars independently; their autonomy was to be guaranteed by Russia. The Turkish Government also pledged to recognise Greece as an independent state, whose only obligation to Turkey was to pay an annual tribute to the Sultan, and to observe the previous treaties with regard to Serbian autonomy, issuing a special order in official recognition of it.

Marx's notebook with excerpts for 1853 contains, on page 18, a passage in French from the Adrianople treaty. The text of the treaty was published in many collections of documents, in works by various authors quoted by Marx, and in periodicals.

[151] The battle of Navarino took place on October 20, 1827. It was fought by the Turko-Egyptian fleet, on the one side, and the allied British, Ft-cm h and Russian fleet commanded by Vice-Admiral Codrington, on the other. The latter was sent by the European powers to Greek waters for the purpose of armed mediation in the war between Turkey and the Greek insurgents. The battle ended in a crushing defeat for the Turko-Egyptian fleet.

[152] In the spring of 1833 Russian troops were landed in Unkiar-Skelessi, near the Bosporus, to render assistance to the Turkish Sultan against the army of the insurgent Egyptian ruler Mehemet Ali. In May 1833 the Porte, with the mediation of Britain and France, signed a peace treaty with Mehemet Ali, ceding him Syria and Palestine. However, Russian diplomats took advantage of the strained situation and the presence of Russian troops in Turkey and prevailed upon the Porte to sign, on July 8, 1833, the Unkiar-Skelessi Treaty on a defensive alliance with Russia. On the insistence of Russia a secret clause was included in the treaty prohibiting all foreign warships, except those of Russia, to pass through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. This clause remained in force until the new Egyptian crisis of 1839-41 (see Note 6 ↓). In negotiating with Britain and other powers on joint operations against Mehemet Ali, Nicholas I had to comply with their demand that in peacetime the Straits be closed to warships of all foreign states without exception.

[6] The aggravation of the Eastern question in the early 1840s was caused by the Turko-Egyptian war of 1839-41. In 1839 the Turkish army invaded Syria, which had been conquered in 1831-33 by the Egyptian ruler Mehemet Ali, but it was defeated. Fearing Russian intervention, the Western powers decided to send a joint Note to the Turkish Sultan offering their assistance. However, as a result of the struggle between Britain and France over spheres of influence in the Near East, the London Convention on military assistance to the Sultan was signed on July 15, 1840 by Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, without France. The latter was counting on Mehemet Ali, but was soon compelled to abandon him to his fate. After the military intervention of Britain and Austria. Mehemet Ali was forced to renounce all his possessions outside Egypt and submit to the supreme power of the Turkish Sultan.

[153] Furcae Caudinae—a gorge near the Roman town of Caudium, where in 321 B.C., during the second Samnite war, the Samnites defeated the Roman legions and made them pass under the "yoke", which was considered a terrible disgrace to a defeated army. Hence the expression "to pass under furcae Caudinae", that is to be subjected to extreme humiliation.

[154] Until 1872 candidates to the British Parliament were nominated by a show of hands and even persons without the right to vote could take part in the nomination. But only a very small section of the population could take part in the election, the franchise being restricted by a high property qualification, residence qualification, etc. Candidates turned down by open vote could also stand for election. Marx described these features of the British electoral system in his article "The Chartists" (1852), citing as an example the nomination of candidates in Halifax where Ernest Jones' candidacy was proposed (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 333-41).

[155] A reference to the India Reform Association, founded by the Free Trader John Dickinson in March 1853.

[156] Change Alley—a street in London containing many banks and usurers' offices; it was famous for all kinds of financial transactions and speculative deals.

[157] In 1790-92 and 1799 the British East India Company waged wars with Mysore, an independent feudal state in South India. Its ruler Tippoo Saib had taken part in previous Mysore campaigns against the British and was a sworn enemy of the British colonialists. In the first of these wars Mysore lost half of its dominions, which were seized by the East India Company and its allied feudal princes. The second war ended with the total defeat and the death of Tippoo. Mysore became a vassal principality.

The subsidiary system, or the system of so-called subsidiary agreements-- a method of turning the potentates of Indian principalities into vassals of the East India Company. Most widespread were agreements under which the princes had to maintain (subsidise) the Company's troops stationed on their territory and agreements which saddled the princes with loans on exorbitant terms. Failure to fulfil them resulted in the confiscation of their possessions.

[158] Jagirdars—representatives of the Moslem feudal gentry in the Great Mogul Empire who received for temporary use large estates (jagirs) in return for which they rendered military service and supplied contingents of troops. When the Empire began to disintegrate the jagirdars became hereditary feudal owners.

[159] Babur (1483-1530), the founder of the Great Mogul Empire (see Note 104 ↓), was a descendant of Tamerlane, who in his turn considered himself the successor of Genghis Khan. In the eighteenth century, after the disintegration of the Empire, the Mogul emperors became the puppets of the regional governors and Indian feudal lords. After the seizure of Delhi in 1803 by the British they became figureheads of the East India Company and received pensions from it. In 1858, when India was declared a possession of the British Crown, the last formal vestiges of Mogul power were abolished.

[104] A reference to the rule in India, mainly in the north, of the Mohammedan invaders who came from Central Asia, Afghanistan and Persia. Early in the thirteenth century the Delhi Sultanate became the bulwark of Moslem domination but at the end of the fourteenth century it declined and was subsequently conquered by the Moguls, new invaders of Turkish descent, who came to India from the east of Central Asia in the early sixteenth century and in 1526 founded the Empire of the Great Moguls (named after the ruling dynasty of the Empire) in Northern India. Contemporaries regarded them as the direct descendants of the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan's time, hence the name "Moguls". I n the mid-seventeenth century the Mogul Empire included the greater part of India and part of Afghanistan. Later on, however, the Empire began to decline due to peasant rebellions, the growing resistance of the Indian people to the Mohammedan conquerors and increasing separatist tendencies. In the early half of the eighteenth century the Empire of the Great Moguls practically ceased to exist.

Source: Marx and Engels Collected Works, Volume 12 (pp.192-200), Progress Publishers, Moscow 1979
MarxEngles.public-archive.net #ME0745en.html