WI: Dara Shikoh becomes Mughal Emperor instead of Aurangzeb

Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb were the two sons of Shah Jahan who engaged in a succession war near the end of his reign, and the two represent polar opposite types of rulers. In OTL, Aurangzeb won the war, and went to be a highly religiously conservative ruler, who alienated many of the Mughals non - Muslim subjects, to the point of persecution. He also launched many military campaigns, although many were successful, these campaigns can be said to have led to overexpanding of the empire, and led to its downward spiral after his death.

Dara Shikoh on the other hand, has often been compared to his great - grandfather Akbar, a firm believer in religious pluralism and an ardent Sufi, had a close relationship with the seventh Sikh Guru, and was keen to encourage a common mother tongue between both Indian Muslims and Hindus. However, whilst saying this, he was clearly an inferior military commander, and his ability as a politician/ruler was never truly tested.

So this sets the context for the question, how would Indian history develop if the more liberal Dara Shikoh become Mughal Emperor?
 
At the bare minimum, much less religious tension between Muslims and Hindus.

Not only that, but the whole face of Sikhism changes. The whole struggle between the Tenth Guru and Aurangzeb, the foundation of the Khalsa and the Sikh genocides are completely changed now.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Aurangzeb, for all his fault, is very successful military leader. and for all his religious inclination, he gained loyalty of of Hindu general too.
There no guarantee Dara Shikoh would be capable of performing same victory, Mughal could be very weakened.

and there is gossip of influence of his sister on Dara Shikoh, plus he gave promise to allow his sister to marry, Jahanara and Jahanara husband could be powerful 'power behind the throne'.

lastly there will be problem with more devout Muslim, since they are Aurangzeb supporter, Dara Shikoh Sufi inclination, and allowing women powerful position. Mughal under Dara Shikoh could have problem in Deccan and Northwest border.
 
Aurangzeb, for all his fault, is very successful military leader. and for all his religious inclination, he gained loyalty of of Hindu general too.
There no guarantee Dara Shikoh would be capable of performing same victory, Mughal could be very weakened.

and there is gossip of influence of his sister on Dara Shikoh, plus he gave promise to allow his sister to marry, Jahanara and Jahanara husband could be powerful 'power behind the throne'.

lastly there will be problem with more devout Muslim, since they are Aurangzeb supporter, Dara Shikoh Sufi inclination, and allowing women powerful position. Mughal under Dara Shikoh could have problem in Deccan and Northwest border.

But in most cases, weren't the Mughals during Aurangzeb's period the aggressor during most of these conflicts? Like the conflict with the Deccan sultanates, of which created a power vacuum for the Marathas which led to the Mughal - Maratha War etc.

Both Akbar and Jahangir had powers behind the throne during periods of their reign (for Jahangir it was Nur Jahan, a woman), but eventually they either overcame these obstacles or one of their sons did.

Whilst yes, most orthodox Muslims would have preferred Aurangzeb, in the Mughal Empire, outside of the Ulema, weren't they a minority? Dara Shikoh can pull off the support of the 'Ashrafi' Muslims (Aristocratic types with more interest in Persian sciences, poetry, philosophy, etc), less orthodoxly inclined Muslims (which I'd say were majority in the subcontinent before the backlash from 1857, Hindus (grand majority of Mughalistan's population) and other religions. (The increasingly powerful Sikhs, travelling Europeans etc)
 
Aurangzeb's sectarianism is greatly exaggerated as the reason for the Empire's 'collapse' (more accurately, decentralisation). He had more Hindus in service than Akbar, and in fact, nationalist historians play up the Hindu-Muslim angle when in fact the Mughal era was dominated by regionalism, not religion. The Rajputs didn't give a damn if Aurangzeb toppled an unauthorised temple in Bundelkhand, for example.

In addition, Dara Shikoh was a weak leader whose soldiers didn't trust him the same way Aurangzeb's did. The Empire's decentralisation was due more to administrative problems, like smaller land grants, festering local corruption, and increasing expenses.
 
To add on to my earlier point, it is important to realise that Aurangzeb's ostensibly anti-Hindu policies were usually political; an unruly vassal building a temple would be seen as spit on imperial authority, and so the temple had to be torn down. Similarly, jizya was a cost-saving measure, and it had no effect on 'Hindus' at all- that is to say, the Hindus who played an important part in Aurangzeb's empire- the Rajputs.

Caste and regional identities played a far greater part in the Mughal era, than religion. Islam and Hinduism were not two polar opposite faiths, and syncretism was common. On a broader level, it's also common sense: a Muslim from Maharashtra wouldn't have much common cause with one from Punjab; nor would Hindus from Bengal be very concerned with Gujarati Hindus. However, Maratha Muslims and Hindus had much in common, and in fact realising this brings in a great idea as to why the Maratha Wars happen. Shivaji isn't some Hindu crusader against evil Muslim Aurangzeb, and in both opposing armies, Muslims and Hindus occupied high posts in great number.

Another thing to consider is also that the Maratha wars happen independently of the Mughal invasion of the Deccan; Shivaji is already conducting raids against Bijapur on his own, and attempts to seize southern Konkan lands. The trouble only comes when Bijapur annexes Ahmdnagar and in turn has to cede those lands to Aurangzeb. Shivaji, a raider and a property-holder in Bijapur and now also the Mughal Empire, pledges his loyalty with one hand and raids with the other- his legitimacy in Maharashtra is actually underlined as being the Mughal agent in the region, whether or not Aurangzeb agrees or not. Even his coronation and his proclamation of sardeshmukhi rights are actually projected to Agra; they are faits accompli, but also a call for the Emperor to legally protect these taxation rights of the Chhatrapati.

Aurangzeb is actually not a bad ruler. During his time, he does well against the Marathas, and indeed creates a scenario where all Indian rulers give some degree of recognition to Delhi's overlordship- even after the Empire decentralises! This is the context the 18th century should in fact be viewed; regions challenging Delhi's central authority, but not altogether removing it.
 

That is a very interesting point of view, it is something that I also noticed that even when there were periods where the Mughal empire could have been disestablished by the Marathas, Durranis, etc they were kept allowed to rule due to their prestige, do you believe it was Aurangzeb's military prowess that caused this?

Also, what do you believe was the factor that caused the Mughals decline then? Not necessarily the Decentralisation of long held areas such as Bengal and Gujurat, but the actual de facto collapse? (Also when do you believe the Mughals de facto collapsed, obviously a while before 1857)
 
All the empires that rose in India flourished as long as the emperors were strong enough to keep their subordinates, the generals and the governors, firmly under control. This is true in the case of all emperors and kings, Mauryas, Guptas, Vardhanas, Palas, Cholas, Vijayanagar, Delhi Sultans or Mughals. It was quite natural that the dynasties could not produce a long line of able rulers, and the succession of two or three weak rulers was enough to cause the downfall of an empire or dynasty.
The Mughals had a row of efficient rulers among the initial ones from Babur to Aurangzeb, except Humayun. Remember that Humayun lost his throne and it was pure luck that the dynasty got it back. But that line stopped with Aurangzeb and the decine was inevitable. The stabity of a kingdom or empire depended too much on the personality of the ruler. A permanent buerocracy which could carry on the administration in the absence of an able ruler did not exist in the ancient kingdoms.
 
That is a very interesting point of view, it is something that I also noticed that even when there were periods where the Mughal empire could have been disestablished by the Marathas, Durranis, etc they were kept allowed to rule due to their prestige, do you believe it was Aurangzeb's military prowess that caused this?

Also, what do you believe was the factor that caused the Mughals decline then? Not necessarily the Decentralisation of long held areas such as Bengal and Gujurat, but the actual de facto collapse? (Also when do you believe the Mughals de facto collapsed, obviously a while before 1857)

But it wasn't a collapse. It was a decentralisation. Kishan is overestimating the person of the Emperor in imperial politics, because there was a robust Mughal bureaucracy.... It just differed from province to province where zamindars and military officials worked with the local governors to coalesce power. This was a gradual process that resulted from the nature of the Mughal state. You're also treating the Maratha polities as a state, which they weren't. They were an added layer to the state. Chauth and sardeshmukhi were appendages to the existing taxation system, not a replacement.

Where Kishan is right is that where the Emperor cannot control the bureaucracy, then the bureaucracy becomes regionalized to a greater degree. The governance of the Empire is a constant battle between particularism and centralisation, where the emperor represents the latter, while all important officials tend to represent the former. Furthermore an increasing expense to revenue ratio, a trend that happened since Akbar, also meant the Emperor was losing a fundamental lever of his own power.... Control over troops through cash and land. It is why even Akbar played around with giving full cash salaries and cancelling the jagirdari system for a while.

A decentralized Mughal state is still a Mughal state, however, and while modern and twentieth century nationalists try and downplay this tether to Delhi, it existed right until 1857. The Company State was still the Mughal State. It just happened that the Emperor himself held little power.
 
Top