WI: no Mughal collapse

What if the Mughal empire had managed to stave of its decline and dissolution by suppressing the Marathas, Rajputs etc. and excluding the British and other Europeans from the Indian Trade?
 
Uh... A lot of things. Honestly when we're dealing with several different points of possible divergence then a host of different scenarios become possible. In many ways this could be defined by what do you want to happen if the Mughals don't collapse?
 
Mughalistan still exists in the AHN, mostly because the Dutch weren't interested in taking control of northern India. I haven't developed anything on it, mostly because they aren't Dutch, but I kind of picture them in 2015 with an economic level of Indonesia, Iran or Nigeria. It's short of its full potential but still growing.
 
Before we consider the effects of a surviving Mughal empire, we first must figure out how the Mughals are going to keep their empire together for a few extra centuries. For starters, they needed to establish proper and commonly accepted rites of succession to the throne, rather then just letting all the claimants battle it out in a repetition of civil wars every time an emperor dies (and in some cases, the battles started well before the reigning emperor was finally dead). The Mughals were actually quite fortunate that between Babur's rise in the 1520's and Aurangzeb's death in 1707 they had the benefit of talented and ruthless leaders who were able to secure the throne relatively swiftly. After Aurangzeb, the succession just became a Darwinian free-for-all, and Mughal central authority suffered immensely as a result (the fact that few of the Mughals after Aurangzeb possessed the qualities necessary for leadership to degrees comparable to their predecessors didn't help matters).

More importantly, though, the Mughals are going to have to come to terms with one simple, unavoidable fact: that India is above all else a Hindu country, and that traditional Muslim attitudes toward "idolatry" simply will not fly when over 80% of your population (at least) are fiercely devoted to their 330 million gods. Aside from Ackbar, few of the Mughals were willing to consider giving the Hindus any more tolerance then the "privilege" of being allowed to pay the jizya (rather then simply being enslaved or massacred, the traditional Muslim proscription for idolaters). Some form of religious plurality with Hinduism, which was nigh-unthinkable to the more conservative Muslims like Aurangzeb, wound have gone a long way towards placating Hindu warrior groups like the Marathas and the Rajputs. That also would have helped keep the general population loyal to the throne against the threat of Europeans, who, (at least at first,) seemed more tolerant of Hindusim then the Muslims.
 
Intolerance had nothing to do with the fall of the Mughal Empire. The Hindus they courted remained in line, and the Rajputs that rebelled were attempting a powerplay within the framework of the Empire instead of seceding. In pure numbers there were more Hindus in Aurangzeb's empire than in Akbar's.

Likewise the Marathas themselves were not primarily motivated by religion. These beliefs are a development of modern ideas about the Hindu-Muslim dynamic which simply wasn't present in the 18th century.

Certainly the Empire lasted with full political powers fifty years after Aurangzeb's death. It was individuals both Hindu and Muslim who took advantage in the Empire's overextension to benefit from an increase in powers, from Bengal to Awadh to the Deccan. India Before Europe is a good source on how Indian politics actually tended to play out pre-British rule.
 
What if the Mughal empire had managed to stave of its decline and dissolution by suppressing the Marathas, Rajputs etc. and excluding the British and other Europeans from the Indian Trade?

Don't know how well it fits the specific POD, but Tony Jones's Gurkani Alam TL is basically the best case scenario for the Empire, I'd think.
 
Top