The Mughals were not an Indian dynasty in the civilizational sense. They were a dynasty in India โ rooted in the Persianate ecumene that stretched from Anatolia to Bengal, but distinct from the indigenous Indic civilizational framework.
Richard Eatonโs India in the Persianate Age captures this well. The Mughal elite, like other Turko-Mongol polities across the Islamic world, operated through a tri-layered framework: Arabic religion, Persianate high culture, and Turko-Mongolian kingship. This pattern held from Egypt to Samarkand โ and India was no exception.
But hereโs the distinction: while in places like Iran, Central Asia, and even parts of Anatolia, the ruling elite and the subject populations often shared linguistic, religious, or cultural proximity, in India the Mughal court sat atop a society whose foundational worldview โ Dharma, Sanskritic cosmology, ritual plurality โ was wholly different.
Yes, the Mughals were cosmopolitan. Yes, Akbar attempted synthesis. But at their core, the Mughal dynasty retained its sense of separateness โ not just politically, but civilizationally. Persian remained the language of court and culture, their aesthetics leaned West, and their ethos remained imperially aloof. Their legitimacy was not drawn from Indian sacred geography but from Turanic, Persian, and Islamic claims of kingship.
Contrast this with the Suri dynasty, which, despite being devoutly Muslim, left a remarkably grounded imprint. Sher Shah Suri ruled in Hindavi. His administrative and infrastructural legacy felt local, even national. In some ways, paradoxically, he felt more Indian than the Mughals did.
This isnโt about Islam being foreign to India. Islam has deep roots in the subcontinent โ from Kerala to Bengal to Kashmir. It has been deeply indigenized across regions. But when Islam arrives twinned with Persianate high culture, it becomes something else: a hybrid elite formation, distinct both from Sanskritic Hinduism and from vernacular Islam.
The British Raj, too, was alien โ but ironically, its later administrators localized many elements of their rule. The Mughals, by contrast, represented a more refined foreignness: imperial, hybrid, and between worlds.
Itโs telling that the most influential women of the Mughal courtโNoor Jahan, Mumtaz Mahal, and Hamida Banu Begumโwere all of Persian origin. They wielded real power: issuing firmans, shaping court politics, commissioning architecture. In contrast, the Hindu-indigenous consortsโJodha Bai, Anarkali, even Aurangzebโs Hindu Rajput loverโwere celebrated in romance, not governance. They were symbols, not strategists. Influence, in the Mughal world, came not with local integration but with Persian pedigree. That, in itself, says a great deal.
So no โ the Mughals were not an Indian dynasty. They were a dynasty in India. That distinction matters.
What you’ve articulated is something akin to the Hindu Right argument (without some of the overt anti-Muslim vitriol). But not all Indians agree with this point of view. I don’t think Congress supporters would take the point of view that the Mughals were not Indian.
Professor Harbans Mukhia has written an entire book which is literally titled “The Mughals of India”. He was a professor of Medieval History at JNU and also served as rector of the institution. Of course, JNU has a reputation as a bastion of the left. The point is that this is still very much a contested debate.
Kabir – we must interrogate the reasons as to why there is a Hindu Right perhaps?
Congress is a minority party that managed to capture and mould India in a particular direction.
Finally the Mughals of India does not mean they were Indian or more to the point saw themselves as Indian.
As a Pakistani; maybe this is not your fight to define Indianess? Maybe the Mughals could be seen as Proto-Pakistanis; here, there and a little bit of everywhere. Pakistan is undefinable (is it an Indus-based nation, Muslim one, Urdu one, Islamic-Persianate, Desi-South Asian?) and maybe so are the Mughals?
Ambiguity is not always a terrible thing?
“We must interrogate the reasons why there is a Hindu Right perhaps”–Mostly because of Partition. I don’t think the Mughals are really the driving factor behind this.
Defining the Mughals as not-Indian is a dog whistle for defining Muslims as not-Indian. I’m not saying you are doing this though I personally find some of the arguments you’ve made here and re: Zohran too close to Hindu Right thinking for my liking. But when Modi calls the Mughals “Babar ki aulaad” and refers to “1000 years of slavery” he is definitely trying to argue that Muslims are somehow not legitimate Indians.
Did the Mughals see themselves as Indian? I don’t think anyone in that historical period saw themselves as Indian since there was no nation-state of India. Indian nationalism as such developed in the British colonial period as a reaction to British rule. The Mughals called themselves emperors of “Hindustan” (which meant Delhi and the UP). As has been discussed umpteen times on this blog before, many of the Mughals were genetically mostly Indian (as in their mothers were Rajput). How many generations does someone have to be in India for them to be considered Indian? Again, if you argue that the Mughals aren’t really Indian despite their maternal ancestry what you are implicitly arguing is that because they were Muslim kings they cannot be considered Indian.
Pakistan is not undefinable. There is a clear vision for what it is. It’s an “Islamic Republic” and a homeland for the Muslims of British India. By virtue of its geography, it is squarely located in South Asia.
My Sher Shah Suri example?
Also isn’t the point of Partition to allow Indian and Pakistanis to define their respective identities.
If Indians want to define themselves as a Hindu nation-state, well that is their call right?
India can rewrite its constitution at any time and define itself as a Hindu Rashtra. If it does I hope you will look as askance on it as you do on the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan.
As long as India is a constitutionally secular state, I will continue to hold it to those standards and not to the standards of religious majoritarian ones.
I think it is more important to hold oneโs own to higher standards than others.
So for instance asking Pakistan to step up, as a Pakistani, is more meritorious than demanding India do that.
India is a constitutionally secular state. Secular states must be held to the standards of secular states not compared to religious majoritarian ones.
The minute India declares itself a Hindu Rashtra, I promise I will stop holding it to the standards of secular states.
And for as long as Pakistan continues to declare itself an Islamic Republic, it will be held to no standard at all. It can continue to treat minorities horribly, with no criticism or even inquiry. How wonderful, just one simple declaration removes all burdens and obligations and expectations. How brilliant the architects of Pakistan’s constitution were!
Why is it so controversial to state that countries (not just India) should be held accountable to what is written in their constitutions?
Since you apparently judge Pakistan so negatively, you must be very concerned about India turning into yet another religious majoritarian hellhole? That’s only logical no?
What about religions & doctrine
I voided this comment – itโs too personal. Kabir has a right to his opinions, without being personally attacked.
Indian secularism is distinct to Western secularism fwiw
I’m well aware of that. In the West, secularism means the state stays away from promoting any religion. In India, it’s supposed to mean equal patronage of all religions.
This is relevant in this context:
https://thewire.in/politics/rss-leader-hosabales-call-to-omit-socialist-secular-from-preamble-is-an-attack-on-constitution-itself
Well itโs fine people can propose changes to the constitution should they like?
The point is that the RSS has long had issues with the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Constitution. They are now arguing that those words were added by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency and therefore are not actually part of the original Constitution of 1949. This is despite the Indian Supreme Court defining secularism as a basic feature.
Oh I didnโt realise they were recent additions?
Yes, I believe the actual words “socialist” and “secular” were added to the Preamble by Indira Gandhi.
Yes, IG inserted those for her own political gains. Not part of the original constitution and it wasn’t ratified by Parliament. Neither should be in the Constitution. We are a plural nation, not a “secular” one. Secular is derived from the Judeo-Christian terminology. It is alien in a Dharmic framework.
I suppose you can get the word “secular” in the Preamble removed if you really want (though Congress has stated that they will not let a single word in the Constitution be changed).
But even without the word there, India’s Supreme Court has already ruled that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Upto parliament to decide. SC is an unelected body, they cannot pass legislation.
Supreme Courts (in any country) are usually the final arbiter of whether something is unconstitutional or not.
Parliament can pass a constitutional amendment but then the court can throw it out if it considers it to be against the constitution.
IG amended the constitution, not the courts. They have no locus standi if Parliament throws her amendment out, especially since it was illegal btw as it was not ratified by Parliament.
I think the Supreme Court’s ruling that secularism is part of the basic structure is on a broader issue than simply the word “secular” being in the Preamble.
Kabir – do you think a country needs secularism or that India should be secular?
Philosophically, I would prefer every state to be secular. People should be free to practice whatever religion they want but only in the private sphere. Religion should have nothing to do with the business of the state.
However, obviously sovereign countries have the right to decide their own forms of government.
In India’s case, Pandit Nehru very wisely pushed for the country to be a state for all its citizens not just for Hindus. This was in the aftermath of great violence when a religious majoritarian state had just been created next door. It would be a terrible shame for India to go in the direction of that religious majoritarian state.
But then why not the same angst for secularism in Pakistan?
Iโm curious..
First of all, it’s not like my preferences matter that much. Like I said above, sovereign countries have the right to decide their own forms of government. Pakistan has chosen to be an “Islamic Republic”.
Second, it’s a lost cause. There is no way the words “Islamic Republic” are ever coming out of the Pakistani constitution. I don’t think anyone beyond the ten leftists left in the country (all of whom are probably family friends) would even advocate for that.
Pakistan can be held to account for treating minorities unfairly. It should treat minorities better. But it cannot be judged on the standards of a secular state because it never claimed to be one.
Lastly, just because Pakistan is a religious majoritarian state doesn’t mean that India should become one. Pandit Nehru made the more moral choice in 1947.
I understand your point, but I don’t think you understand that a Hindu majoritarian / Dharmic country will never become a mirror image of an Abrahamic religious state like Pakistan.
The US for all its pretensions of secularism is a Christian country. Has it hindered people from other religions flocking there? On the contrary, people covet that passport!
Take Singapore, it’s a Chinese majoritarian state masquerading as a democracy, but people still want to move there.
Ultimately, if economic prosperity and basic security is assured even in a so-called majoritarian state, the religious nature or lack thereof is immaterial to the majority of the people. It’s my conjecture that all this hoopla over India sliding down in human rights and religious freedom nonsense will take a hike the day we catch up reasonably with the US and China in terms of economic might. Whether majoritarian Hindu or not.
In fact the reason the Kashmiris (for all their religious fervour) came out for the first time in protest against the Pahalgam massacre is precisely because they had tasted freedom and economic prosperity after a very long time.
that is a good point but I still am very wary of majoritarianism as a rule of thumb.
But I think India does need to start thinking about its identity, to a great extent. for instance with regards to National Holidays and Festivals; that sort of rationalisation is important.
Are Eid & Christmas, Indian per se?
With the right checks and balances, majoritarianism might actually work (going back to the US and SG examples). It also matters what type of majoritarianism you’re talking about. That is a separate conversation from your next point on India.
India is civilizationally Hindu and traditionally all faiths have slowly been absorbed under the great Hindu banyan tree (Zoroastrians, Jewish folks, Buddhists, Jains). Eid and Christmas are not Indian per se, but Christmas has definitely become part of the great Indian holiday scene like Halloween and Valentine’s Day! Christmas is not seen as a religious holiday, unlike Eid which is very much a religious holiday specific to the Muslim community. Why it has not caught on in the way Christmas or Halloween have is something to think about.
though Eid does have great Biryani?
Yes and don’t forget the phirni!
The US is not a Christian country. Please remember that I grew up there. Religion is the private business of the individual. The US government doesn’t promote any religion. “Separation of church and state” is a fundamental tenet of the Constitution. Yes, they give days off for Christian holidays and yes every politician makes a point of saying “God Bless America” but for all intents and purposes the religion of any particular citizen makes very little difference.
I don’t think economic prosperity replaces human rights but people are free to have a different opinion.
The Declaration of Independence literally says “One country under God”. You are free to make your own inferences as regards that. In my opinion, it is a de facto Christian country.
Maybe you’re thinking of The Pledge of Allegiance. The point remains that in daily life in the US, an individual’s religion is rarely salient.
yes but I think that is where energy should be directed, peut-etre?
Like I said, it’s a lost cause. The ten leftists left in Pakistan are never going to succeed in pushing for a secular state.
In contrast, this is still a live battle in India. Congress still stands for secularism.
Don’t give up on your own country. India’s path is India’s own. As far as we’re concerned, its a civilizational resurgence which the likes of Nehru and Gandhi never understood; always simmering under the surface. It is important for us as a people irrespective of religion to make peace with the ghosts of the past, else there will never be a peaceful future.
yes that’s what I think is important; everyone to focus on their cultures and spheres.
This is a hugely anti-intellectual argument. If you want to restrict me (for example) to only speaking about Pakistan then you have to restrict Indians to only speaking about India. And then this blog would become incredibly boring.
I have relatives (second cousins) living in Agra. Whether they become second class citizens in their own country will never cease being important to me.
well when there was war between India and& Pakistan; you got pretty anti Indian?
You have to consider the context. No Pakistani– no matter how liberal– will ever accept Indian bombings of Pakistani cities.
Vali Nasr made a similar point to Karan Thapar. No matter how anti-regime some Iranians are they will never accept a foreign power saying that Tehran must be evacuated.
Great points X.T.M! The key point is local integration. No nation can survive without it. The fissures that are apparent are a direct consequence of the rigid refusal to integrate; certainly not forcibly but even organically over time.
Thank you, Nivedita ๐
Integration is an interesting word; we see that in the West with immigrant minorities, but what does it actually mean.
Buy into hyper-corporatised oligarchy?
I was just thinking of that! It’s meaning would vary across different cultures and also the nature of the immigrating culture.
The US is a case in point where what you’ve said would be spot on, buy into a hyper-corporatized oligarchy. But can we generalize it across the board across communities?
How do the fissures in the US compare with ones along similar lines in Europe or in Asia? The West certainly exploited those to it’s advantage; now that the shoe is on the other foot, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Does the average Indian Muslim hinder the nation or the Ambanis who spend half a billion on their weddings, using monopolistic largess?
Good point. The Ambanis proclivity towards excessive materialism is something I personally find abhorrent, precisely because they do have a duty to set better examples, by virtue of their supposed stature in society. Not everyone aspires to be an Ambani though, because we still have the illustrious Tatas as the gold standard.
The average Indian Muslim on the other hand by himself / herself does not hinder the nation’s progress. But, by excluding themselves from the progressive path that the nation is on, they do get left behind on all important developmental markers of progress both economic and social. This leads to an even more ghettoized mentality and perpetual victimhood that is then weaponized (at a mass level) to getting doles and holding the state to ransom ( street violence and rioting). This definitely hinders the nation’s progress because one community refuses to integrate due to rigid religious dogma.
So, it’s upto the reader to decide which would be more counterproductive to society and the nation in the long run.
I do think Corporatised oligarchy is far more dangerous than any marginalised minority. I think it is very important for elites to set society against each other.
I also think the Parsis, who pretty much own South Bombay, remain one of those corporatised elites. Thatโs what I find very compelling .
I think both are dangerous, in different ways…
The Parsis, one of the best assimilated minorities in India. They retained their Parsiness, but dissolved in the milk like sugar and sweetened it; just as the Raja had requested them.
They may be elite, but they’re elite with the touch of Dharma. We owe most of our stellar research institutes to them.
I’m digressing a bit, but the wondrous Parsi gara saree is one such amalgamation of the interaction between the Indian, Persian and Chinese civilizations via the Parsis!
Ur giving me a future post idea ๐
Fantastic ๐ I look forward to reading it ๐
Almost impossible for non whites in the US (and West) to assimilate (maybe integrate)
The color is very visible difference and differences become worse when the economy becomes bad.
Blacks become more poor and some browns become to rich. A gaping fissure.
Yes, unless they eschew all things brown (Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal) or black (any obvious examples here? ) Even then, I agree with you on it being almost impossible to integrate there.
The issue in India is different. Indian Muslims are of Indian stock, but they refuse to integrate due to a religion that was most likely forced down their ancestors throats.
Not so with the Persians, who majorly still identify with their being Persian first and foremost over religion.
Indian Muslims are of Indian stock, but they refuse to integrate due to a religion
In Sri Lanka recent Indians (Muslims and Hindus) dont assimilate or integrate (eg intermarry with the locals)
That included some of the “upper class” Estate Tamil. eg Muralitharan (the cricketer) went to India to find a partner. Same with the Thondaman’s the former king maker Estte Tamils.
The Sri lanka Muslims specially those in South do assimilate.
I think this “refusal of Indian Muslims to integrate” is frankly overplayed.
The Bollywood Khans are pretty integrated. Also there are Indian Muslims who have been ministers in previous governments. For example, Salman Khurshid (incidentally the grandson of Zakir Hussain, 3rd President of India) served as Minister of External Affairs under Manmohan Singh. Omar Abdullah (currently Chief Minister of Kashmir) served as union Minister of State for External Affairs under Vajpayee. These are just a few examples.
It’s true that many Indian Muslims are poor and live segregated from the “mainstream” but that may be a function of discrimination they face rather than a refusal to integrate.
Interesting. I would say that most recent Indian communities outside of India are pretty insular in their outlook. My observation has been that they are also more conservative compared to Indians in India. The need to marry within their own community is one such manifestation.
very nicely put. ramachandra guha’s scroll article citing mohammed habib on the status of ‘native indian muslim’ in the mughal rule is a good read.
https://scroll.in/article/946178/a-historians-advice-to-indian-muslims-in-1947-is-relevant-to-hindus-today
Amazing article thanks for sharing – worth a post
excellent article. They were colonizers just like sultantes etc. idk why this is made controversial by leftists.
thank you
Technically “colonizer” is the wrong word. The Mughals were not taking India’s resources back to Samarkand and Bukhara the way that the British took India’s resources back to London.
In the medieval period, it was normal worldwide for kings to seek out new kingdoms to conquer.
Good piece and makes all valid poiints. Not at all amazed to find kabir here making same circular arguments that mean nothing after almost a decade of engaging with him. Answering to him and expecting a nuanced change in his position is akin to straigtening dog’s tail and hoping that it would hold.
Unfortunately he represents the garden variety of ‘liberal islamist’ if such a term can be coined, where the highest scrutiny is used for everyone else and a free pass is provided to his side of argument citing opression, socio economic conditions, religious compulsions or whatever suit in that moment.
Liberals questions their own side but these special specimen prove their liberalism by questioning their opponents. Anaylze how many of his pieces ask critical questions or critique position of the ideology, religion, country he sides with (considers his own) and you would know the answer.
A fun experiment would be to feed all his inputs on this site to AI and model aformentioned ‘liberal islamist’ to derive the same circular arguments irrespestive of the topic or incident being discussed.
You clearly don’t know what an “Islamist” is. It’s someone who advocates for Shariah Law. I have never once done that and you can’t prove otherwise.
I’d add that this can be generalized to the majority of people in Pakistan. The current Indian govt and most citizens have also finally reconciled to this truth. Nobody in Pakistan is willing to or going to change; be it the elites or the common man. Dialogue is futile. Unlikely that they or their twin masters ( US and China) will just let India be given the vested geostrategic interests involved.
And you have proven so willing to change your positions?
“Dialogue is futile” because you are not interested in listening with an open mind. Instead you accuse someone who is extremely liberal (certainly on the Pakistani spectrum) of being an “Islamofascist”. By the way, even the US right wing has stopped using that word because they have realized it is conceptually meaningless. I guess you didn’t get that memo.
If you can’t prove that I have ever advocated for jihad (which you cannot), I expect an apology for the slur you used against me.
Not interested in having this conversation. I apologise for using the wrong adjective. I do believe the position that you espouse does give credence and legitimacy to those who are openly Islamofacist.
Best wishes!
That’s a very half-assed apology but for the sake of peace I’ll take it.
I do believe the position that you espouse gives credence to those who are openly Hindutvadi.
Best wishes to you sister!
I disagree. The majority of the people in Pakistan have a certain honesty in their position. They believe they cannot live with other religions, erase their history and don’t bother with the pretences of being part of the civilized world. While abominable, it is at least not duplicitous.
The ‘liberal islamist’, a very apt phrasing btw, alternates between belligerence and victimhood, garnering all the sympathy they can while pointing as many fingers as possible at everyone else.
Dialogue indeed is futile.
With all due respect, how many Pakistani people do you actually know? The vast majority of them are not commenting on blogs like this.
Most Pakistanis are just like most Indians. They are ordinary people trying to get through their days and provide for their families. You can have issues with the Pakistan Army, the ideology of Pakistan etc but the common people of the country are not the appropriate target for your ire.
“Civilized world”– this is frankly a colonialist phrasing. You are really no one to make judgements about who is “civilized” and who is not. Leave aside the fact that such judgements are inherently subjective.
If you are honestly interested in getting a sense of what Pakistanis think, DAWN is always a good source ( of course it represents centre to centre-left English-language media)