Emperor Dara Shikoh

[Louis Epstein]

When Indian Emperor Shah Jahan fell ill his sons battled
for who would depose him.
His eldest and favorite son Dara Shikoh was defeated and
killed by ruthless younger brother Aurangzeb,who brushed
the rest aside and became sole ruler,also imprisoning
sons of Dara Shikoh.

Dara Shikoh was liberal-minded and Aurangzeb an orthodox
Islamist.

If either this war had gone differently on battlefields,
or Aurangzeb had not been lucky fighting an elephant head-on
when he was fifteen circa 1933.and Dara Shikoh had become
Emperor...then what?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Rich Rostrom]

On 2/8/23 7:38 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:

> If either this war had gone differently on battlefields,
> or Aurangzeb had not been lucky fighting an elephant head-on
> when he was fifteen circa 1933.and Dara Shikoh had become
> Emperor...then what?

All I know about this period is that by the end of Aurangzeb's reign,
the Moguls held the entire subcontinent except the very southern tip.
ISTR that he was viewed as a ferocious conqueror.

Presumably there was a lot of damage done during his campaigns. If
Dara Shikoh reigns as Grand Mogul instead, India remains largely
peaceful and thus stronger and more prosperous later on.

Alternatively, Dara Shikoh as a religious pluralist might have
united India more peacefully and more successfully than
Aurangzeb.

Or under Dara Shiloh, less able than Aurangzeb, the Mogul state
declines and breaks up in the mid-1600s, leading to widespread
chaos and violence.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

[Louis Epstein]

Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/23 7:38 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>
>> If either this war had gone differently on battlefields,
>> or Aurangzeb had not been lucky fighting an elephant head-on

>> when he was fifteen circa 1633.and Dara Shikoh had become

[correcting "1933" to 1633]

>> Emperor...then what?
>
> All I know about this period is that by the end of Aurangzeb's reign,

1707

> the Moguls held the entire subcontinent except the very southern tip.
> ISTR that he was viewed as a ferocious conqueror.
>
> Presumably there was a lot of damage done during his campaigns. If
> Dara Shikoh reigns as Grand Mogul instead, India remains largely
> peaceful and thus stronger and more prosperous later on.
>
> Alternatively, Dara Shikoh as a religious pluralist might have
> united India more peacefully and more successfully than
> Aurangzeb.
>
> Or under Dara Shiloh, less able than Aurangzeb, the Mogul state
> declines and breaks up in the mid-1600s, leading to widespread
> chaos and violence.

Two rather divergent options.

I am wondering what difference would have been made to the
reception of European colonialists,then mainly concerned with
the coastal ports the Mogul Empire had less control of than
the central area.