A Mughal WI: Shah Jahan succeeded by Dara Shikoh, not Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb was the sixth Mughal Emperor and last of the "Great Moghuls". He spent much of his reign trying to conquer the south of India. This contributed to the empire's downfall because of an inadequate focus on maintaining central administration. Another factor was Aurangzeb's strong intolerance of religious groups other than Muslims like Sikhs and Hindus, leading to strong secessionist movements such as the Marathas. A last factor, outside of his control, was a long war for succession after his death in 1707.

Suppose Shah Jahan's intended heir Dara Shikoh wins the struggle for succession. He was much more of a philosopher king and very tolerant of the Mughal Empire's religious and ethnic minorities unlike his brother. He'd focus more on central administration and less on warfare, and most of the secessionist movements like the Marathas would likely be stillborn because Dara's rule isn't as oppressive as Aurangzeb's was IOTL.

What happens now. Can the Mughals successufully modernize? I don't see why not, they weren't isolationists like Qing China. And if they do, does this put them in a position to resist British encroachment from the 18th century onward?
 
Onkel Willie

Presuming a strong and stable central government persists I doubt if any of the European powers would have tried much interference. They only really got drawn in OTL because the vacuum left by the collapse of the Mughals was bad for business [since their main aim was to make money] and also posed the threat that if they didn't act one of their rivals might and then they could be squeezed out totally.

There might be more danger a century or so later when the technological and social gulf between the European world and just about everybody else reached it's peak. It would depend on how stable India was and how much it had modernised but not just China, every old kingdom/state came under serious pressure and generally lost a lot of it's freedom to act. [Whether it was the establishment of protectorates, spheres of influence, unequal treaties, relying on a particular power for protection etc]. However India under a still stable central government would see a lot less penetration by European powers unless one of the emperors really fouled up. [Which would however be fairly likely given we're talking about a period of more than a century and a lot of ways things can go wrong].

The other problem is when Europe ideas about human rights, rule of law, representative government start filtering through. People, probably especially merchants and traders initially, will want a lot more say on what's done in their country and with their taxes. India could be especially vulnerable to instability here because of the caste system and because you have a Muslim ruling house in an overwhelmingly Hindu state. Hence the wheels could come off, possibly fairly nastily, at some later stage even if the empire avoided the particular pitfall of Aurangzeb.

Steve

Aurangzeb was the sixth Mughal Emperor and last of the "Great Moghuls". He spent much of his reign trying to conquer the south of India. This contributed to the empire's downfall because of an inadequate focus on maintaining central administration. Another factor was Aurangzeb's strong intolerance of religious groups other than Muslims like Sikhs and Hindus, leading to strong secessionist movements such as the Marathas. A last factor, outside of his control, was a long war for succession after his death in 1707.

Suppose Shah Jahan's intended heir Dara Shikoh wins the struggle for succession. He was much more of a philosopher king and very tolerant of the Mughal Empire's religious and ethnic minorities unlike his brother. He'd focus more on central administration and less on warfare, and most of the secessionist movements like the Marathas would likely be stillborn because Dara's rule isn't as oppressive as Aurangzeb's was IOTL.

What happens now. Can the Mughals successufully modernize? I don't see why not, they weren't isolationists like Qing China. And if they do, does this put them in a position to resist British encroachment from the 18th century onward?
 
There may be capitulations along Ottoman lines, but I would expect more Euro penetration of South India than the Mughal lands unless Dara and his heirs are flat-out incompetent.

Aurangzeb did have the advantage of personal austurity, had he not blown the money he saved on aggressive war and enforcing religious orthodoxy he would have dome much better for his domain.
 
There may be capitulations along Ottoman lines, but I would expect more Euro penetration of South India than the Mughal lands unless Dara and his heirs are flat-out incompetent.

I imagine seeing a Mughal north India with a powerful Golconda serving as a buffer between it and the Eurpean colonies, concessions, "factories" in the south.
 
Top