THE Mughal dynasty was one of the world’s largest and strongest empires. It lasted from 1526 to 1857. Many Hindu historians have considered Jalaluddin Akbar as the greatest Mughal ruler, but this notion overshadows the greatness of other emperors, like Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb, but, more importantly, the founder of the dynasty, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (seen reading in the miniature painting above).

The strength of the dynasty was no doubt its military power, but the Mughal rulers also set examples in other fields, such as education, economy, social development and judiciary.

The social welfare system adopted by the Mughals was classic and capable of fulfilling the needs of the time. The society was multi-religious in which the Hindus were in majority whereas a sizeable population used to follow other religions, like Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism.

The Muslim population was not more than 10 per cent at the time. In such a multi-religious society, it was difficult to build a balanced social welfare system that would be suitable for all. But the Mughals were successful in creating such a system. Their policy was mainly based on the principle of equality where everyone was allowed to enjoy full religious freedom. No one was forced to abandon their religion and convert. Business opportunities were for all and at an equal level. Muslims were a privileged class, but at the same time Hindus were also encouraged to make progress at the same pace.

Hinduism is an old religion with its roots dating back thousands of years. The most prominent feature of it is the caste system which often leads to discrimination. That being so, the social welfare system developed and practised by Hindu leaders at the time was unable to provide social justice to all. The local people – the masses – were attracted towards Islam and embraced it for it gave them equal rights at the social level. This in itself is a confirmation that the social welfare system of the Mughals was successful.

During the British era, Hindu revivalist movements gained momentum, and they mainly focussed on competing with Islamic values. These movements were reactionary in their nature. The Hindus started opposing the policies of the Mughals and criticised them on baseless grounds. Some segments of society, as happens in such cases, fell for the propaganda, and this created social, political and religious rifts between the two communities.

The British rulers, who were well aware of these differences, took advantage of the situation and exploited both the communities. They used the policy of divide and rule.

All these circumstances ultimately led to the partition of the subcontinent. Therefore, even though it has become fashionable to do so, it is a misplaced notion to blame the Mughals, especially Emperor Aurangzeb, for the partition of the subcontinent.

Tariq Mahmood Khan

Faisalabad

Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2021