a. Mughals saw Indians as ‘other’, who had to be changed to make them ‘us’ (similar to concept of Jahiliyyah).
b. Mughals sent gifts/money abroad, highlighting their extraterritorial allegiance.
c. Foreigners majorly occupied important positions.
a. Clear distinction b/w believers, who had to subjugate the infidels, & infidels (then, the masses). Akbar didn’t see himself as being one among the other Indians.
(Source: Fatehnama-i-Chittor, jstor.org/stable/44145352)
b. Akbar sent large amounts of money to the Sharif of Mecca, along with state sponsored Hajj to Mecca.
Yes, he abolished jizya but,
1576: Akbar sponsors pilgrimage to Hajj for Rs 600,000
1577: Akbar sends Rs 500,000 & Rs 100,000 for Sharif of Mecca & ruler of Hijaz respectively
That year the avg salary of a chariot driver was Rs 3.50/ month & a barber was Rs 0.50/ month.
c. Indians occupied less than 30% of the important positions in Akbar’s court. Even Indian Muslims didn’t occupy substantial number of positions.
a. From Jahangirnama (Tr. Thackston)
Point is not that what he felt for Indians was good or bad, but that the masses were always ‘other’, the distinction being very clear.
b. Jahangir sent slaves to Iran for selling them there, the pilgrimage and endowements to Mecca continued.
In 1622, 200000 rupees were sent to Mecca (refer The British Empire and the Hajj 1865–1956 By John Slight).
He rejoiced benefitting people of Iran and Turan.
c. Major positions remained with foreigners only. Although he increased recuitment of Indian Muslims (obviously this was objected by his ministers), but at the end of his reign, 60% of his nobles comprised of foreigners.
Also, why donate to foreigners?
a. From Masir-i-Alamgiri (Tr. Jadunath Sarkar)
Again, the thing isn’t whether his intentions and deeds are good or not, the thing is that he viewed the masses as ‘other’.
b. The donations to foreign nations continued, in spite of the ravaged Mughal economy in India.
Source: Cambridge History Of India, Vol. 4, The Mughul Period
c. In highest ranks, Iranian and Turanian people were dominant (~ 70%), even after 200 years in India.
Source: The Mughal nobility under Aurangzeb by M. Ali
Some general remarks
Source: The murder of history by Khursheed Kamal Aziz
From travelogues of Bernier, as cited in “Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India” by K. S. Lal
The point is that Mughals were seen as foreigners as late as 17th century.