While it can be said that the Mughals had six great Emperors the last of these is only great in terms of his piety (refusing the more gaudy style of life) and a military leader. Aurangzeb extended the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent but at the same time his actions contributed to rocking the social foundations of the Mughal Empire. Importantly he refuted Babur and Akbar's tolerance of the Hindu population that had mostly been carried out to his time, as shown by his own brother Dara who warred with him over the throne but was not as good a military leader and fortunate as his brother.
If Akbar's Secularism had continued why sort of ramifications would I have had for the state of the Mughal Empire and the colonial period?
It would depend if the empire could retain a centralized sate but it seems that for Tolerance by the Mughals size and a degree of centralization may be sacrificed. Which leads me to believe that while the Mughal part of the empire may stand it may go the way of the Ottomans in being played by Europeans and bidding to modernize. Though it may save itself from being split apart if butterflies do not divide the Hindu and Islamic populations as much as OtL.
If Akbar's Secularism had continued why sort of ramifications would I have had for the state of the Mughal Empire and the colonial period?
It would depend if the empire could retain a centralized sate but it seems that for Tolerance by the Mughals size and a degree of centralization may be sacrificed. Which leads me to believe that while the Mughal part of the empire may stand it may go the way of the Ottomans in being played by Europeans and bidding to modernize. Though it may save itself from being split apart if butterflies do not divide the Hindu and Islamic populations as much as OtL.