What was the condition of Dalits during the Mughal era, what did Dr. Ambedkar say?

In Indian history, the Mughal Empire is often presented as a symbol of a golden age and stable rule. On the other hand, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, who was one of the most profound historical thinkers of modern India, tried to examine the Indian past on the criteria of caste, religion and social justice. So when we ask what Dr. Ambedkar thought about the Mughals, it is important that we understand it in the context of his broader historical perspective and social reformist agenda.

Dr. Ambedkar did not write any separate detailed treatise on the Mughals, but the Mughal period and Muslim rulers are mentioned in many of his works, such as Pakistan or the Partition of India, Thoughts on Pakistan, Who Were the Shudras?, The Untouchables, Constituent Assembly debates and various speeches. In these, he is neither a singer of traditional Mughal glory, nor a linear hate-oriented critic. His vision is analytical, political and social justice focused. Come, let us try to know about this on the death anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar.

Ambedkar’s thinking and Mughals

Ambedkar basically judges history on two criteria. One-power structure and the condition of the common people, two-social justice, especially the condition of Shudras, untouchables and women. That is why for them, any ruler or dynasty is evaluated not only by great buildings or victories, but by seeing what was the condition of the oppressed classes during that reign. While assessing the Mughal Empire, he points out that it was also essentially a feudal, centralized and military-based state, in which heavy taxes on farmers, the landlord system and the politics of religious identity remained important factors. That is why they flatly refuse to consider the Mughals as a symbol of any ideal democratic or egalitarian governance.

Religious tolerance vs power politics

Mainstream history writing about Akbar often presents him as a symbol of inter-religious equality and religious tolerance. Ambedkar admits that Akbar’s policies were relatively liberal, but he sees this primarily as a matter of political prudence and a strategy of imperial expansion, not outright spiritual generosity. In his view, Akbar’s steps like Din-e-Ilahi, matrimonial and political alliance with Rajputs, abolition of Jizya etc. were definitely progressive in the context of medieval Indian reality, but it did not fundamentally improve the condition of the lower castes of the society.

High positions in the Mughal court were mainly concentrated in the hands of the elite class, military elite and jagirdars. No organized path into the power structure was open for Shudras, untouchables or ordinary farmers. The center of Ambedkar’s criticism is that if the generosity of a government is limited only to the ruling classes and religious elite and does not reach the bottom of the society, then it cannot be given a high place on the criteria of social justice.

Hindu society, Islamic rule and caste system

Dr. Ambedkar specifically analyzes what impact the Islamic invasions and Mughal rule had on the Indian caste system. Their conclusions are as follows.

• Persistence of caste system: He writes that Muslim rulers came to India, but they did not destroy the caste structure of Hindu society. The dominant position of Brahminism and upper castes continued.
• Process of Conversion: Ambedkar explains that the large number of backward Dalits who turned to Islam often went in search of freedom from social oppression. But even after accepting Islam, the dream of social equality remained unfulfilled, because a kind of class division and caste-like discrimination developed within the Muslim society in the form of Ashraf-Ajlaf.
• The Mughals’ priority was power, not social revolution: They say that Muslim rule, especially that of the Mughals, was basically focused on power stability, revenue and strategic expansion. Caste eradication or social revolution was never his priority.

Thus, for Ambedkar, the Mughal period was neither an era of caste annihilation, nor a golden age for the lower classes.

Ambedkar’s views on the Mughal period and Indian nation building.

In his book Pakistan or the Partition of India, Dr. Ambedkar reflected deeply on Hindu-Muslim relations. Here he repeatedly gives the example of medieval Muslim dynasties, especially the Mughals. His argument is that Muslim rulers, especially the Mughals, saw themselves as a kind of imperial conquerors rather than as permanent national rulers of the land. His cultural and political interests were often linked to the broader perspective of Central Asia or the Islamic world. On the other hand, Hindu rulers also remained limited to their own small kingdoms, caste groups and regional identities. As a result, the consciousness of a common modern Indian nation was developed neither by Hindu dynasties nor by Muslim rulers.

According to Ambedkar, the biggest historical role of the Mughals was that they established administrative unity and centralization over a vast territory, which was later used more strongly by the British for their own interests. But he also makes it clear that this was not national democratic unity, but a system of centralization of royal power.

Economic exploitation, tax system and condition of farmers

On the scale of social justice, Ambedkar does not ignore economic questions either. His sharp comments have been on the tax system, zamindari and jagirdari system of the Mughal rule. According to him, the Mughals did develop a well-organized revenue system, but a large part of the production went into the hands of the state and the landlords. This situation remained as exploitative for the farmers as it is in other feudal systems.

Ambedkar underlines that control over land often remained in the hands of the upper castes, the feudal class and the court elite; The lower castes continued to work as laborers or bonded laborers. The Muslim rule made no organized effort to fundamentally change this structure. They point out that huge resources were spent on the royal court, armies, palaces and luxury, while relatively little was invested in education, public welfare and social upliftment.

Cultural achievements and their limited scope

A major identity of the Mughal period is art, architecture, painting, music and literary patronage. From Taj Mahal to Fatehpur Sikri, many buildings still inspire awe. Ambedkar takes cognizance of these cultural achievements, but his basic question is that what concrete improvement did these artistic and architectural marvels bring about in the lives of the Bahujan community, Shudras, untouchables and ordinary farmers?

For him, culture should not be measured only by the luxury of the royal court or grand buildings, but by the education, health, respect and equal opportunities of the people. The brilliance of the Mughals appears to be limited and elite-centric on this criterion.

Hindu Muslim conflict, communalism and the Mughal past

On the one hand, Ambedkar criticizes the political separatism and communal politics of Muslims, while on the other hand he also makes equally harsh comments on the caste oppression and Brahminism prevalent within the Hindu society. His views on the Mughal past neither declare all Muslim rulers as villains nor consider them as liberators.

He repeatedly warns that history should not be made a tool to incite communal hatred. It is unscientific and unjust to blame today’s ordinary Muslims for the mistakes of the Mughal era. At the same time, it is also dangerous to weaken the demands of modern democracy and social justice by describing the Mughal rule or any religious monarchy as an ideal era.

In this way we can say that Dr. Ambedkar thought about the Mughals in this way. Mughal rule was a centralized feudal monarchy, which provided administrative unity and cultural protection, but did not make any fundamental revolution in the direction of social justice and caste eradication. The liberal policies of rulers like Akbar were certainly progressive in the historical context, but they did not lead to the structural liberation of the Bahujan community. Muslim rulers, like Hindu kings, placed greater emphasis on the security of their own sect, dynasty and empire; The foundation of modern nationalism, democracy and equal citizenship was not laid. The condition of Dalits and Shudras remained oppressed even during the Mughal period. Their conversion was sometimes an attempt to free themselves from social humiliation, but even in the new structures equality could not be achieved completely.

Dr. Ambedkar’s holistic vision teaches us that history should not only be seen as the story of conquerors, palaces and wars, but should also be seen from the perspective of the weakest person of that era. His view on the Mughals is neither blind glorification nor blind hatred, but a balanced, critical and justice-oriented understanding, which inspires modern India to have a responsible dialogue with its past.

Also read: When upper castes stopped Dalits from taking water, how did Dr. Ambedkar’s arguments win hearts in the court?