Myths About Mughals

Unmasking the Myths: A Reassessment of Mughal History in India

For decades, Indian history textbooks and popular culture have projected the Mughal Empire as a symbol of grandeur, unity, and cultural integration. The image of domed monuments, Persian poetry, and centralized administration has dominated our understanding of medieval India. But behind this polished narrative lies a complex and often uncomfortable history. The truth is, many of the most celebrated aspects of Mughal rule have been either exaggerated or misrepresented, while indigenous resistance and alternative powers were often diminished or ignored.

This article aims to unpack some of the most pervasive myths about the Mughal Empire, based on documented historical evidence.

Myth 1: The Mughals Ruled the Entire Indian Subcontinent

This is perhaps the most widespread myth — that the Mughal Empire ruled all of what is now modern-day India. In reality, this was never the case.

Even during the peak of the empire under emperors like Akbar and Aurangzeb, large swaths of the Indian subcontinent remained outside Mughal control. The Ahom Kingdom in Assam, the Garhwal Kingdom in the Himalayas, and much of South India, including the powerful Vijayanagara Empire (until its fall in 1565), remained free of Mughal dominance. The Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs, and various tribal confederacies also maintained significant autonomy and frequently resisted Mughal authority.

At best, the Mughal Empire had partial and fluctuating control over large territories. Their real power lay in North India and the Indo-Gangetic Plain, with southern and northeastern regions often governed indirectly, and many times, not at all. Claims of “pan-Indian rule” are historically inaccurate and misleading.

Myth 2: The Mughals Were Tolerant and Secular Rulers

It is often said that the Mughals promoted secularism and religious harmony. While Emperor Akbar did attempt to promote an inclusive imperial policy — abolishing the jizya tax, engaging with Jain and Hindu leaders, and forming matrimonial alliances — he was the exception rather than the norm.

The early Mughals like Babur and Humayun showed little interest in India’s religious diversity. Babur, in his memoirs (Baburnama), described Hindustan as “a land of infidels” and referred to Hindu temples and customs with disdain. He was primarily focused on expanding Islamic rule and re-establishing his Central Asian legacy.

Jahangir, Akbar’s son, is known for ordering the execution of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, the fifth Sikh Guru, in 1606 — a seminal moment in Sikh history that marked the beginning of organized resistance against Mughal oppression. Jahangir also destroyed several temples and reimposed certain discriminatory laws.

Shah Jahan, celebrated for his architectural achievements, also demolished temples and banned the construction of new Hindu shrines. Aurangzeb, arguably the most controversial Mughal ruler, reimposed the jizya, destroyed hundreds of temples, including sacred ones like the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, and executed Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, the ninth Sikh Guru, for refusing to convert to Islam.

Therefore, the commonly propagated narrative of Mughal “tolerance” must be viewed with nuance. While some emperors practiced selective inclusion, many pursued policies of cultural domination, religious bigotry, and imperialist aggression.

Myth 3: The Mughals Were India’s Dominant Power Until the British Came

Another myth that persists is that the Mughal Empire remained dominant until the British takeover in the 19th century. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

By 1750, the Maratha Empire had surpassed the Mughals as the most powerful political and military force in India. Under the visionary leadership of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and later, Peshwas like Baji Rao I, the Marathas expanded from the western Deccan into North India, Bengal, Gujarat, Central India, and even Tamil Nadu.

In fact:

  • The Marathas captured Delhi in 1737 and installed a puppet Mughal emperor.
  • They collected chauth (tax) from vast regions, including former Mughal territories.
  • The Marathas controlled almost 70% of the subcontinent at their peak, right before the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761, where their power temporarily waned due to Afghan invasion.

After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the Mughal dynasty collapsed into a symbolic and ceremonial role, relying on various regional powers for protection. It was the Marathas, not the Mughals, whom the British East India Company truly saw as their primary obstacle in the 18th century. The narrative of an uninterrupted Mughal rule until 1857 is a convenient distortion that ignores this critical shift in Indian power dynamics.

Myth 4: The Mughals Considered Themselves Indian

One of the lesser-discussed but significant myths is that the Mughals identified as Indian rulers in the cultural and emotional sense. In reality, the Mughals saw themselves as Central Asian Turks, descendants of Timur and Genghis Khan, and proudly preserved their foreign identity.

  • Babur longed for Samarkand, not Delhi. He wrote in Chaghatai Turkish, brought in Central Asian military systems, and never emotionally invested in India.
  • The court language of the Mughals was Persian, not any Indian vernacular.
  • Their administrative elite was filled with Persian, Uzbek, and Afghan nobles, not native Indian Muslims or Hindus.
  • Cultural assimilation was limited to what was politically necessary.

While Akbar’s Rajput alliances and adoption of Indian rituals may suggest a form of integration, it was driven by empire-building pragmatism, not national belonging. The imperial vision remained fundamentally foreign and exclusionary.

Even in later generations, Mughal emperors like Aurangzeb were deeply committed to Islamic orthodoxy and foreign traditions, rather than embracing the pluralistic ethos of India. The fact that the dynasty referred to India as “Hindustan”, a term denoting a land of the “other,” reinforces this emotional and cultural detachment.

Conclusion: Restoring Balance to Historical Memory

History must not be rewritten to glorify one side or demonize the other, but it must be truthfully told. The Mughal Empire did contribute to India’s architectural heritage and administrative evolution. However, their brutality, imperial ambition, and religious intolerance must also be acknowledged without fear of upsetting politically constructed myths.

Likewise, the heroism of indigenous powers like the Marathas, Sikhs, Ahoms, Jats, and others must be reinstated in the mainstream narrative. To call the Marathas a “regional” force is a gross underestimation—they were the national power that not only defied Mughal domination but also challenged British expansionism before any others.

Reclaiming our historical truth is not about glorifying the past, but liberating it from distortion. The time has come to correct the record — honestly, respectfully, and unapologetically.

Comments are closed.