hi I'm John Green this is crash course
world history and today we're gonna talk
about the Mughal Empire and we're also
gonna talk about the two most important
Mughal Emperor's Akbar and Aurangzeb and
how their historical reputations were
made mr. green mr. green don't you mean
the Mongol Empire Oh me from the past
that reminds me of the time that you
conflated the word fort with the word
fort a which of course you pronounced
fort but on this occasion you aren't
entirely wrong the Mughals were kind of
the Mongols but we'll get to that in a
minute
so the muggles were Muslims who created
an empire in India that held power for
roughly 200 years between the early 16th
and early 18th centuries although
technically the Mughal Empire didn't
come to an end until after the Indian
rebellion against the British in 1857
now the Mughals weren't the first
Muslims in India those would have been
merchants and they weren't even the
first Muslims to rule significant parts
of India that honor goes to the Delhi
Sultanate which began in 1206 in
northern India but the Delhi Sultanate
didn't last very long it was replaced by
a bunch of regional kingdoms and one of
them the Lodi Sultanate had the
misfortune of falling to the founder of
the Mughal dynasty Baba in 1526 not
Babar although that would have been
awesome Bob Laura was descended from
Timur the last great Central Asian
Conqueror in the mongol tradition and
also from Chingiz Khan which explains
why Babur and his followers are called
the Mughals it's the Persian Arabic word
for Mongols I know what you're saying
something like 12% of human beings
currently living in the world they're
descended from Genghis Khan but Baba got
it on the ground floor anyway I think we
have some footage of Babur raiding the
Lodi Sultanate don't we stand I don't
feel like that was actual file footage
from 1206 I feel like that was a racist
Hercules movie from Italy in the 1950s
so the Mughal Empire is really important
in India's cultural history I mean the
Taj Mahal was built during this time in
architecture and painting we see a
blending of Indian and Persian styles
that demonstrate how cosmopolitan the
Empire was probably the most important
aspect of the Mughals at least as far as
the contemporary world is concerned is
that they consolidated Muslim rule over
much of India and they're largely the
reason that today there are so many
Indians who are also Muslims and the
Mughals were also a really interesting
example of like how to build and
maintain an empire all right let's go to
the thought-bubble
Muslims were a small minority ruling
class vastly outnumbered by Hindus and
like many empires they relied on
military power and pursued expansionist
policies like most of the Mughal rulers
especially Akbar and Aurangzeb spent a
considerable amount of time trying to
extend Mughal control over the entire
Indian subcontinent and they created a
pretty effective Empire they were able
to incorporate Indian Prince's into the
ruling class while still retaining top
positions for Muslims they reorganized
the view
Racine instituted an effective tax
collection system which was important
because the Empire was of course very
expensive to run as empires always our
first bet it was important to make
accurate tax assessments and taxes were
usually collected by local leaders
called zamindars taxes had to be paid in
cash and this contributed to the growing
commercialization of the Mughal Empire
reliance on zamindars who were important
men in their communities meant that the
Empire could collect revenue without
being too disruptive to local village
life and although almost all of the
revenue came from taxes on agriculture
the Mughals also taxed trade another way
that the Mughals were a typical Empire
is that their rulers engaged in building
projects to enhance their prestige from
Persepolis to Rome to the Forbidden City
building monuments to one's greatness is
what Emperor's do and the Mughals were
no exception as Muslims many of their
building projects were mosques but the
Mughals also built forts and most
spectacularly mausoleums thanks
thought-bubble so most history classes
that mentioned the Mughals focus on the
contrast between Akbar and Aurangzeb
Akbar comes off as a good ruler and
Aurangzeb is painted as the guy who
ruined the Empire the typically positive
historians view of Akbar who ruled from
1556 until 1605 can be summed up in this
quote from Asher and Talbots India
before Europe through his reforms of
administration and Taxation Akbar
created a sound and enduring foundation
for Mughal governance while his tolerant
attitude and inclusive policies toward
Hindus and Jains helped create a state
that was more Indian in character that
tolerance aspect is especially important
like Akbar ascended the jizya the tax
that non-muslims had to pay and in 1580
he gave all non-muslims the same rights
as Muslims instituting a policy called
sulukule which translates to universal
toleration now in part this policy was
designed to lessen the power of Muslim
religious scholars who might have been
disturbed by the way the Akbar blended
Islamic and Indian ideas of kingship
especially the idea that he was you know
kind of a little bit divine slightly
problematic idea to a lot of Muslim
scholars given that the foundation of
the Islamic faith is the statement there
is no god but God but yeah you know in
addition to the sulukule Akbar built his
reputation for toleration by sponsoring
discussions of religion and philosophy
even commissioned a building for
religious discussions the Eva dot Cana
were Maas
and brahmins and Zoroastrians jane's
christians all of them could talk
theology Akbar support for intellectual
pursuits are the kinds of things that
modern historians like and it's not all
that surprising that he's remembered so
favorably historians are far less kind
to Akbar z-- grandson Aurangzeb who
ruled from 1658 until 1707 this is
partly due to the work of JN Sekar who
promoted the idea that R&Z built an
Islamic state that discriminated against
Hindus and other non-muslims which in
turn led to a loss of unity across the
Indian subcontinent and eventually the
decline of the Empire and it's true that
by the time of Aurangzeb 's death in
1707 the Mughals were losing control
over their empire I mean the stark
reality of that decline came in 1757
when the British East India Company
established itself permanently in Bengal
and began its inexorable efforts to
colonize all of India but that once you
know 50 years after Aurangzeb died so
maybe he shouldn't get all of the blame
in fact whether these guys deserve their
reputations really depends both on what
aspects of their reign you look at and
how you interpret them as conquerors
Akbar and Aurangzeb had a lot in common
like Akbar might have sponsored
high-minded discussion but he was also
willing to use extreme violence to keep
his subjects in line for example he
slaughtered thousands of inhabitants of
the fort at Chittoor and ordered his
generals to pile up the skulls of Indian
princes to frighten them into submission
that's not especially tolerant and
here's another detail about Akbar rule
that's meant to paint him as a modern
enlightened ruler because he was
interested in science Akbar arranged an
experiment he had infants moved to a
special house where no person was to
talk to them so that the natural
language of mankind might be revealed
the experiment failed but it is a
reflection of Akbar x' desire to explore
in a scientific manner the nature of
humans and what he believed to be their
common condition now you can read that
as a leader trying to understand the
underlying connections among all humans
no matter their religious backgrounds or
you can read it as horrifying child
abuse and then we have Aurangzeb who was
a devout Muslim and did try to introduce
Islamic principles into Mughal rule but
the trend toward orthodoxy and away from
off bars toleration had begun long
or with his predecessor shah jahan he's
best known for building the Taj Mahal
good work Stan he built it by himself
apparently he had some help but the
maintenance of Fatah Jamaa Hall took all
the revenue from 30 villages and maybe
Aurangzeb's orthodoxy was less important
than his desire to appear to be a sober
and frugal leader Aurangzeb was also
accused of destroying temples in 1669
although in fact they were just damaged
and this was primarily done to send a
political message to opponents not as an
act of religious orthodoxy he also tried
to limit expenses at court by
prohibiting the use of gold and men's
garments and he stopped the traditional
practice of being weighed against gold
on his birthday
unlike Akbar who was seen as being a
patron of the Arts Aurangzeb is
remembered for getting rid of court
musicians and poets but he got rid of
them because of financial constraints
well and also because of his
interpretation of Islamic law and that
last point interests me for those who
want to see him negatively Aurangzeb
Orthodox Islam had no room for musicians
or poets but it's also possible to see
that decision as a prudent cost-saving
measure here's another detail from
Aurangzeb's life that's been used to
paint him as a zealot Aurangzeb unlike
his predecessors was buried in a simple
outdoor grave rather than an elaborate
and expensive - you could see that as a
symbol of religious faith or as a sign
of humility or an attempt by a
thoughtful ruler to spare his subjects
the expenses of like keeping up his tomb
that said in the long run the Taj Mahal
has done pretty well in terms of
generating tourist money whereas I don't
think anyone's paying to see Aurangzeb's
grave but the thing is Aurangzeb needed
to save money if he was a bad ruler it's
mostly because he spent so much time and
treasure fighting rebellions in the
south of his empire and then neglected
the north where unrest grew as well it's
overly simplistic to say that the glory
days of the Mughal Empire were about
tolerance and the downfall was about
intolerance really there were lots of
factors that played into the decline of
the Mughal Empire including growing
factionalism at the mughal court the
rise of regional powers and the
breakdown of the system of governance by
local nobles historians are in the
business of making claims about what
happened and supporting those claims
with evidence and often this evidence
provides the details that make reading
and learning about history so much fun
now sometimes the details suggest only
one interpretation but in many cases
they can lead us to multiple conclusions
and the reigns of Akbar and Aurangzeb
provide good examples of why we need to
be careful with our details it's
possible that Aurangzeb was a terrible
ruler because he tried to impose Muslim
orthodoxy on a Hindu majority and no
doubt many Hindus felt so especially
after he reinstituted the jizya and he
did try to introduce Sharia law as the
governing principle in the Empire but
it's also possible that Aurangzeb's bad
reputation comes from a contemporary
preference for tolerance over piety in
our rulers or from a general feeling
that states are better ruled by secular
than religious laws or from the fact
that it's just hard to rule a declining
Empire well ask President Obama our
experiences and biases make us more
likely to see the dismissal of court
musicians and poets as an example of
religious fanaticism than as like a
cost-saving measure and maybe Akbar who
could be as brutal in his military
conquests as any Emperor comes out in a
good light because he did advocate
religious toleration but I wasn't
totally or even primarily due to his
religious tolerance that Akbar was able
to win most of his Wars and many
rebellions against his reign suggest
that he wasn't as popular with his
subjects as he is today with historians
one last note about how the way that we
look at the past can shape the present
and vice versa we need to be
particularly careful here because the
Mughals continued to play an important
role in how Indians imagined themselves
today one of the roots of contemporary
Hindu nationalism is pride at India's
throwing off the shackles of imperialism
and for many Hindu nationalists that
history of imperialism starts not with
the British but with the Mughals we
often use history to define ourselves
today and one of the most common ways to
do that is to make negative claims about
the people that we say we are not and so
when we look at historical figures we
need to be conscious of the fact that we
are looking at them thanks for watching
I'll see you next week crash course is
filmed here in the chad and stacey
emigholz studio in indianapolis and it's
made with the help of all of these nice
people and it wouldn't exist if it
weren't for the support of our subbable
subscribers subbable is a voluntary
subscription service that allows people
to support crash course directly so we
can keep it free for everyone forever so
thanks to everyone who's contributed to
crash course through subbable thanks to
you for watching and as we say in my
hometown
don't forget to be awesome