The Mughal Empire and Historical Reputation: Crash Course World History #217 Video Lecture | A Complete Guide to World History : 2 - World Knowledge

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course
World History and today we’re going talk
about the Mughal Empire. And we’re also going
to talk about the two most important Mughal
emperors, Akbar and Aurangzeb and how their
historical reputations were made.
Mr Green, Mr Green? Don’t you mean the Mongol Empire?
Oh, Me From The Past, that reminds of the
time that you conflated the word forte with
the word forté - which of course you pronounced
fort.
But on this occasion you aren’t entirely
wrong the Mughals were kind of the Mongols.
But we’ll get to that in a minute.
So, the Mughals were Muslims who created an
empire in India that held power for roughly
200 years between the early 16th and early
18th centuries, although, technically the
Mughal empire didn’t come to an end until
after the Indian Rebellion against the British
in 1857.
Now the Mughals weren’t the first Muslims
in India, those would have been merchants,
and they weren’t even the first Muslims
to rule significant parts of India. That honor
goes to the Delhi sultanate which began in
1206 in northern India.
But the Delhi Sultanate didn’t last very
long, and it was replaced by a bunch of regional
kingdoms, and one of them, the Lodi sultanate
had the misfortune of falling to the founder
of the Mughal dynasty, Babur in 1526.
Not Babar, although that would have been awesome.
Babur was descended from Timur, the last great
Central Asian conqueror in the Mongol tradition,
and also from Chinggis Khan, which explains
why Babur and his followers are called the
Mughals; it’s the Persian-Arabic word for
Mongols.
Now I know what you’re saying, something
like 12% of human beings currently living
in the world are descended from Chinggis Khan,
but Babur got in on the ground floor of it.
Anyway, I think we have some footage of Babur
raiding the Lodi sultanate, don’t we Stan?
Ehhh… I don’t feel like that was actual
file footage from 1206. I feel like that was
a racist Hercules movie from Italy in the
1950’s.
So the Mughal Empire is really important in
India’s cultural history. I mean, the Taj
Mahal was built during this time. In architecture
and painting, we see a blending of Indian
and Persian styles that demonstrate how cosmopolitan
the empire was.
But probably the most important aspect of
the Mughals at least as far as the contemporary
world is concerned, is that they consolidated
Muslim rule over much of India and they’re
largely the reason that today there are so
many Indians who are also Muslims.
And the Mughals were also a really interesting
example of like how to build and maintain
an empire. All right, Let’s go to the Thought
Bubble.
Muslims were a small minority ruling class
vastly outnumbered by Hindus, and like many
empires they relied on military power and
pursued expansionist policies.
Like most of the Mughal rulers, especially
Akbar and Aurangzeb spent a considerable amount
of time trying to extend Mughal control over
the entire Indian subcontinent. And they created
a pretty effective empire. They were able
to incorporate Indian princes into the ruling
class while still retaining top positions
for Muslims. They reorganized the bureaucracy
and instituted an effective tax collection
system, which was important because the empire
was of course very expensive to run - as empires
always are.
This meant that it was important to make accurate
tax assessments and taxes were usually collected
by local leaders called zamindars. Taxes had
to be paid in cash, and this contributed to
the growing commercialization of the Mughal
empire. Reliance on zamindars, who were important
men in their communities, meant that the empire
could collect revenue without being too disruptive
to local village life. And although almost all
of the revenue came from taxes on agriculture,
the Mughals also taxed trade.
Another way that the Mughals were a typical
empire is that their rulers engaged in building
projects to enhance their prestige. From Persepolis
to Rome to the Forbidden City, building monuments
to one’s greatness is what emperors do,
and the Mughals were no exception. As Muslims,
many of their building projects were mosques,
but the Mughals also built forts and, most
spectacularly, mausoleums.
Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, most history classes
that mention the Mughals focus on the contrast
between Akbar and Aurangzeb. Akbar comes off
as a good ruler, and Aurangzeb is painted
as the guy who ruined the empire.
The typically positive historians’ view
of Akbar, who ruled from 1556 until 1605,
can be summed up in this quote from Asher
and Talbot’s India before Europe:
“Through his reforms of administration and
taxation Akbar created a sound and enduring
foundation for Mughal governance, while his
tolerant attitude and inclusive policies toward
Hindus and Jains helped create a state that
was more Indian in character.”
That tolerance aspect is especially important.
Like Akbar rescinded the jizya – the tax
that non-Muslims had to pay – and in 1580
he gave all non-Muslims the same rights as
Muslims instituting a policy called sulh-i kul,
which translates to “universal toleration.”
Now in part, this policy was designed to lessen
the power of Muslim religious scholars, who
might have been disturbed by the way that
Akbar blended Islamic and Indian ideas of
kingship, especially the idea that he was,
you know, kind of a little bit divine.
Slightly problematic idea to a lot of Muslim
scholars given that the foundation of the
Islamic faith is the statement “there is
no God but God” but.. you know...
In addition to the sulh-i kul, Akbar built
his reputation for toleration by sponsoring
discussions of religion and philosophy. He
even commissioned a building for religious
discussions, the Ibadat Khana, where Muslims,
and Brahmins, and Zoroastrians, Jains, Christians,
all of them could talk theology.
Akbar’s support for intellectual pursuits
are the kinds of things that modern historians
like, and it’s not all that surprising that
he is remembered so favorably.
Historians are far less kind to Akbar’s grandson,
Aurangzeb who ruled from 1658 until 1707.
This partly due to the work of J.N. Sakar
who promoted the idea that Aurangzeb built
an Islamic state that discriminated against
Hindus and other non-Muslims.
Which in turn led to a loss of unity across
the Indian sub-continent and eventually the
decline of the empire.
And it’s true that by the time of Aurangzeb’s
death in 1707 the Mughals were losing control
of their empire. I mean the stark reality
of that decline came in 1757 when the British
East India Company established itself permanently
in Bengal and began its inexorable efforts
to colonize all of India.
But that was, you know, 50 years after Aurangzeb
died so maybe he shouldn’t get all the blame.
In fact, whether these guys deserve their
reputations really depends both on what aspects
of their reign you look at and how you interpret
them. As conquerors Akbar and Aurangzeb had
a lot in common.
Like Akbar might have sponsored high-minded
discussion but he was also willing to use
extreme violence to keep his subjects in line.
For example, he slaughtered thousands of inhabitants
of the fort at Chittor and ordered his generals
to pile up the skulls of Indian princes to
frighten them into submission. That’s not
especially tolerant.
And here’s another detail about Akbar’s
rule that’s meant to paint him as a modern,
enlightened ruler. Because he was interested
in science, Akbar arranged an experiment.
“… He had infants moved to a special house
where no person was to talk to them, so that
the natural language of mankind might be revealed.
The experiment failed, but it is a reflection
of Akbar’s desire to explore in a scientific
manner the nature of humans and what he believed
to be their common condition.”
Now you can read that as a leader trying to
understand the underlying connections among
all humans no matter their religious backgrounds.
Or you can read it as horrifying child abuse.
And then we have Aurangzeb was a devout Muslim
and did try to introduce Islamic principles
into Mughal rule, but the trend towards orthodoxy
and away from Akbar’s toleration had begun
with his predecessor, Shah Jahan.
He is best known for building the Taj Mahal
- good work. Stan, he build it by himself?
Oh, apparently he had some help.
But the maintenance of the Taj Mahal took
all the revenue from thirty villages, and
maybe Aurangzeb’s orthodoxy was less important
than his desire to appear to be a sober and
frugal leader.
Aurangzeb was also accused of destroying temples
in 1669, although in fact they were just damaged,
and this was primarily done to send a political
message to opponents, not as an act of religious
orthodoxy.
He also tried to limit expenses at court by
prohibiting the use of gold in men’s garments
and he stopped the traditional practice of
being weighed against gold on his birthday.
Unlike Akbar, who is seen as being a patron
of the arts, Aurangzeb is remembered for getting
rid of court musicians and poets, but he got
rid of them because of financial constraints.
Well, and also because of his interpretation
of Islamic law. And that last point interests
me, for those who want to see him negatively,
Aurangzeb’s orthodox Islam had no room for
musicians or poets.
But it’s also possible to see that decision
as a prudent cost saving measure.
Here’s another detail of Aurangzeb’s life
that has been used to paint him as a zealot.
Aurangzeb, unlike his predecessors, was buried
in a simple, outdoor grave, rather than an
elaborate, and expensive, tomb.
You could see that as a symbol of religious
faith, or as a sign of humility or an attempt
by a thoughtful ruler to spare his subjects
the expenses of like keeping up his tomb.
That said, in the long run the Taj Mahal has
done pretty well in terms of generating tourist
money. Whereas I don’t think anyone is paying
to see Aurangzeb’s grave.
But the thing is, Aurangzeb needed to save
money.
If he was a bad ruler, it’s mostly because
he spent so much time and treasure on fighting
rebellions in the south of his empire, and
then neglected the north, where unrest grew
as well.
It’s overly simplistic to say that the glory
days of the Mughal Empire were about tolerance
and the downfall was about intolerance.
Really, there were lots of factors that played
into the decline of the Mughal Empire including
growing factionalism at the Mughal court,
the rise of regional powers, and the breakdown
of the system of governance by local nobles.
Historians are in the business of making claims
about what happened and supporting those claims
with evidence, and often this evidence provides
the details that make reading and learning
about history so much fun.
Now, sometimes the details suggest only one
interpretation, but in many cases they can
lead us to multiple conclusions.
And the reigns of Akbar and Aurangzeb provide
good examples of why we need to be careful
with our details. It’s possible that Aurangzeb
was a terrible ruler because he tried to impose
Muslim orthodoxy on a Hindu majority –
and no doubt many Hindus felt so, especially
after he re-instituted the jizya. And he did
try to introduce sharia law as the governing
principle in the Empire.
But it’s also possible that Aurangzeb’s
bad reputation comes from a contemporary preference
for tolerance over piety in our rulers.
Or from a general feeling that states are
better ruled by secular than religious laws.
Or from the fact that it’s just hard to
rule a declining empire well.
Ask President Obama.
Our experiences and biases make us more likely
to see the dismissal of court musicians and
poets as an example of religious fanaticism
than as like a cost saving measure.
And maybe Akbar, who could be as brutal in
his military conquests as any emperor, comes
out in a good light because he did advocate
religious toleration.
But it wasn’t totally, or even primarily,
due to his religious tolerance that Akbar
was able to win most of his wars.
And the many rebellions against his reign
suggest that he wasn’t as popular with his
subjects as he is today with historians.
One last note about how the way that we look
at the past can shape the present and
vice-versa.
We need to be particularly careful here, because
the Mughals continue to play an important
role in how Indians imagine themselves today.
One of the roots of contemporary Hindu nationalism
is pride at India’s throwing off the shackles
of imperialism and for many Hindu Nationalists,
that history of imperialism starts not with
the British, but with the Mughals.
We often use history to define ourselves today,
and one of the most commons ways to do that
is to make negative claims about the people that
we say we are not.
And so when we look at historical figures
we need to be conscious of the fact that
WE are looking at them. Thanks for watching.
I’ll see you next week.
Crash Course is filmed here in the Chad and
Stacey Emigholz studio in Indianapolis and
it's made with the help of all of these nice
people.
And it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for
the support of our Subbable subscribers. Subbable
is a voluntary subscription service that allows
people to support Crash Course directly so
we can keep it free for everyone forever.
So thanks to everyone who has contributed
to Crash Course through Subbable, thanks to
you for watching, and as we say in my hometown,
“don’t forget to be awesome.”