Do Indians have a positive impression of the many South Indian Muslim empires?

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

South india was also ruled by Muslim empires for long time periods but you don’t see the same venom against them as you do for the Mughals. (Which is interesting anyway since apart from Marathas at end most of the Mughals wars were against other Muslim empires anyway) Why is it so? In fact for longest time I didn’t even know the existence of these.

Some notable South Indian Muslims empires below:

Bahmani Sultanate (1347-1527): The Bahmani Sultanate was a Muslim kingdom that was established in the Deccan region of South India in 1347. The kingdom was founded by a group of Turkic nobles who had broken away from the Delhi Sultanate. The Bahmani Sultanate was one of the most important Muslim empires in South India and ruled over much of the Deccan region, including parts of present-day Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.

Bijapur Sultanate (1489-1686): The Bijapur Sultanate was a Muslim kingdom that was founded in 1489 in the Deccan region of South India. The kingdom was established by Yusuf Adil Shah, who had previously served as a governor under the Bahmani Sultanate. The Bijapur Sultanate was known for its architectural achievements and ruled over much of present-day Karnataka and Maharashtra.

Golconda Sultanate (1518-1687): The Golconda Sultanate was a Muslim kingdom that was founded in 1518 in the Deccan region of South India. The kingdom was established by Quli Qutb Shah, who had previously served as a governor under the Bahmani Sultanate. The Golconda Sultanate was known for its diamond mines and ruled over much of present-day Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Mysore Sultanate (1761-1799): The Mysore Sultanate was a Muslim kingdom that was founded in 1761 in present-day Karnataka. The kingdom was established by Hyder Ali, a military commander who had risen to prominence in the service of the Wodeyar dynasty. The Mysore Sultanate was known for its military prowess and ruled over much of present-day Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

They are irrelevant and considered not important in South India.
Just restricted to few areas and South Indians don't even know their names.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

They are irrelevant and considered not important in South India.
Just restricted to few areas and South Indians don't even know their names.

They had empires for couple hundred years each in consolidated areas within south india. They might not be considered important but surely not irrelevant. For example Marathas ruled over parts of north and central India for barely a decade or two (and never consiflifated, continuous rule where they actually got to govern per se) but you wouldn’t consider them irrelevant now would you?

 

[JaDed]

lol As you made this thread I saw a propaganda trailer of some Tipu Sultan show or movie highlighting him as some cruel ruler below is the link don’t underestimate the power of Hindutva in Karnataka.

https://www.opindia.com/2023/05/800...lion-hindus-converted-islam-film-tipu-sultan/

 

[Itachi]

Those are localized dynasty so most people probably wouldn't even have heard of them.

Mughals are portrayed as antagonist for different reasons. For example, in case of north east, Mughals attacked the existing dynasties time after time and failed miserably. The wars had servere consequences in these lands. So definitely Mughals will be seen as invader and antagonist in this aspect.

 

[pillionrider]

There are a few historical sites and buildings in the northern part of my state, Karnataka, which have Islamic heritage. But honestly, very few will know the history behind them or who built them.

The most famous Muslim ruler whom everyone pretty much knows is Tipu Sultan. He is also the most polarizing figure. He was famous and infamous even more the Hindutva agenda targeted him. In fact, he might have been targeted because of the fact that he was the most renowned Muslim king here.

I can personally talk of the polarizing views on him, because it runs within my family.

My dad's side are Kodavas who traditionally hate Tipu because of having historically fought him while also being brutalized. Normal stuff in history when one side wins and the other side loses. But the Kodava claim includes one of treachery from Tipu who allegedly broke the peace between the two in a devious way.

My mother's side on the other hand were beneficiaries of his patronage. They were traditional Ayurveda practitioners who were resettled by Tipu around Mysore and Hosur by him and given large amounts of land. So obviously they won't have a negative view about the guy

 

[NishanKonar]

They had empires for couple hundred years each in consolidated areas within south india. They might not be considered important but surely not irrelevant. For example Marathas ruled over parts of north and central India for barely a decade or two (and never consiflifated, continuous rule where they actually got to govern per se) but you wouldn’t consider them irrelevant now would you?

Actually the Maratha dynasties continued ruling their respective areas in Central India till 1947 - albeit as puppets of British empire like other princely states. Like Scandia in Gwalior, Holkar in Indore, Gaekwad in Gujarat and many more. They build palaces, temples and universities. So they left more lasting impression. These families are still very active in public life and politics. The scion of Scandia is cabinet minister and his aunt was ex CM of Rajasthan

The Bahmani sultanates & their successors were wiped out by Aurangzeb in the 17th century. So very little public memory remains of them. Most of their forts and palaces were later captured by Marathas and so became part of Maratha legacy. Also after demise of Deccan sultanates, many of their army officers and soldiers joined the Marathas and generally remained loyal to them.

Nizam of Hyderabad ruled till 1947 but he was never liked much by his majority Hindu population - just like Maharaja of Kashmir was never liked by majority Kashmiri Muslims. The 1948 police action saw horrific riots and massacres in Hyderabad which created lot of bitterness between Muslims and Hindus. Also the Nizam was a pro Pakistan guy which made him suspect in the yes of the Hindu locals. No wonder the Nizam and his family now mostly lives abroad. So while Muslims remember Nizam fondly . most Hindus see him as tyrant who lived lavish life style at the expense of the masses

Tipu Sultan is controversial character. Some ( mostly Muslims & Leftists ) see him as hero who fought British , others see him as a cruel tyrant who persecuted Hindus and Christians. In Kerela and Mangalore, Christians and Hindus often named their pet dog as Tipu - bcoz of their sheer hatred for him. Also after his demise the Wodeyars were restored their kingdom and they are still hugely respected in Karnataka - bcoz they built many temples / colleges / public works

 

[Champ_Pal]

I remember reading about Bijapur, Golconda and the Mysore kingdoms. They fought among themselves, but they were united in defeating the Vijayanagar empire.
For the most part, the South Indian Muslim small sultanates were irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. They were in no position to challenge the Mughals. Tipu Sultan is glorified as a freedom fighter in our textbooks. But he was only trying to protect his kingdom against the British.

The Muslim Sultanates of South India were even more foreign than in North India. They were Turkic invaders ruling over Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam people. They had nothing in common with the locals.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

lol As you made this thread I saw a propaganda trailer of some Tipu Sultan show or movie highlighting him as some cruel ruler below is the link don’t underestimate the power of Hindutva in Karnataka.

https://www.opindia.com/2023/05/800...lion-hindus-converted-islam-film-tipu-sultan/

Tipu is seen as cruel even in Kerala. He was brutal towards the Nairs and Christians in Malabar and to Mangalorean Catholics.

In Karnataka , hatred towards Tipu is a mote recent Hindutva phenomenon . Not as prevalent in the 90's atleast. On the other hand, my maternal grandfather's family had suffered at the hands of Tipu's Mysorean army and they still tell stories of how they lost their lands etc.

 

[JaDed]

Tipu is seen as cruel even in Kerala. He was brutal towards the Nairs and Christians in Malabar and to Mangalorean Catholics.

In Karnataka , hatred towards Tipu is a mote recent Hindutva phenomenon . Not as prevalent in the 90's atleast. On the other hand, my maternal grandfather's family had suffered at the hands of Tipu's Mysorean army and they still tell stories of how they lost their lands etc.

Yeah that makes sense, Tippu was seen a big leader of Southern Muslims, Sword of Tippu Sultan was famous propaganda show made on DD by Sanjay Khan.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yeah that makes sense, Tippu was seen a big leader of Southern Muslims, Sword of Tippu Sultan was famous propaganda show made on DD by Sanjay Khan.

The favorite theme on Door Darshan and pretty much all media including movies during 80's and 90's is to vilify British (like they should) and glorify Muslim rule (to appease Muslims).

 

[JaDed]

The favorite theme on Door Darshan and pretty much all media including movies during 80's and 90's is to vilify British (like they should) and glorify Muslim rule (to appease Muslims).

There are other Dharmic leaders that are glorified as well from Shivaji to Chanakya to Ashoka.

I maintain that as a republic we should had seen everyone with more than one lens except British colonialism.

 

[KB]

Nizam of Hyderabad ruled till 1947 but he was never liked much by his majority Hindu population - just like Maharaja of Kashmir was never liked by majority Kashmiri Muslims. The 1948 police action saw horrific riots and massacres in Hyderabad which created lot of bitterness between Muslims and Hindus. Also the Nizam was a pro Pakistan guy which made him suspect in the yes of the Hindu locals. No wonder the Nizam and his family now mostly lives abroad. So while Muslims remember Nizam fondly . most Hindus see him as tyrant who lived lavish life style at the expense of the masses

There are aspects of Hyderabad’s history - in the period 1850 to 1948 - that seem important for understanding wider Muslim history in British India, though I have a limited understanding of it.

Of course the princely state in the Deccan was the last vestige of Mughal political culture. But perhaps even more importantly, it became a place where Islamic modernists and Islamic modernism could flourish. As historian Julia Stephens noted, the Hyderabad state served a “broader role as an incubator for institutional models and ideologies which positioned Islam and Muslim culture as sources for non-European models of modernity.”

There were, “the ‘advanced’ Muslims who came out of the service of the Princely State of Hyderabad and the impact they had,” in the words of historian Francis Robinson. Hyderabad was a source of employment for north Indian Muslim service elites. Here Robinson was referring to in particular, Muhsin ul-Mulk (1837–1907), Viqar ul-Mulk (1841–1917), and Aziz Mirza (1865–1912). These were key figures in the Aligarh movement and key players in the origins of the All-India Muslim League.

Another north Indian who served the Hyderabad state was Chiragh Ali (1844-1895), who like his colleague Sayyid Ahmad Khan, sought to demonstrate Islam’s compatibility with modernity, once freed from the restrictive and formalistic views of the ulama.

Hyderabad was also the place that the first Urdu university was established - Osmania University. It was at this university, in the 1930s and 1940s, that a group of scholars (Anwar Iqbal Qureshi, Manazir Ahsan Gilani and Muhammad Hamidullah) would do much to advance the idea of Islamic economics as a third way between capitalism and communism. Qureshi would go on to serve on the Muslim League’s Planning Committee in 1944, that was set up to provide a blueprint for economic and social uplift in the future Pakistan. Indeed, a quarter of the members of the committee were from Hyderabad, a disproportionately large number, which also indicates the 'advanced' Muslim presence in the state.

Another interesting figure was Bahadur Yar Jung (1905-1944), who became famous for his oratory. “I am not Abdul Malik [the slave of the King], but Abdullah [the slave of God],” he said in one speech.

This said, it was not only modernists that Hyderabad was associated with. “Maududi, the authoritarian Islamist,” writes Barbara Metcalf, “grew up in princely Hyderabad where a small percentage of Muslims enjoyed privileged status under the authoritarian Nizam; perhaps this experience facilitated his imagining the role of an Islamist vanguard.” Syed Abul A'la Maududi (1903-1979) would go on to be a severe critic of the modernists who led the Pakistan campaign and who ruled Pakistan after its founding.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

There are other Dharmic leaders that are glorified as well from Shivaji to Chanakya to Ashoka.

I maintain that as a republic we should had seen everyone with more than one lens except British colonialism.

The problem is todays Indian right wingers (who form majority of country) want the British and the Muslim rulers to be seen with same lens and same way. The British did not see the local subcontinental people as anything but servants and employees whereas the so called Muslim invaders had families with locals. Even in Mughals you can see progression. Babar and Humayun looked very central Asian but as you go along further their features become more Indian to the point that shah jehan and onwards you couldn’t differentiate from a regular desi guy

 

[Champ_Pal]

The problem is todays Indian right wingers (who form majority of country) want the British and the Muslim rulers to be seen with same lens and same way. The British did not see the local subcontinental people as anything but servants and employees whereas the so called Muslim invaders had families with locals. Even in Mughals you can see progression. Babar and Humayun looked very central Asian but as you go along further their features become more Indian to the point that shah jehan and onwards you couldn’t differentiate from a regular desi guy

Mughals and South Indian sultanates did not integrate with the locals. They followed a foreign culture, spoke Farsi and Turkish, married imported woman from Persia and Central Asia. They sure married some Rajput women to maintain friendship with Rajputs. They lived in secluded palaces and forts and never ventured out. The locals only knew who was ruling them. They had wonderful time in India like true invaders. They enjoyed luxury while locals suffered in poverty.
Finally, they did not build anything of worth for the welfare of locals. They built tombs and luxurious palaces in the memory of their wives. They forever will remain as invaders. There was nothing in them that shows that they belonged to the land they were ruling.

 

[Varun]

I think the Mughals were pretty cool, and I liked reading history of the time at school.

Modi of course is mentally weak and uses such sentiments for his gullible votebank.

 

[uppercut]

Babar and Humayun looked very central Asian but as you go along further their features become more Indian to the point that shah jehan and onwards you couldn’t differentiate from a regular desi guy

How do you then explain Aurangzeb's ( and indeed most of the Mughal rulers) primary language for communication being Persian ?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

How do you then explain Aurangzeb's ( and indeed most of the Mughal rulers) primary language for communication being Persian ?

Urdu was being developed at the time and eas being spoken then: knowing extra languages isn’t a crime. Shivaji spoke fluent Persian too and was his language of choice in many official communications.. now he is foreign too?

 

[NishanKonar]

Urdu was being developed at the time and eas being spoken then: knowing extra languages isn’t a crime. Shivaji spoke fluent Persian too and was his language of choice in many official communications.. now he is foreign too?

Persian was colonial language imposed by foreign invaders.It was never really adopted by the masses. Just like English was imposed by British. Now most Indians speak English - that does not mean we are British. Its due to the fact that India adopted the British institutions after 1947. In fact there was plan to replace English completely with Hindi by 1965 but there was stiff opposition from Tamil Nadu. So that plan was shelved. Else today very few Indians wud be speaking English

Same way Shivaji speaking Persian does not make him foreigner. He spoke Persian bcoz it was language of the Mughals who were ruling most of India at that point. The fact that Persian vanished from India with the fall of Mughals tells you how foreign the language was. If it was grassroots language - it wud be spoken across the subcontinent. Forget India - how many Pakistanis speak in Persian ?

 

[NishanKonar]

The fact is Mughals never considered themselves Indian. They always maintained they were from Samarkand. In fact they even looked down upon Indian Muslims who converted. This is why Syed / Ashrafs keep claiming that they have foreign ancestry & their forefathers came from Persia / Arabai. This is bcoz Mughals reserved the top posts in administration and military for foreign origin Muslims like Persians, Arabs , Turks and mostly ignored Indian Muslim converts. Therefore Indian Muslims started inventing stories that their forefathers arrived from Persia / Central Asia even though they were actually local converts

Only Rajputs were the exception to this rule. They got promotions to high posts in Mughal army

 

[pillionrider]

A question to Indian Hindus who are well-versed on the matter.

Why did India remain a Hindu majority country despite Islamic rule?

In pretty much every other country, conversion was inevitable. What was it about India that resisted. Were our ancestors so strong in their convictions that they were able to resist in a way that the Islamic tyrant was spellbound?

Or is the reality more that forced conversions weren't really a thing of the Mughals. Like the British later on.

 

[NishanKonar]

A question to Indian Hindus who are well-versed on the matter.

Why did India remain a Hindu majority country despite Islamic rule?

In pretty much every other country, conversion was inevitable. What was it about India that resisted. Were our ancestors so strong in their convictions that they were able to resist in a way that the Islamic tyrant was spellbound?

Or is the reality more that forced conversions weren't really a thing of the Mughals. Like the British later on.

Bcoz the Turkish Sultans and Mughals were not really interested in converting Hindus to Islam. This is where BJP RSS get it wrong about the Mughals. The Mughals were cruel & barbaric tyrants but not religious zealots. They were only interested in amassing wealth and living life of luxury. Most Muslims converted due to Sufi preachers. Lower castes converted to escape caste oppression or avoid Jazia

Also caste structure was very strong and helped maintain strong kinship. In effect every caste was separate social unit with its own customs and rules. This acted as a barrier against wholesale conversions. Only few castes converted but majority did not. Unlike say Iran or North Africa where most people belonged to same sect. So once conversion started - whole society converted. In India while some castes converted - other castes remained relatively insulated. This prevented whole sale conversions

That's why majority Muslim population in South Asia is in Punjab & Bengal where Hindu society never had a strong presence. Most people in these places were followers of animists / pagan faiths - so easily converted to Islam due to Sufi preachers

 

[NishanKonar]

Another reason is Vedic Hinduism is not really the same as pagan faiths in Europe & Arabia. The pagan faiths followed in Europe and Arabia was basically idol worship with little depth & gravity. Hence they got wiped out by Abrahamic faiths

Vedic Hinduism is lot deeper. It has Vedas , Upanishads and Puranas. Greeks & Romans had no such religious texts for their pagan faiths. So they could not survive debate & scrutiny against Abrahamic faiths. So Vedic Hinduism had stronger roots amongst the population unlike European or Arab pagan faiths. Thus it stood better scrutiny and survived the spread of Monotheist religions

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

A question to Indian Hindus who are well-versed on the matter.

Why did India remain a Hindu majority country despite Islamic rule?

In pretty much every other country, conversion was inevitable. What was it about India that resisted. Were our ancestors so strong in their convictions that they were able to resist in a way that the Islamic tyrant was spellbound?

Or is the reality more that forced conversions weren't really a thing of the Mughals. Like the British later on.

Most Islamic conversion in Indian history actually happened under British rule

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Persian was colonial language imposed by foreign invaders.It was never really adopted by the masses. Just like English was imposed by British. Now most Indians speak English - that does not mean we are British. Its due to the fact that India adopted the British institutions after 1947. In fact there was plan to replace English completely with Hindi by 1965 but there was stiff opposition from Tamil Nadu. So that plan was shelved. Else today very few Indians wud be speaking English

Same way Shivaji speaking Persian does not make him foreigner. He spoke Persian bcoz it was language of the Mughals who were ruling most of India at that point. The fact that Persian vanished from India with the fall of Mughals tells you how foreign the language was. If it was grassroots language - it wud be spoken across the subcontinent. Forget India - how many Pakistanis speak in Persian ?

Because languages evolve and Urdu became the nice medium. That’s why no one speaks or. The later Mughals spoke Urdu as the main language.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Persian was colonial language imposed by foreign invaders.It was never really adopted by the masses. Just like English was imposed by British. Now most Indians speak English - that does not mean we are British. Its due to the fact that India adopted the British institutions after 1947. In fact there was plan to replace English completely with Hindi by 1965 but there was stiff opposition from Tamil Nadu. So that plan was shelved. Else today very few Indians wud be speaking English

Same way Shivaji speaking Persian does not make him foreigner. He spoke Persian bcoz it was language of the Mughals who were ruling most of India at that point. The fact that Persian vanished from India with the fall of Mughals tells you how foreign the language was. If it was grassroots language - it wud be spoken across the subcontinent. Forget India - how many Pakistanis speak in Persian ?

Because languages evolve and Urdu became the nice medium. That’s why no one speaks or. The later Mughals spoke Urdu as the main language. Your question is like asking why is Sanskrit not spoken today

 

[NishanKonar]

Because languages evolve and Urdu became the nice medium. That’s why no one speaks or. The later Mughals spoke Urdu as the main language. Your question is like asking why is Sanskrit not spoken today

Sanskrit was also spoken only by elites & ruling classes. The common man never spoke Sanskrit. That's why Sanskrit disappeared

Same as Persian. It was only spoken by ruling classes - never by the masses. The latter day Mughals never used Urdu for official purposes. The court language was Persian only. Then after 1857 the British lookover and Persian vanished from India. But Urdu survived bcoz it was language of the masses

 

[pillionrider]

Bcoz the Turkish Sultans and Mughals were not really interested in converting Hindus to Islam. This is where BJP RSS get it wrong about the Mughals. The Mughals were cruel & barbaric tyrants but not religious zealots. They were only interested in amassing wealth and living life of luxury. Most Muslims converted due to Sufi preachers. Lower castes converted to escape caste oppression or avoid Jazia

Also caste structure was very strong and helped maintain strong kinship. In effect every caste was separate social unit with its own customs and rules. This acted as a barrier against wholesale conversions. Only few castes converted but majority did not. Unlike say Iran or North Africa where most people belonged to same sect. So once conversion started - whole society converted. In India while some castes converted - other castes remained relatively insulated. This prevented whole sale conversions

That's why majority Muslim population in South Asia is in Punjab & Bengal where Hindu society never had a strong presence. Most people in these places were followers of animists / pagan faiths - so easily converted to Islam due to Sufi preachers

Another reason is Vedic Hinduism is not really the same as pagan faiths in Europe & Arabia. The pagan faiths followed in Europe and Arabia was basically idol worship with little depth & gravity. Hence they got wiped out by Abrahamic faiths

Vedic Hinduism is lot deeper. It has Vedas , Upanishads and Puranas. Greeks & Romans had no such religious texts for their pagan faiths. So they could not survive debate & scrutiny against Abrahamic faiths. So Vedic Hinduism had stronger roots amongst the population unlike European or Arab pagan faiths. Thus it stood better scrutiny and survived the spread of Monotheist religions

Most Islamic conversion in Indian history actually happened under British rule

Interesting. Thank you.

Not sure this fits the narrative by many bhakts here. Can they counter this?

 

[NishanKonar]

Most Islamic conversion in Indian history actually happened under British rule

Not really. British records show that areas which are Muslim majority now were already Muslim majority at that point. There was very little relative conversions during British rule

The British maintained very good records of different religions / castes by doing regular census. There is no big increase in Islam anywhere n India during British rule

The only religion that showed significant increase were Sikhism in Punjab - mostly bcoz of Hindu custom of baptizing the eldest son as Sikh

 

[Champ_Pal]

None of the South Indian Sultanate ruling class could speak Telugu or Tamil or Kannada. They were happy with speaking Persian and Turkish. If they cannot even speak the local language after spending over a century ruling the land, where is the integration? Hence they were always outsiders and invaders.