Diversity

The Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman empires all had different ways of dealing with all kinds of diversity, some to promote tolerance and others to increase the power of leaders over their subjects. The Mughal Empire sought at first to promote diversity both of religion and ethnicity, yet later to lessen the differences of religion. The first leader to take a stance on this count was Akbar who encouraged a universalistic state religion that was extremely tolerant of the varying practices, especially of Hindus and Muslims. Aurangzeb on the other hand reversed this doctrine and imposed Islam on all citizens of the empire. In pressing this upon the people he sought to destroy cultural differences between them and create his ideal society. The Safavid Empire had a totalitarian view on diversity of religion. That is to say, none was permitted. They chose instead to require that all people be of Shi’a Islam, similarly to Aurangzeb with the Mughal. The Ottoman Empire in comparison was extremely tolerant of different religions including Judaism, Christianity, and all other between. These minorities were still watched to a degree – the Ottomans set up religious groups in communities, which were presided over by a hand-selected authority. This person would report on the religious group to the leaders of the Empire. In the sense of religious heterogeneity at least, they were liberal.

In terms of usefulness of restricting diversity, I can see that enforcing a unified set of beliefs would be important to controlling a people. When all think similarly, they will be less likely to question the rule of the leader. It also lends them a strong center and sense of belonging to a nation both in terms of citizenship and religion. However true this is, inspiring loyalty and happiness in people is even more so and this is unlikely to happen if any feel repressed. If Hindus, for example, were forced to convert, they might not looks so kindly onto whoever commanded that it be so. Depending on the demographics the benefits might outwiegh the risks, or the risks the benefits. Controlling ethnicity of a society, on the other hand, does nothing – ethnicity is something that is superficial and does not hold an immense sway over the ideas of person. The mind is what matters in terms of control. Undoubtedly, religious tolerance is something much more difficult to uphold, since everyone is opinionated when it comes to beliefs.