by thisislife2 | 2026-02-20 18:18:53+00:00
(I have read the post you refer to, but refrained from responding to it then because I don't see us bridging our differing perspectives on this. Anyway ... ).

Let me begin with a disclaimer - I consider any "history lessons" that seeks to perpetuate the "Hindu victim-hood" mentality with formulaic politics of - "if not for the stupid Buddhist rulers or the evil Muslim, Christian invaders etc. etc. India would be so advanced, like, you wouldn't believe it!" /s as revisionist history (mostly stemming from the politics of the RSS - India's Hindu-right).

Like with any religious fundamentalist political grouping, Hindu religious fundamentalists (Sanghis) too tend to be overly fixated on the religious identity of anyone they meet (dead or alive), past rulers included, and judge everything they do, or whatever happened around them, through the coloured lens of religion.

Briefly, on the Mughal Empire:

For example, most are ignorant to the fact that it was Babur (and not Akbar) who first prescribed a secular policy for the Mughal empire because he had once lost a kingdom due to religious politics, before he made India his home - when he was a ruler of another kingdom, young Babur was fascinated by the Persian kingdom, that was at its height. And so he explored if Shia Islamic philosophy (he was a Sunni Muslim) had contributed to the political rise of the Persian empire. He started embracing some aspects of it in his rule. Long story short, his religious talks and reforms were viewed suspiciously by the largely Sunni population and elites, and he had to give up his rule because of a brewing rebellion (based on the rumours that the Shah of Iran had converted him to Shia Islam!). In popular history, Akbar, Babur's favourite grandson, is however known as the most "secular" of the Mughal emperors. He was certainly the most enamoured by his grandfather's political ideas on dealing with religious pluralism. But he is derided too by the Hindu-right based on his religious identity - ironic, because they are ignorantly blind to the historical fact that he was the only Mughal ruler to actually give up Islam (by proclaiming himself as a Prophet with a vision to a new religion)! Like his grandfather, in his enthusiasm to better himself, his rule and kingdom, with religion, he forgot not to mix religion and politics in a way that upset his supporters. And like his grandfather, he too lost his kingdom.

On the Buddhist Empire:

It is important to understand that Buddhism was the first major schism in "Hindu" (or rather Indian) spiritual philosophy that had a great political ramification in India as it challenged the very concept of the casteist hierarchy (that had become rigid and prevented class mobility) in Indian society, while questing the very root of the philosophy of karma.

The Buddhist empire didn't die in India because of "Ahimsa" or due to flaw in Buddhist-political teachings (it's a really laughable claim when you consider the simple fact that Ashoka, the Buddhist emperor waged wars over wars to create his empire in India - the title of "monk-king", which he presumably became after being "moved" by the slaughter in the Kalinga war, is likely just a reformist propaganda, which also indicates how much of a politically pragmatic and visionary leader he was). It died for the same reason all kingdoms do - weak leaders. Weak leaders caused the disintegration of the empire into smaller kingdoms, that were then annexed by other stronger kingdoms.

Buddhism, as a practising religion, itself died in India for two major reasons:

(1) Buddhism was always a state patronised religion that had not displaced the various sects of Hinduism - once Hindu Kings took over the remnants of the Buddhist empires, they had no interest in patronising it because they considered it an offshoot of Hinduism rather than a separate religion. In many parts of India, Buddhist monasteries and temples were destroyed or converted to Hindu temples again. (One of the reason for the animosities towards Buddhism was the fact that most of its followers were the ruling class - that sought to prop up Buddhism as an alternative to Hinduism - and amongst the common people, the followers were mostly lower caste Hindus, who eagerly converted to Buddhism as it offered them a "caste-free" society that allowed them to grow).

(2) Buddhism did "die" (or fade away) due to Islamic influence - but not because the Muslim rulers targeted to destroy them. As I noted before, most early converts to Buddhism amongst the Hindu sects were the lower castes. Many of them thrived in the egalitarian and meritocratic Buddhist society that didn't discriminate against them, (and for the first time, since the caste-reification in Hindu society) allowed them access to education and the opportunity to different occupations. When the Buddhist empire disintegrated, and the Hindu kings returned, most of these successful Buddhists were again discriminated and eschewed as lower-castes. Many of them thus chose to convert to Islam to retain their social class and mobility. This of course meant that Buddhist monasteries or temple lost substantial funding - there was no state patronage to support them (depending on the Hindu or Muslim ruler of the kingdom), and donations from the diminishing numbers of followers meant they couldn't be self-sufficient. This too contributed to the decline of Buddhism.

History isn't Black and White. Yes, there were Muslim rulers in India who were either apathetic, or weak or despots. And there have been great Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist kings in India too. Their religious identity however had nothing to with their flaws or their greatness - while a religious fundamentalist may wear their religious identity on his sleeves, remember that he is not a representative of his religion (in fact, he is someone who actually eschews his own religion, conflating it with politics rather than spirituality).