The Administrator

The Shape of the State

Where the Sarkar-i-Khudadad actually was, and how much of it there was left after each treaty. Switch between 1784, 1792 and 1799, and select any place to read what happened there.

State name
Sarkar-i-Khudadad
Capital
Srirangapatna
Provinces
37, in 124 taluks
Lost in 1792
About half
The frontier in
Arabian Sea

Pollilur, Madras, Pondicherry lie east of this frame. They are in the list below, and on the wider map.

After the Treaty of Mangalore

The frontier in 1784

The state at its greatest extent. Mysore reached from the Tungabhadra country in the north to Dindigul in the south, and held both the Canara and Malabar coasts — which is what made a navy, a pepper monopoly and a direct trade with the Gulf conceivable at all.

Select a place on the map, or from the list below, to read what happened there.Tap a marker, or pick a place from the list below. At this width the map is cropped to the state itself.

What this map is. The places are plotted from their real coordinates. The frontier is not: it is drawn dashed because it is an approximation. A state of this period was defined by a list of forts, taluks and revenue districts rather than by a line on a map, and the boundary between two powers was often a question of who was collecting the revenue that year. Read the shaded area as the shape and scale of the state, not as a surveyed border.

The places on this map

Capital

City

Fort

Port

Battle

Rival power

What the state governed

The Sarkar-i-Khudadad did not hold the territory on this map the way a modern state holds ground. It held it as a list: thirty-seven provinces divided into some hundred and twenty-four taluks, each with a named officer on a cash salary, each returning written accounts to one of six central departments at Srirangapatna. That is the reason the map is drawn with a dashed edge and a solid capital. The line is a guess; the districts and the fort lists are documented, and they are what the administration actually ran on.

It is also why the frontier moved so much and mattered so little to the machinery. A district changing hands was a line struck from a revenue roll, not a redrawn nation. What the treaties took was income, ports and passes — and it was the loss of those specific things, rather than of area, that decided what Mysore could still attempt.

Why the coast was the whole argument

Look at 1784 and then at 1792, and the single most consequential change is not the size of the shaded area but the disappearance of the shoreline. Until 1792 Mysore held Canara and Malabar: the pepper and cardamom of the Malabar coast, the sandalwood of the interior, the ports through which some thirty state trading houses reached Muscat, Basra and beyond, and the yards where a navy was ordered in 1796.

The embassy to Constantinople sailed from Tadri, on the Canara coast, in 1785–86. Eight years later there was no Mysorean port for an embassy to sail from. A state that had understood, earlier than most, that the Company's power was seaborne, spent its last seven years unable to reach the sea.

What 1792 took, and to whom

The Treaty of Seringapatam of 18 March 1792 divided roughly half of Mysore among the three victors. To the Company: Malabar, Coorg, Dindigul and the Baramahal — which together gave it the western coast and the passes into the plateau. To the Marathas: the country around the Tungabhadra. To the Nizam: the lands running from the Krishna toward the Pennar. On top of the territory came an indemnity of three crore and thirty lakh rupees and two of Tipu Sultan's sons as hostages against payment.

Seven years later the remainder was partitioned again, and a smaller Mysore was returned to the Wodeyar dynasty under a subsidiary alliance. The full course of both wars is on the Third and Fourth Anglo-Mysore War pages.

Sources for this page

  • Mohibbul Hasan, History of Tipu Sultan — on the territorial settlements of 1784, 1792 and 1799.
  • Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) and Treaty of Mangalore (1784), in Aitchison's Treaties, Engagements and Sanads — the named cessions.
  • Irfan Habib (ed.), Confronting Colonialism (2002) — on the districts, ports and revenue base of the Mysore state.
  • Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through Mysore, Canara and Malabar (1807) — the post-conquest survey of what the state had contained.
  • Irfan Habib, An Atlas of the Mughal Empire (1982) — on the method and the limits of mapping pre-survey Indian polities.
  • Place coordinates are modern; the frontier is a schematic reconstruction, not a surveyed boundary.

Full bibliography and how we weigh sources: Sources & Method