Why do resistance movements align with declining powers? This paper examines how Indian Muslims engaged with the waning Ottoman Empire to contest British colonial rule, despite the absence of material support. Drawing on theories of hierarchy, international order, and resistance, we introduce the concept of “resistance-oriented order” to highlight how subordinate actors construct alternative hierarchies through ideological and normative affiliations. Rather than seeking tangible aid, Indian Muslims leveraged the Ottoman Khilafat to delegitimize colonial authority and foster a new political identity. We argue that decline does not preclude order construction but can serve as a catalyst for mobilization and resistance. By advancing a bottom-up perspective on hierarchy and international order, this study contributes to broader debates on legitimacy, non-state agency, and ideological power in global politics.
AcharyaA. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00637.x
2.
AhmedF. (2016). Contested subjects: Ottoman and British jurisdictional quarrels in re Afghans and Indian Muslims. Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 3(2), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.2979/jottturstuass.3.2.07
3.
AhmedF. (2021). Meddling with medals, defending the dead: Late Ottoman soft power from South Asia to north America. The International History Review, 43(5), 1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2020.1731567
4.
AkandaL. (1981). Social history of Muslim Bengal. Islamic Foundation.
AliM. (1913). The choice of the Turks (pp. 27–29). Comrade.
8.
AzadM. A. (1913). Comrade (pp. 27–29). Delhi: Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar.
9.
AzadM. A. (1914). Masla-i-Khilafat Wa Jazirat al Arab. al-Hilal.
10.
BalcıA. (2017). Writing the world into counter-hegemony: Identity, power and ‘Foreign Policy’ in ethnic movements. International Relations, 31(4), 466–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817723059
11.
BalcıA. (2020). Algeria in declining ottoman hierarchy: Why Algiers remained loyal to the falling patron. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 35(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1795082
12.
BalcıA.KardaşT. (2023). The ottoman international system: Power projection, interconnectedness, and the autonomy of frontier politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 51(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298231185974
13.
BarderA. D. (2015). International hierarchy. In The international studies encyclopedia. Blackwel.
14.
BentleyA. B.VuceticS.HopfT. (2018). The distribution of identity and the future of international order: China’s hegemonic prospects. International Organization, 72(4), 839–869. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000267
15.
BettizaG.LewisD. (2020). Authoritarian powers and norm contestation in the liberal international order: Theorizing the power politics of ideas and identity. Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(4), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz075
16.
BhargavV. V. (2022). A Hindu champion of Pan-Islam: Lajpat Rai and the Khilafat movement. Journal of Asian Studies, 81(4), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021911822000511
17.
BluntW. S. (1882). The future of Islam. Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
18.
BrummettP. (2015). Mapping the Ottomans sovereignty, territory, and identity in the early modern mediterranian. Cambridge University Press.
19.
ButtA. I. (2013). Anarchy and hierarchy in international relations: Examining South Americas war-prone decade, 1932–41. International Organization, 67(3), 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818313000155
20.
CamilA. (2017). The idea of the Muslim world a global intellectual history. Harvard University Press.
21.
CampbellD. (1992). Writing security United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. University of Minnesota Press.
22.
CitrinJ.ReingoldB. A.GreenD. P. (1990). American identity and the politics of ethnic change. The Journal of Politics, 52(4), 1124–1154. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131685
23.
EgelN.WardS. (2022). Hierarchy, revisionism, and subordinate actors: The TPNW and the subversion of the nuclear order. European Journal of International Relations, 28(4), 751–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221112611
24.
El TakiK. (2021). Subordinates’ quest for recognition in hierarchy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 50(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298211050953
FungC. J. (2020). Rhetorical adaptation, normative resistance and international order-making: China’s advancement of the responsibility to protect. Cooperation and Conflict, 55(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836719858118
27.
GhassemiA. (1988). U.S.-Iranian relationship, 1953-1978: A case study of patron-client state relationships. The University of Oklahoma Graduate College. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis.
28.
GhulamN. (1912). The comrade (p. 17). Delhi: Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar.
29.
GohE. (2013). The struggle for order hegemony, hierarchy abd transition in post-cold war East Asia. Oxford University Press.
HabibI. (2019). Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Social Scientist, 47(5/6), 3–8.
32.
HardyP. (1973). The Muslims of British India. Cambridge University Press.
33.
HasanM. (1981). Religion and politics in India: The Ulama and the Khilafat movement. In HasanM. (Ed.), Communal and Pan-Islamic trends in colonial India (pp. 1–26): Manohar.
HopkinsN.HopkinsV. K. (2004). Identity construction and British Muslims’ political activity: Beyond rational actor theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144666042037935
36.
HornatJ. (2024). Survival and status in the liberal international order: The grantors of recognition. Journal of International Relations and Development, 27(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-024-00323-8
37.
HuddyL. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00230
38.
IkenberryJ. (2016). Between the Eagle and the Dragon: America, China, and middle state strategies in East Asia. Political Science Quarterly, 131(1), 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12430
39.
IslamA. (2019). Indian Muslim’s support for Ottoman Pan-Islamism: The case of Shibli Numani. Intellectual Discourse, 27(1), 197–220.
40.
IslamS. (1979). The permanent settlement in Bengal a study of its operation 1790-1819. Bangla Academy.
41.
JaffeJ. (2017). Gandhi, lawyers, and the courts’ Boycott during the non-cooperation movement. Modern Asian Studies, 51(5), 1340–1368. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x1600024x
Kadıİ. H. (2021). Between the Ottoman Empire and the sultanate of Aceh in the face of Dutch colonial expansion. The International History Review, 43(5), 1080–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2020.1726433
44.
KangD. (2003). Hierarchy and stability in Asian international relations. In MastandunoM.IkenberryG. J. (Eds.), International relations theory and the Asia-Pacific (pp. 163–189). Columbia University Press.
KingR. (1999). Orientalism and religion post-colonial theory, India and ‘The mystic East. Routledge.
48.
KortepeterC. M. (1972). Ottoman imperialism during the reformation: Europe and the Caucasus. New York University Press.
49.
KustermansJ.HoremansR. (2022). Four conceptions of authority in International Relations. International Organization, 76(1), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818321000230
50.
LakeD. A. (2009). Hierarchy in international relations. Cornell University Press.
51.
LeeY. W. (2020). Performing civilisational narratives in East Asia: Asian values, multiple modernities, and the politics of economic development. Review of International Studies, 46(4), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210520000212
MacdonaldP. K. (2018). Embedded authority: A relational network approach to hierarchy in world politics. Review of International Studies, 44(1), 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210517000213
54.
MalikN. S. (2012). Formation of the All India Muslim League and its response to some foreign issues 1906-1911. Journal of Political Studies, 19(2), 169–186.
55.
MallickA. R. (1977). British policy and the Muslims in Bengal 1757-1856. Bangla Academy.
56.
MandavilleP. (2018). Islam as statecraft: How governments use religion in foreign policy. Brookings Institution.
57.
MathewJ. (2017). Spectres of Pan-Islam: Methodological nationalism and British imperial policy after the First World War. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 45(6), 942–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2017.1355524
58.
MetcalfB. D. (2011). Islam and power in Colonial India: The making and unmaking of a Muslim princess. The American Historical Review, 116(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.116.1.1
59.
MinaultG. (1982). The Khilafat movement religious symbolism and political mobilization in India. Oxford University Press.
60.
MiyanM. M. (2012). Silken letters movement account of Silken Handkerchief letters conspiracy case from British records. Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd.
61.
MuirW. (1891). The caliphate, its rise, decline and fall from original sources. The Religious Tract Society.
62.
NairG. (1923). Diwan bahadur CThe moplah rebellion, 1921. The Norman Printing Bureau.
63.
NandaB. (1990). Gandhi Pan Islamism, imperialism, and nationalism in India. Oxford University Press.
64.
NiemeijerA. (1972). The Khilafat movement in India 1919-1924. Brill.
65.
ObamamoyeB. F. (2023). When Neo-Gramscians engage the postcolonial: Insights into subaltern consent and dissent in the re/unmaking of hegemonic orders. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 48(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231151467
ÖzaydinZ. (2003). The Indian Muslims Red Crescent society’s aid to the Ottoman state during the Balkan war in 1912. Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, 2(4), 12–18.
68.
ÖzcanA. (1997). Pan-Islamism Indian Muslims, the Ottomans and Britain 1877-1924. Brill.
69.
ÖzcanA. (2007). Attempts to use the Ottoman Caliphate as the legitimator of British rule in India. In ReidA.GilsenanM. (Eds.), Islamic legitimacy in a Plural Asia (pp. 71–80). Routledge.
70.
PhillipsA.SharmanJ. C. (2015). International order in diversity war, trade and rule in the Indian Ocean. Cambridge University Press.
71.
PüskülF. (2023). The impact of Abdulhamid’s Pan-Islamic policy on Indian Muslims living under British rule. Al Mısbah Research Journal, 3(4), 85–95.
72.
QureshiM. N. (1978). The Indian Khilafat movement (1918-1924). Journal of Asian History, 12(2), 152–168.
QureshiM. N. (1999). Pan Islam in British Indian politics A study of the Khilafat movement 1918-1924. Brill.
75.
RoyA. (1999). Impact of Islamic revival and reform in colonial Bengal and Bengal Muslim identity: A revisit. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 22(s1), 39–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856408708723374
SenU. (2017). Developing Terra Nullius: Colonialism, nationalism, and indigeneity in the Andaman Islands. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 59(4), 944–973. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0010417517000330
78.
TejaiS. (2007). Re-Considering chronologies of nationalism and communalism: The Khilafat Moement in Sind and its aftermath, 1919-1927. South Asia Research, 27(3), 249–269.
79.
TharoorS. (2016). An era of darkness the British Empire in India. Aleph Book Company.
TrivediR. K. (1985). The holy places: An aspect of the pro-Turkish Upsurge, 1912-14. In Proceedings of the Indian history congress (Vol. 46, pp. 400–410). Indian Histroy Congress.
83.
WastiS. T. (2006). The political aspiration of Indian Muslims and the Ottoman Nexus. Middle Eastern Studies, 42(5), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263200600826331
84.
ZamanA. (2015). Compliance and defiance in patron-client state relationship: A case study of Pakistan’s relationship with the United States, 1947-2023. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. The Australian National University.
85.
ZamanF. (2024). The Khilafat movement in Europe and the reimagining of authority in Islam. In MukherjeeS. (Ed.), Empire, religion and identity (pp. 230–263). Brill.
86.
ZarakolA. e. (2017). Hierarchies in world politics. Cambridge University Press.
87.
ZhangF. (2015). Chinese hegemony: Grand strategy and international institutions in East Asian history. Stanford University Press.
