How far is it justified to consider the states like Bengal, Awadh and Hyderabad as 'successor states' of the Mughal state?

Answer:

As Mughal central authority declined after Aurangzeb, powerful provinces such as Bengal, Awadh and Hyderabad became effectively autonomous. Historians call them "successor states" because they inherited Mughal structures even while breaking free politically.

Case for 'Successor States'

Continuity of Mughal institutions:

• Founders were Mughal governors — Murshid Quli Khan (Bengal), Saadat Khan (Awadh), Nizam-ul-Mulk (Hyderabad) — who retained the mansab-jagir framework, revenue systems and administrative forms.
• They continued to acknowledge the Mughal emperor's nominal sovereignty, seeking legitimacy, titles and coinage in his name.

Autonomy in practice:

• Offices became hereditary; these rulers controlled revenue, appointments and defence independently.

Distinct Features (New States)

Regional consolidation:

• They forged alliances with local zamindars, bankers and merchants, and built regional economies (e.g., Jagat Seths in Bengal).
• Some pursued innovative revenue policies (ijaradari) and religious accommodation.

Historiographical Debate

• Muzaffar Alam and others see them as evidence of regional dynamism and prosperity, not mere decay.
• They are distinguished from "warrior states" (Marathas, Sikhs) and "compact states".

Therefore, it is largely justified to call Bengal, Awadh and Hyderabad "successor states": they arose from within the Mughal system and preserved its institutions and nominal allegiance, even as they became autonomous regional powers reflecting the eighteenth-century transition.