Akbar's Secularism Is Not Diminished

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.
 
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.
Well, my TL is exploring the ramifications of this through Din-e-Lahi. Have it last, and you could see something quite interesting form in the way of pluralism over secularism. The problem with your question, however, is that there isn't one, set path. From a POD in Akbar's time, the Mughals could be anywhere from an extinct, long dead power, to the pre-eminent nation in the world.

Also, Akbar was not secular, he was pluralistic. Far from removing religion from the government, he placed himself on top of both the spiritual and the civil structure.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think the inference of Akbar's Secularism is thrown around in Indian Politics.

Though mostly just curious from a POD involving Aurangzeb not becoming Emperor and all the Mughal Emperors continuing the plural and tolerant tradition.
 
Yes, I think the inference of Akbar's Secularism is thrown around in Indian Politics.

Though mostly just curious from a POD involving Aurangzeb not becoming Emperor and all the Mughal Emperors continuing the plural and tolerant tradition.

That's hard. Shah Jahan's spending spree certainly didn't help, and by all accounts, Dara Shikoh may not have been the man who could reel the Empire from its massive expenditures. Murad Baksh or Shah Shuja might be better, but it was Shah Jahan who began tilting it towards religiousness.

If Khusrau is not blinded, you would see him taking precedence over Khurram, and he might be such a man to keep the tolerance alive.
 
Top