Diplomatic rupture between Mughals and Ottomans came from protocol offense, not policy

Evidence

In 1642 he returned to Istanbul, bringing unmistakable indications of Shah Jehan’s displeasure. No presents were sent by the Emperor, and only a few of slight value by his vizier. No letter was sent by Shah Jehan to Sultan Ibrahim (1640–48), who had meanwhile succeeded Murad IV on the Ottoman throne. Instead, there was a letter from the Indian to the Ottoman Grand Vizier, com­ plaining at the insufficiently respectful forms of address used in the Ottoman letter, and describing the power and extent of the Mughal Empire. A dignified and restrained reply from the Ottoman Grand Vizier failed to appease Shah Jehan’s anger, and a period of silence followed, during which even the customary Turkish letter announcing the accession of Sultan Mehmet IV in 1649 appears to have remained for a while unanswered. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 606

Categorization

• XREF: Supports the reader’s representation cluster: formal address and ritual protocol constituted the actual substance of Islamicate interstate diplomacy, echoing how Western observers read Islamicate ceremony as empty.
• QUESTION: Letter-address snubs functioning as full diplomatic rupture is a rich case for how rank and honor operated between two Muslim empires — worth comparing with early modern European diplomatic ceremonial disputes.