Did the Mughals Build India or Break It? A History That Still Divides Us

What if the very palaces we marvel at today were built on the ruins of forgotten temples and fractured identities? And what if the same emperors who unified a subcontinent also planted the seeds of its deepest divisions?

The Mughal Empire ruled over the Indian subcontinent for more than three centuries, leaving behind monuments of stunning beauty, a centralized administration, and a complex cultural legacy. But their story is far from a simple tale of kings and conquests. It’s a battlefield of perspectives—where Akbar is hailed as a liberal visionary and Aurangzeb is condemned as a religious zealot. The question that still haunts historians, politicians, and citizens alike is this: Did the Mughals shape India into a cohesive empire, or did their divisive policies, especially around religion and identity, break its soul apart? To answer this, we must move beyond glorified tales and explore the bloodstained soil, the court intrigues, the temples razed, and the ideologies that linger even today.
Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, entered India through the famous First Battle of Panipat in 1526, defeating Ibrahim Lodi. Babur’s reign marked the beginning of Mughal expansion, but it was also characterized by his military expeditions, which prioritized territorial expansion over administration. His initial years were focused on securing his position in the north, often relying on brutal military tactics and the establishment of a centralized Mughal authority. Babur himself, in his memoirs, refers to India as a land full of riches, and his personal experiences during the campaigns often reflected a deep-seated desire for dominance rather than cultural integration.

While Babur laid the foundation of the Mughal Empire, he didn’t leave behind any major policies regarding religion or social reform. His empire was in its nascent stages and lacked the consolidation seen in later rulers. His successor, Humayun, was unable to maintain this foundation due to the rise of local powers, particularly Sher Shah Suri, which led to a temporary disintegration of Mughal rule.
Akbar (1556–1605) stands out as one of the most powerful and progressive rulers of the Mughal dynasty. His reign, often referred to as the Golden Age of the Mughals, is noted for the policies that aimed at religious tolerance, political inclusivity, and social reforms. Akbar’s approach was characterized by his attempts to integrate the various religious communities in his empire, which, at that time, included a large population of Hindus.

Religious Policies: Akbar introduced the concept of Sulh-i-Kul, a policy of universal tolerance aimed at maintaining peace and harmony between different religious communities. He abolished the jizya (a tax levied on non-Muslims) and promoted the idea of Din-i-Ilahi, a syncretic religious philosophy that blended elements of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism. Akbar's marriage to Jodha Bai, a Rajput princess, is often portrayed as a symbol of this integration of Hindu and Muslim cultures. The marriage was not just a personal union but a political strategy aimed at establishing alliances with Rajput rulers, who held significant power in the northern regions.

Administrative Reforms: Akbar also set up a bureaucracy that included Hindus in key positions, such as Raja Todar Mal, his revenue minister, who was instrumental in organizing land revenue systems. Akbar's emphasis on governance led to a highly centralized administration, which made the Mughal Empire one of the largest and most stable empires in history.

However, Akbar’s policies were not without controversy. While he was relatively tolerant, he still ruled with an iron fist and imposed state authority on the local princely states, often alienating some regional powers. His military campaigns, such as the conquest of Gujarat, Bengal, and Rajasthan, were not purely defensive but sought to expand Mughal authority, sometimes by violent means.
Jahangir (1605–1627), Akbar’s son, was a complex figure. While he emphasized justice—famously installing a golden chain for public petitions—he was also known for personal indulgences, including opium and wine. His rule witnessed increased European contact as Sir Thomas Roe arrived in 1615 to secure British trade rights. Jahangir's love for his wife, Nur Jahan, elevated her to de facto ruler, as she issued edicts and made military appointments. Yet the empire saw rising factionalism and instability beneath this glamor.
Shah Jahan (1628–1658) is often remembered for constructing the Taj Mahal, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. His reign was defined by monumental architectural achievements, but also by growing tensions within the empire.

Religious and Administrative Policies: Shah Jahan's policies were less tolerant compared to his predecessors. He reintroduced discriminatory policies like the jizya tax in 1632 and destroyed several Hindu temples, particularly in the Deccan region. This marked a shift from Akbar’s policies, as Shah Jahan focused more on asserting Islamic dominance over the empire. His military campaigns in the Deccan to expand Mughal territory were expensive and caused immense loss of life.

While he was an architect of architectural grandeur, Shah Jahan's rule was also a time of significant economic drain. The empire’s finances were drained by the heavy expenditure on the Taj Mahal and his military endeavors, which left the empire vulnerable to external threats and internal instability.
Aurangzeb (1658–1707) is perhaps the most controversial of the Mughal rulers. His reign is marked by territorial expansion, religious conservatism, and harsh policies that many argue fractured India.

Religious Policies: Aurangzeb is often blamed for reversing the tolerant policies of Akbar. He reimposed the jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1679 and ordered the destruction of numerous Hindu temples, including the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi. He also pursued a policy of Islamic orthodoxy, enforcing stricter adherence to Sharia law and suppressing religious freedoms. His efforts to impose Islamic rule on the subcontinent led to growing resentment, particularly among Hindus and Sikhs.

Military Campaigns and Economic Consequences: Aurangzeb’s expansionist policies further drained the Mughal treasury. His protracted wars in the Deccan, lasting over 27 years, cost millions of lives and led to widespread poverty. While he expanded the empire to its greatest territorial extent, his militaristic focus left the empire overextended and vulnerable to internal rebellion. His weakening of the Mughal central authority in the face of regional uprisings laid the groundwork for later instability.
While royal Mughal women like Nur Jahan wielded real political power, the condition of most Muslim women deteriorated under Mughal rule. The imposition of purdah (seclusion), strict adherence to sharia, and reduced access to public life limited women's freedom.

Marriage alliances were often transactional, and education was restricted. Though women in royal harems influenced imperial decisions, their mobility and autonomy were often curtailed. This duality between palace power and public suppression reflects the broader Mughal contradiction: visible sophistication, invisible oppression.

At its peak, the Mughal Empire was richer than most of Europe. Indian textiles were in global demand, agriculture boomed, and urban centers grew.

But this prosperity was largely confined to the elite. The agrarian backbone of India suffered under heavy taxation. Famines were frequent, and the empire invested more in palaces than in public infrastructure.

French traveler François Bernier wrote of the glaring inequality: “There is no middle class in India — only nobles and beggars.”
Perhaps the most contentious legacy of the Mughals is the communal division that still haunts India.

By projecting Islam as a state religion in its later stages and persecuting non-conforming sects (like Shias and Sufis too), the Mughals created a template of identity-based governance. This made it easier for the British to later exploit the "Hindu-Muslim" divide through their notorious policy of divide and rule.

And yet, it’s unfair to place all blame on the Mughals. India's religious landscape was already complex, and conflict was as much about power as it was about belief.
The Mughal Empire left behind majestic monuments and sophisticated governance but also cultural imposition, social stratification, and economic centralization. Its rulers—visionary, ruthless, brilliant, and flawed—shaped India in ways both constructive and catastrophic.

To ask whether the Mughals built or broke India is to ask whether beauty absolves brutality, or whether power can ever be innocent.
Perhaps the real legacy lies not in marble domes, but in the scars and syncretism that followed them.