"All his measures including renaming his government as some kind of a divine endowment or reorganizing his army into ilahi or Ahmadi consisting of slaves or chelas were both military and Islamic in tone . . . Tipu basically belonged to that class of rulers who could be classified as feudal autocratic. To him, visible evidences of personal loyalty and security of his regional hegemony were extremely meaningful . . . we have reports of Tipu’s wanton cruelty . . . Tipu was a regnant ruler keenly conscious of personal prestige and dignity, but could not command loyalty from his own officers . . . most probably, Tipu was more feared than respected or loved by his subjects . . . admittedly, Tipu appointed Hindus to positions of trust and responsibility as indeed did the Mughals and other regional Muslim rulers. It is however doubtful that appointment of Hindus to responsible posts followed any principle other than sheer common sense . . . It is time we arrived at a reasonably realistic assessment of Tipu Sultan. If it is fair to maintain that Tipu was an energetic, assiduous, and industrious ruler and an immensely brave soldier, it is also reasonable to consider reports of his haughtiness and hubris. Despite many adulatory assessments, it is quite obvious on the basis of several eyewitness accounts that Tipu, fed by the flattery of his sycophants, came to believe that he was the greatest prince of Hindustan, if not of the world. This benighted narcissism rendered him deaf to any admonition from his well-wishers and led to his ultimate nemesis . . . Yet, we must recognize with the benefit of hindsight the crucial role Tipu Sultan played in the history of English imperialism in the subcontinent. He proved himself to be a worthy adversary who for a short period of time made his formidable presence felt in the declining decades of Mughal India."