A few months ago, I came across an article on Dara Shikoh that presented a common viewpoint suggesting that if he had become the Mughal Emperor, things might have turned out differently. However, my perspective on this matter is a bit more nuanced. I don't believe that Dara, or any other Indian ruler for that matter, could have thwarted the European domination of India. It was an inevitable outcome, considering even the mighty Ottoman Empire experienced decline and downfall. Mughal India's overall reluctance, along with the rest of Asia, to invest in science, technology, and scientific education during the 17th and 18th centuries would have held it back regardless. It's worth noting that while Indians were constructing the Taj Mahal, American colonists were busy establishing Harvard College, which later became Harvard University. National priorities and investments in education play a significant role in determining how a nation will develop in the future. The Mughals didn't prioritize building a strong navy, and Dara's ascension wouldn't have changed that. The Marathas made attempts in that direction, but their defeat in the third battle of Panipat put an end to those aspirations. Furthermore, religious discord in India would have continued to persist.
Instead of Dara Shikoh, I find Aurangzeb to be the tragic figure in Indian history. My perspective is influenced by the research of Sir Jadunath Sarkar on Aurangzeb's life and rule. Towards the end of his reign, Aurangzeb expressed despair with the famous phrase "Az ma ast, fasaad baqi" (after me, chaos). This sentiment echoes the well-known phrase "après moi le déluge" of Louis XV. From a character standpoint, Aurangzeb possessed qualities that one would hope to see in our politicians. He lived a simple life, refusing to accept any salary from the treasury and earning his income through calligraphy and cap-making. He was devoutly religious and avoided the indulgences that his father and grandfather were known for. He valued merit over religion or family ties when appointing individuals to positions and had Hindus serving in his military and administration. He even prohibited the practice of Sati, the Hindu tradition of burning widows on their husbands' funeral pyres, which not even Akbar had addressed. (Eventually, the British successfully banned it permanently.) Aurangzeb also harbored a vision of expanding the Mughal Empire deeper into southern India. However, his successors were unable to maintain that legacy, and the empire began to unravel by the end of his reign. That, to me, is the true tragedy.
In contrast, Dara's focus primarily revolved around spending time with mystics. He got the Upanishads translated from Sanskrit to Persian. But, unlike his three younger brothers, he lacked the experience of leading armies into battle, or govern a province of the empire. This lack of experience was a significant drawback for a medieval prince and would hurt him in the war of succession. While Dara did possess a vision for a syncretic Indian culture, he failed to envision the necessary political structure required to sustain such a culture.
If we examine the historical pattern of India, we observe two distinct aspects that fluctuate over time. On one axis, we have the fragmented versus unifying nature of the body politic, or the central governing system. The unifying periods signify when the entire subcontinent is brought together under a strong central authority. Throughout the past 2,500 years, these unifying phases amount to approximately less than 500 years in total. This includes roughly 100 years under the Mauryas, 100 years under the Guptas, 100 years under the Mughals, 100 years under British rule, and 75 years under the modern Indian republic. Conversely, the remaining 80% of the past 2,500 years comprised fragmented kingdoms and smaller empires. During the time when Ghaznavi was plundering temples in Gujarat, Rajendra Chola was raiding temples in Bengal. I won't delve into the debate on whether an imperial India or a state of warring factions is preferable; rather, I am simply stating the observations I have made.
The second aspect revolves around the dominant culture and its characteristics: whether it is rigid or flexible, imposed from the top down or developed organically. One might assume that a top-down, rigid imposition of a mono-culture on India, similar to how Chinese Han rule unified China millennia ago, would bring about unification. Aurangzeb held a rigid cultural vision, believing (understandably) that such rigidity was necessary to maintain and expand the empire. His vision of India did not accommodate a Shia-ruled Golconda. On the other hand, Dara's vision was flexible and inclusive, but his methods were unlikely to contribute to a politically and administratively stronger country. Even Ashoka the Great had to impose Buddhism as a state religion. Conversely, Sufism and Bhakti are examples of organic, grassroots movements driving cultural and social change. However, their capacity to politically unify hundreds of millions of people remains unproven.
The debate between Dara and Aurangzeb is not particularly pertinent, in the long arc of history. What truly matters is the trajectory of India's history, specifically whether it tends towards unity or fragmentation. Crucially, the basis of the unification is important. Should the unification be grounded in values of flexibility and tolerance, or should it be on the basis of a mono-culture. Aurangzeb's tragic legacy in the 18th century serves as a valuable lesson, highlighting the necessity of striking a balance between unification, tolerance, flexibility, and making appropriate investments in military strength and education. Ultimately, these factors play a vital role in shaping India's future.
