‘Greater Mughals’ by GS Cheema: Complexities, contradictions of Mughal emperors

All empires in human history have been formed and sustained by conquest, violence and bloodshed. They can survive only by expansion. After some time, the same expansion becomes a liability for the empire and a catalyst for its decline and dissolution. This generic story of the empires is also applicable to the great Mughal Empire. This story has been told in great detail by GS Cheema in his book on the formation and expansion of the Mughal Empire.

The story of the great Mughals can be neatly divided between the first six rulers (Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb), who left a deep impact on their times and also on times that followed, and the rest who came and went without leaving much of a trace. Finally, it was all over in 1857 when the British displaced the Mughals and became the new rulers of India.

It all started with Babur, who came from Central Asia and with the help of guns and artillery defeated the army of Ibrahim Lodi and established the new empire. Babur may have been the first in the subcontinent to use gunpowder. Between 1526 and the 18th century, the story of the Mughals is, on the one hand, of many cultural achievements in the fields of literature, paintings and translations. On the other hand, however, it is the story of war and destruction. These two dominant imaginations of the Mughals, of war and plunder and of cultural efflorescence, are epitomised fairly neatly by Akbar and Aurangzeb, two of its tallest emperors, who also ruled for the longest period of time, each one for nearly half a century.

All rulers use coercion and diplomacy, and sometimes a possible combination of the two in order to establish their control. The difference between Akbar and Aurangzeb was that Akbar used more of diplomacy and less of coercion. Aurangzeb, by contrast, relied much more on coercion and intimidation. Akbar also showed a great keenness in understanding the true essence of religion. He set up ibadatkhanas (places of worship) where he held weekly discussions between different faith systems. He invited representatives from different religions — Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism — and initiated a dialogue amongst all of them to eventually arrive at the true meaning of religion. Akbar’s quest was for a pure religion, shorn of all excessive ritualism and based entirely on man’s relationship with the Supreme Being. Deen-e Ilahi, the religion he founded, was very similar to Ashoka’s Dhamma. Just as Ashoka’s Dhamma was larger than Buddhism, Akbar’s Deen-e Ilahi was larger than Islam. Theirs was a quest for a universal religion that would be above the various denominational faith systems.

Akbar was also very sensitive to the feelings of his non-Muslim subjects. He abolished jazya, a religious tax that was imposed only on non-Muslims. Hindus resented it and so Akbar abolished it. However, a century later, Aurangzeb re-imposed it, much to the annoyance of Hindus. The re-imposition of jazya by Aurangzeb was not the only act that antagonised Hindus. He also imposed many other taxes that were discriminatory in nature. Aurangzeb issued many orders for demolition of Hindu temples, particularly the ones in Mathura and Banaras. The book argues that Aurangzeb’s policies were completely in contrast with the general existing norm of non-interference by the State in religious matters, practised by earlier rulers.

These then are the two contrasting images of the Mughal Empire. One is that of the first pan-Indian empire that promoted trade and agriculture, practised non-interference in matters of religious faith, and achieved great cultural efflorescence, particularly in the fields of painting, music, literature and architecture. The other image, exemplified mainly by Aurangzeb, is that of coercion and violence, religious intolerance and discrimination in matters of religious faith. Which of the two images is the dominant one that should constitute an enduring picture of the Mughals? The book refrains from answering this question and prefers to present the Mughal Empire in all its complexities and contradictory possibilities.

However, one possible weakness of the book is that it tends to reduce the story of the Mughals only to conquests and warfare. There is actually much more to that story. The Mughals set up the first pan-Indian empire and created a comprehensive structure of governance and bureaucracy. All the yardsticks of economic development were put in place. It was also a period in which great efforts were made towards creating public works, road networks, river transport, bridges, serais and big cities. Trade and manufacturing picked up like never before. In other words, India, at the end of its middle ages, was well on course to take the next big step towards a modern economy. That, however, was not to be. The possibilities of independent modern economic development were thwarted because of British colonialism. But that is another story.

The book under review is a much welcome effort to give the pioneering six Mughal rulers their due.