Mughals in India: From Foreign Invaders to Sons of the Soil — and Back to Betrayers

The story of the Mughal Empire in India is not just a tale of conquest and administration—it is a deeply symbolic journey of cultural engagement, rejection, and realignment. From Babur, who entered India with the eyes of a foreign conqueror, to Akbar, who fully embraced Indian civilization, and finally to Aurangzeb, who reasserted Turkic-Muslim orthodoxy and reversed the process of integration—the Mughal dynasty reveals a fascinating cycle of alienation, assimilation, and cultural retreat.

Babur: The Turkic Outsider in a Strange Land

Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, was born in the Fergana Valley (in present-day Uzbekistan) and descended from two of history’s most formidable conquerors—Timur (on his father’s side) and Genghis Khan (on his mother’s side). He identified strongly with his Turkic heritage, spoke Chagatai Turkish, and was steeped in the Central Asian-Persianate culture of the Timurids.

When Babur invaded India in 1526 and defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the First Battle of Panipat, he found the land unwelcoming—not for its people or power, but for its alien culture. In his memoirs, the Baburnama, he lamented India’s climate, its food, its cities, and even its people. He described Hindustan as “a country of few charms,” and expressed a longing for the gardens, architecture, and social customs of Central Asia. To Babur, India was something to rule, not to belong to. His aesthetic, moral, and cultural compass pointed northwards—towards the steppes and courts of Samarkand and Kabul.

Though he established a powerful foundation for his successors, Babur remained, in essence, an outsider, disconnected from the spiritual and civilizational depth of the Indian subcontinent.

Akbar: The Architect of Indianization

If Babur was the outsider, Akbar the Great was the bridge-builder. Born in India and crowned at the age of 13, Akbar quickly realized that sustainable rule in India required more than military might—it required cultural integration. He understood that India was not a temporary conquest, but a deeply rooted civilization with millennia of philosophical, artistic, and spiritual traditions.

Unlike his grandfather, Akbar made a deliberate and revolutionary shift in governance. He married Rajput princesses, abolished the jizya tax on non-Muslims, and elevated Hindus to important positions in his court, including Birbal and Raja Todar Mal. His policies were not merely political—they were civilizational in nature.

Akbar promoted an inclusive imperial culture, fusing Persian, Turkic, and Indian elements in art, architecture, and music. His interest in Indian philosophies led to the establishment of the Ibadat Khana, a house of worship where scholars of different religions debated theology and ethics. Eventually, Akbar proposed a syncretic spiritual path—Din-i Ilahi—blending aspects of Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Jainism.

In effect, Akbar transformed the Mughal state from a Turkic-Islamic conquest into a pan-Indian empire. His reign marked the cultural peak of the Mughal project—a genuine fusion of foreign rule with indigenous civilizational roots.

Aurangzeb: The Turkic Recoil and Cultural Reversal

After the more balanced reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, the Mughal Empire reached another turning point under Aurangzeb. A deeply devout Muslim and strict in his personal life, Aurangzeb viewed his rule through the lens of Islamic orthodoxy and Turkic warrior identity. He saw the empire not as a civilizational synthesis but as a political tool for enforcing religious order.

Aurangzeb reversed many of Akbar’s policies of inclusion. He re-imposed the jizya, banned music and court rituals he considered un-Islamic, and carried out campaigns that involved the destruction of Hindu temples. He distanced himself from the composite culture that had come to define the Mughal court, and promoted Sharia-based governance. While he remained a capable administrator and military leader, his reign was marked by increasing religious polarization and internal rebellions.

His perception of himself as a Turkic-Muslim sovereign—rather than an Indian ruler—alienated large swaths of the population. The Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs, and Deccan Sultanates all rose against Mughal authority during his time. What Akbar had integrated, Aurangzeb’s orthodoxy began to fracture.

Aurangzeb’s cultural retreat did not only damage the Mughal legacy—it arguably accelerated its decline. After his death, the empire began to crumble, weakened from within and vulnerable . The marathas rose and controlled majority of India and even mughal empire indirectly by 1750s.

The Civilizational Arc: A Pendulum

The arc of Mughal cultural identity swings like a pendulum:

  • From Babur, the nostalgic Central Asian conqueror, longing for a lost homeland…
  • To Akbar, the wise emperor who embraced the richness of Indian civilization…
  • And finally to Aurangzeb, who turned away from Indian pluralism and reaffirmed Turkic-Islamic supremacy.

This cyclical pattern is more than a quirk of dynastic history—it reflects a deep tension between conquest and assimilation, between foreign rule and indigenous legacy.

Legacy and Reflection

The legacy of these three rulers still shapes historical discourse today. Babur is remembered as the ambitious founder, Akbar as the philosopher-king, and Aurangzeb as the controversial ruler whose policies sparked lasting divisions.

While it’s tempting to view Aurangzeb’s orthodoxy as a betrayal of Akbar’s vision, it is perhaps more accurate to see the Mughal story as a civilizational struggle between identity and inclusion. The dynasty began with a conqueror, matured with an integrator, and ended its golden age with a ruler who could not reconcile the diversity of India with the doctrinal purity he believed in.

This makes the Mughals unique in world history—not merely for their art or architecture—but for the ideological evolution (and regression) they underwent. It is a vivid reminder that the success of empires is often not determined by swords, but by the ability to adapt to the soul of the land they rule.

Comments are closed.