When did India fall out of love with the Mughal Empire?

[Slog]

A little over 10 years ago I met an Indian from Mumbai for the first time in real life. When we were talking somehow the conversation came to the Mughal Empire, Akbar and Shah Jehan. He expressed surprise that I knew about the Mughals in such detail. I remember his words, 'I didn't know Pakistanis also learnt our history. Pretty cool!"

I responded that, "Well it is our history and Mughals were a Muslim empire so its natural to learn about them as an Islamic country. Besides there are a lot of Mughal structures especially in Lahore."

This was a Indian Hindu from Mumbai who expressed pride over Mughal heritage sites and its role as a great empire.

Asides from this anecdote, I had always grown up with the Indian media and people promoting the Taj Mahal, Red Fort etc. Essentially a lot of India which was promoted to me and the rest of the world was linked to Mughal heritage.

Even now if you ask any random person anywhere in the world to name one Indian site or something they use as a reference; it is more than likely to be Taj Mahal.

However, its clear that for the majority Indians, Mughal rule is no longer a source of pride. Quite often you see Indian politicians using Mughal rule as a scare tactic. Many Mughal era sites and cities have been renamed. And only today a BJP MP from the government said that if the majority is not vigilant, Mughal rule will return clearly pointing to the Mughals being bad actors. (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com...-may-not-be-far-way-says-bjp-mp-tejasvi-surya)

Asides from such incidents, Taj Mahal is no longer even in the brochures for Uttar Pradesh tourism eventhough forget UP, it is hands down the most recognisable Indian reference.

So my question is what has happened that in the last decade India has fallen so out of love with the Mughal Empires whose heritage such as Red Fort, Taj Mahal and Fatehpur Sikri were not long ago considered a source of pride?

 

[Hornbill]

A little over 10 years ago I met an Indian from Mumbai for the first time in real life. When we were talking somehow the conversation came to the Mughal Empire, Akbar and Shah Jehan. He expressed surprise that I knew about the Mughals in such detail. I remember his words, 'I didn't know Pakistanis also learnt our history. Pretty cool!"

I responded that, "Well it is our history and Mughals were a Muslim empire so its natural to learn about them as an Islamic country. Besides there are a lot of Mughal structures especially in Lahore."

This was a Indian Hindu from Mumbai who expressed pride over Mughal heritage sites and its role as a great empire.

Asides from this anecdote, I had always grown up with the Indian media and people promoting the Taj Mahal, Red Fort etc. Essentially a lot of India which was promoted to me and the rest of the world was linked to Mughal heritage.

Even now if you ask any random person anywhere in the world to name one Indian site or something they use as a reference; it is more than likely to be Taj Mahal.

However, its clear that for the majority Indians, Mughal rule is no longer a source of pride. Quite often you see Indian politicians using Mughal rule as a scare tactic. Many Mughal era sites and cities have been renamed. And only today a BJP MP from the government said that if the majority is not vigilant, Mughal rule will return clearly pointing to the Mughals being bad actors. (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com...-may-not-be-far-way-says-bjp-mp-tejasvi-surya)

Asides from such incidents, Taj Mahal is no longer even in the brochures for Uttar Pradesh tourism eventhough forget UP, it is hands down the most recognisable Indian reference.

So my question is what has happened that in the last decade India has fallen so out of love with the Mughal Empires whose heritage such as Red Fort, Taj Mahal and Fatehpur Sikri were not long ago considered a source of pride?

Only good things done by mughals were part of history syllabus in schools, Either government should stop teaching history or should prepare unbiased syllabus.

 

[JaDed]

Only good things done by mughals were part of history syllabus in schools, Either government should stop teaching history or should prepare unbiased syllabus.

Well said, if we were taught to subjectively judge all kingdoms with good and wrong, maybe we wouldn’t have had this issue but Govns tried brainwashing and it worked for a long time.

Current one of pride are Marathas , the shupwr Hindu saviors lol , probably gonna snap out of it after 20 years.

 

[Napa]

A little over 10 years ago I met an Indian from Mumbai for the first time in real life. When we were talking somehow the conversation came to the Mughal Empire, Akbar and Shah Jehan. He expressed surprise that I knew about the Mughals in such detail. I remember his words, 'I didn't know Pakistanis also learnt our history. Pretty cool!"

I responded that, "Well it is our history and Mughals were a Muslim empire so its natural to learn about them as an Islamic country. Besides there are a lot of Mughal structures especially in Lahore."

This was a Indian Hindu from Mumbai who expressed pride over Mughal heritage sites and its role as a great empire.

Asides from this anecdote, I had always grown up with the Indian media and people promoting the Taj Mahal, Red Fort etc. Essentially a lot of India which was promoted to me and the rest of the world was linked to Mughal heritage.

Even now if you ask any random person anywhere in the world to name one Indian site or something they use as a reference; it is more than likely to be Taj Mahal.

However, its clear that for the majority Indians, Mughal rule is no longer a source of pride. Quite often you see Indian politicians using Mughal rule as a scare tactic. Many Mughal era sites and cities have been renamed. And only today a BJP MP from the government said that if the majority is not vigilant, Mughal rule will return clearly pointing to the Mughals being bad actors. (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com...-may-not-be-far-way-says-bjp-mp-tejasvi-surya)

Asides from such incidents, Taj Mahal is no longer even in the brochures for Uttar Pradesh tourism eventhough forget UP, it is hands down the most recognisable Indian reference.

So my question is what has happened that in the last decade India has fallen so out of love with the Mughal Empires whose heritage such as Red Fort, Taj Mahal and Fatehpur Sikri were not long ago considered a source of pride?

The Mughals were the last Indian empire that ruled most of the country. It didn't last very long, from the start of Babar's reign to the end of Aurangzeb's reign it was only 180 years.

Feelings about Mughals differ a lot depending upon the particular ruler. From what I studied in school, and I believe most Indians still feel the same, Akbar was a great ruler and Aurangzeb was a tyrant.

Aurangzeb fought the Deccan War for about 30 years, and about 3 million people died in that war. There is enough reason to dislike him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal–Maratha_Wars

 

[Slog]

The Mughals were the last Indian empire that ruled most of the country. It didn't last very long, from the start of Babar's reign to the end of Aurangzeb's reign it was only 180 years.

Feelings about Mughals differ a lot depending upon the particular ruler. From what I studied in school, and I believe most Indians still feel the same, Akbar was a great ruler and Aurangzeb was a tyrant.

Aurangzeb fought the Deccan War for about 30 years, and about 3 million people died in that war. There is enough reason to dislike him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal–Maratha_Wars

Currently it seems Mughal empire as a whole is hated with them being referenced negatively as a whole every other week.

Besides as far as Aurangzeb is concerned. Wars are fought by two sides. Marathas also had designs to conquer the northerners central part of India which was the stronghold of the Mughal empire. It wasn’t just a defensive war for Marathas and as soon as the Mughal empire started to weaken due to infighting after the death of Aurangzeb the Marathas pounced and went into as far as what forms modern day Pakistan. Obviously it was very very short lived due to the rise of the British and the defeat of Marathas to Ahmad Shah Abdali as wrll

 

[CricketCartoons]

Mughals were fine. It was the defeat of Dara Shikoh by Aurangzeb which proved to be the pivotal moment for india and laid the foundation for muslim fundamentalism in india. If only Dara had won.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

With the rise of Hindutva. Basically in Hindutva religion and language must originate in the country or else its considered foreign. For Hindu nationalist, Ancient India includes not just Pakistan and Bangladesh, but Afghanistan as well. 99% of first generation Muslim Kings, whether they were Mughals, Sultans, Nawabs, were born in this geographic region, by the second generation it was 100% being born in the boundaries of "Akhand Bharat".

However their religion originated in Arabia and their language originated in Iran, therefore they are considered foreign "invaders". So there is no question of honoring them, or feeling pride at their accomplishments.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Feelings about Mughals differ a lot depending upon the particular ruler. From what I studied in school, and I believe most Indians still feel the same, Akbar was a great ruler and Aurangzeb was a tyrant.

Aurangzeb was not just a tyrant. He was much worse. After he had Dara, the eldest brother, the popular crown prince killed he set the ground for muslim fundamentalism. That is why he is popular among islamists.

The hindutva followers hate mughals for being muslim invaders (muslim the key word). Problem is that neither the communals nor the liberals are able to separate the evil aurangzeb from the rest of the mughals, who were pretty good rulers.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Mughals were fine. It was the defeat of Dara Shikoh by Aurangzeb which proved to be the pivotal moment for india and laid the foundation for muslim fundamentalism in india. If only Dara had won.

One mughal prince defeating another mughal prince had nothing to do with Muslims fundamentalism. Aurangzeb was not that different than the other Mughal Kings, and Dara probably would have been the same.

The fundamentalism started once Muslims lost political control of the subcontinent. From almost the entire subcontinent under Muslim rule, Mughals were reduced to one city, which they eventually lost as well. The various Nawabs and Nizams were vassals of the British. All the privilege, and perks Muslims had enjoyed for centuries were gone.

So that lead to introspection, and a segment of the population wanted to go back to how Islam was practiced originally in the 7th century, and they became more conservative. Others became more secular, and they were just cultural Muslims, who might not be pious but were still proud of their Muslims heritage.

 

[CricketCartoons]

One mughal prince defeating another mughal prince had nothing to do with Muslims fundamentalism. Aurangzeb was not that different than the other Mughal Kings, and Dara probably would have been the same.

The fundamentalism started once Muslims lost political control of the subcontinent. From almost the entire subcontinent under Muslim rule, Mughals were reduced to one city, which they eventually lost as well. The various Nawabs and Nizams were vassals of the British. All the privilege, and perks Muslims had enjoyed for centuries were gone.

So that lead to introspection, and a segment of the population wanted to go back to how Islam was practiced originally in the 7th century, and they became more conservative. Others became more secular, and they were just cultural Muslims, who might not be pious but were still proud of their Muslims heritage.

Looks like you have read a lot about Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb. Can you list the books please?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Looks like you have read a lot about Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb. Can you list the books please?

https://aeon.co/essays/the-great-aurangzeb-is-everybodys-least-favourite-mughal

Audrey Truschke
is assistant professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University, Newark. Her first book, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court, was published by Columbia University Press in 2016. Her latest book is Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King ( Stanford University Press 2017).

 

[CricketCartoons]

https://aeon.co/essays/the-great-aurangzeb-is-everybodys-least-favourite-mughal

Audrey Truschke
is assistant professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University, Newark. Her first book, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court, was published by Columbia University Press in 2016. Her latest book is Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King ( Stanford University Press 2017).

Many claims in her book have been debunked (feel free to debate on those claims). Which other books have you read about Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh? I hope not just this solitary essay.

 

[Napa]

One mughal prince defeating another mughal prince had nothing to do with Muslims fundamentalism. Aurangzeb was not that different than the other Mughal Kings, and Dara probably would have been the same.

Aurangzeb was the most fundamentalist of the Mughal rulers. It is true that fratricide to gain the throne was quite common among the Mughals (in fact not just the Mughals but also other Timurids), and religion was just an excuse that Aurangzeb used to fight Dara.

The fundamentalism started once Muslims lost political control of the subcontinent. From almost the entire subcontinent under Muslim rule, Mughals were reduced to one city, which they eventually lost as well.

In reality the opposite thing happened. Akbar was not a fundamentalist, and was able to work with Hindu rulers (notably the Rajputs who provided him many troops), which made him politically very successful. Aurangzeb started out with an empire, tried to impose his fundamentalism, could not get along with the Hindus, started the horrific Deccan Wars against the Hindu Marathas, and finally as a result lost his empire but not before the death of 3 million.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Many claims in her book have been debunked (feel free to debate on those claims). Which other books have you read about Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh? I hope not just this solitary essay.

I have read the book. What claim has been debunked? What exactly did Aurangzeb do that other Mughals did not?

That he killed his brothers? Dara Shikoh would have killed his brothers as well has he won the throne. Mughals before and after Auangzeb killed their brothers for the throne. In face had you been a Mughal prince you would have done the same.

That he destroyed temples? All Mughals destroyed temples, as well as build temples.


But to your original point that Muslim fundamentalism increased because of Aurangzeb defeating Dara is not true. Muslims in the subcontinent did not care which Muslim King sat on the throne. They would get benefits as long as the King was Muslim.

For other books in general on Muslim era Richard Eaton is a good author in my opinion. So is William Dalrymple.

 

[Mamoon]

A Hindu nationalist should not support or revere the Mughals. They were foreign invaders who looted and plundered the subcontinent, and progressively became weak enough to the point where they couldn’t resist the British from colonizing the region.

Hindu nationalists should promote the Gupta Empire and slowly make it part of their identity and true heritage.

Those with identity crisis, like us Pakistanis, should continue to glorify the Mughals because we have successfully managed to whitewash our non-Muslim history, which is the real history of our region.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I have read the book. What claim has been debunked? What exactly did Aurangzeb do that other Mughals did not?

That he killed his brothers? Dara Shikoh would have killed his brothers as well has he won the throne. Mughals before and after Auangzeb killed their brothers for the throne. In face had you been a Mughal prince you would have done the same.

That he destroyed temples? All Mughals destroyed temples, as well as build temples.


But to your original point that Muslim fundamentalism increased because of Aurangzeb defeating Dara is not true. Muslims in the subcontinent did not care which Muslim King sat on the throne. They would get benefits as long as the King was Muslim.

For other books in general on Muslim era Richard Eaton is a good author in my opinion. So is William Dalrymple.

Muslim fundamentalism started because Dara couldn't become the emperor and Aurangzeb became the emperor.

It is not as simple as killing brothers (mughals fought against their fathers and brothers for the throne) or destroying temples. It is about the views they had and their policies ( and I compare them not by present day standards but the standards of earlier mughal emperors).

 

[Slog]

A Hindu nationalist should not support or revere the Mughals. They were foreign invaders who looted and plundered the subcontinent, and progressively became weak enough to the point where they couldn’t resist the British from colonizing the region.

Hindu nationalists should promote the Gupta Empire and slowly make it part of their identity and true heritage.

Those with identity crisis, like us Pakistanis, should continue to glorify the Mughals because we have successfully managed to whitewash our non-Muslim history, which is the real history of our region.

I don’t see both (and others such as Maurya) cannot be glorified together. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Besides What do you suggest India do with all the Mughal architecture and sites which are among the highest grossing sources of revenue from tourism into India? You can’t totally stop giving importance to an empire whose sites are the main source of reference for your country for most foreigners.

 

[Napa]

Currently it seems Mughal empire as a whole is hated with them being referenced negatively as a whole every other week.

Besides as far as Aurangzeb is concerned. Wars are fought by two sides. Marathas also had designs to conquer the northerners central part of India which was the stronghold of the Mughal empire. It wasn’t just a defensive war for Marathas and as soon as the Mughal empire started to weaken due to infighting after the death of Aurangzeb the Marathas pounced and went into as far as what forms modern day Pakistan. Obviously it was very very short lived due to the rise of the British and the defeat of Marathas to Ahmad Shah Abdali as wrll

Yes, the Marathas extended their empire all the way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but that was only after Aurangzeb's death. Prior to that Aurangzeb spent most of his reign attacking the Marathas.

The point is that Akbar was able to come to an accommodation with the Hindu kingdoms, and that made him militarily very strong. He enjoyed music, and was Tansen's patron.

Aurangzeb was much more of a religious fanatic. "He did not enjoy a luxurious life and his personal expenses and constructions of small mosques were covered by his own earnings, which included the sewing of caps and trade of his written copies of the Quran".

Aurangzeb, rather than reaching an accommodation with the Marathas like Akbar had done with the Rajputs, tried to defeat them militarily. The result was that he fought on Maratha lands for 30 years and still could not achieve a decisive victory against the Rajputs. And the Deccan War left his empire so weakened, that within 12 years of this death the Marathas were in Delhi installing their favorite as the puppet Mughal Emperor.

The difference in Akbar's and Aurangzeb's approaches to the Hindus was stark, and so were the results. In our Indian textbooks, the title was "Akbar the Great".

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Aurangzeb was the most fundamentalist of the Mughal rulers. It is true that fratricide to gain the throne was quite common among the Mughals (in fact not just the Mughals but also other Timurids), and religion was just an excuse that Aurangzeb used to fight Dara.



In reality the opposite thing happened. Akbar was not a fundamentalist, and was able to work with Hindu rulers (notably the Rajputs who provided him many troops), which made him politically very successful. Aurangzeb started out with an empire, tried to impose his fundamentalism, could not get along with the Hindus, started the horrific Deccan Wars against the Hindu Marathas, and finally as a result lost his empire but not before the death of 3 million.

The Deccan was ruled by Muslim sultanates. Aurangzeb fought them first, and then he fought the Marthas. It wasnt to teach Hindus a lesson that he invaded the Deccan. All Mughals expanded the empire. Akbar, the liberal, also expanded the Mughal empire, and in war, innocents always die. It was always a Mughal desire to have the entire subcontinent under their rule.

The empire also did not end while he was alive. He lived so long, that his eldest son was almost 70 when he took the throne, so after the customary civil war, there was another civil war soon after, and then another one, and then another on.

Had he done something like Suleiman the Magnificent, and choose one grand son as his heir and killed his sons and other grandsons the empire would have had a younger King who might have been able to perserve the empire longer.

Aurangzeb also worked with Hindu rulers. There were more Hindu nobles in his empire than any other Mughal emperors. His mistake was expanding to far in the Deccan. He should have taken some of it, and then left the rest to the next emperor.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yes, the Marathas extended their empire all the way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but that was only after Aurangzeb's death. Prior to that Aurangzeb spent most of his reign attacking the Marathas.

The point is that Akbar was able to come to an accommodation with the Hindu kingdoms, and that made him militarily very strong. He enjoyed music, and was Tansen's patron.

Aurangzeb was much more of a religious fanatic. "He did not enjoy a luxurious life and his personal expenses and constructions of small mosques were covered by his own earnings, which included the sewing of caps and trade of his written copies of the Quran".

Aurangzeb, rather than reaching an accommodation with the Marathas like Akbar had done with the Rajputs, tried to defeat them militarily. The result was that he fought on Maratha lands for 30 years and still could not achieve a decisive victory against the Rajputs. And the Deccan War left his empire so weakened, that within 12 years of this death the Marathas were in Delhi installing their favorite as the puppet Mughal Emperor.

The difference in Akbar's and Aurangzeb's approaches to the Hindus was stark, and so were the results. In our Indian textbooks, the title was "Akbar the Great".

Aurangzeb was nothing but an animal, his attempt to destroy the Kailasa temple was cowardly, pathetic, just like him... So many of the hindu's got their rear end kicked by the Mughals to which they converted to Islam. The ancestors of the hindus' that resisted the Mughals are carrying on with their ancient culture today...

 

[Napa]

Yes, the Marathas extended their empire all the way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but that was only after Aurangzeb's death. Prior to that Aurangzeb spent most of his reign attacking the Marathas.

The point is that Akbar was able to come to an accommodation with the Hindu kingdoms, and that made him militarily very strong. He enjoyed music, and was Tansen's patron.

Aurangzeb was much more of a religious fanatic. "He did not enjoy a luxurious life and his personal expenses and constructions of small mosques were covered by his own earnings, which included the sewing of caps and trade of his written copies of the Quran".

Aurangzeb, rather than reaching an accommodation with the Marathas like Akbar had done with the Rajputs, tried to defeat them militarily. The result was that he fought on Maratha lands for 30 years and still could not achieve a decisive victory against the Rajputs. And the Deccan War left his empire so weakened, that within 12 years of this death the Marathas were in Delhi installing their favorite as the puppet Mughal Emperor.

The difference in Akbar's and Aurangzeb's approaches to the Hindus was stark, and so were the results. In our Indian textbooks, the title was "Akbar the Great".

*The result was that he fought on Maratha lands for 30 years and still could not achieve a decisive victory against the Marathas

 

[Mamoon]

I don’t see both (and others such as Maurya) cannot be glorified together. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Besides What do you suggest India do with all the Mughal architecture and sites which are among the highest grossing sources of revenue from tourism into India? You can’t totally stop giving importance to an empire whose sites are the main source of reference for your country for most foreigners.

Do what they are doing now. Benefit from the architecture and make money out of it but don’t promote it on tourism sites, brochures etc.

If people want to go to India to see the Taj Mahal they should be welcome, but India shouldn’t be inviting people to India because they have the Taj Mahal.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

A Hindu nationalist should not support or revere the Mughals. They were foreign invaders who looted and plundered the subcontinent, and progressively became weak enough to the point where they couldn’t resist the British from colonizing the region.

Hindu nationalists should promote the Gupta Empire and slowly make it part of their identity and true heritage.

Those with identity crisis, like us Pakistanis, should continue to glorify the Mughals because we have successfully managed to whitewash our non-Muslim history, which is the real history of our region.

With the exception of Babur the rest of the Mughals were born in South Asia. Thats 22 out of 23 emperors. They were born and bred here, they married local women, they are buried here. The idea that they are foreign is absurd.

It might not be part of your culture, but for the majority of Muslims, the Muslims era is definitely part of our culture. Our cuisine, architecture, poetry, saints, language, music come from that era.

If everyone followed their original culture, there would be one culture on planet Earth. Culture changes. In Turkey the Anatolian population assimilated into the Turkish culture, and they now identify with the Ottoman Empire, and not the Byzantine Empire. The same way the subcontinent Muslims were assimilated into the various Muslim empires, and they identify that culture. The good thing with the Indo-Persian culture is that took many elements from both the local Indian culture, and Persian culture and fused it, so you get elements of both.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Sadhguru sums up Babur:


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OemLYMmNvE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Napa]

The Deccan was ruled by Muslim sultanates. Aurangzeb fought them first, and then he fought the Marthas. It wasnt to teach Hindus a lesson that he invaded the Deccan.

It doesn't matter much who was attacked first, the Sultanates or the Marathas. The point is that he could not reach an accommodation with his enemies like Akbar did.

All Mughals expanded the empire. Akbar, the liberal, also expanded the Mughal empire, and in war, innocents always die. It was always a Mughal desire to have the entire subcontinent under their rule.

Given enough time, if it survives, every empire wants to rule the whole world. Nature of the beast.

The empire also did not end while he was alive. He lived so long, that his eldest son was almost 70 when he took the throne, so after the customary civil war, there was another civil war soon after, and then another one, and then another on.

The strength of the empire was pretty much gone by the end of his life. If you spend 26 years in an enemy land, and still can't beat them, then you leave nothing to your successors. And not only the Marathas, there were also the Jats, the Sikhs etc.

He tried to subjugate non-Muslims and failed. "persecution of Shias, Sufis and non-Muslims to impose practices of orthodox Islamic state, such as imposition of sharia and jizya religious tax on non-Muslims, doubling of custom duties on Hindus while abolishing it for Muslims, executions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and destruction of temples eventually led to numerous rebellions".

Had he done something like Suleiman the Magnificent, and choose one grand son as his heir and killed his sons and other grandsons the empire would have had a younger King who might have been able to perserve the empire longer.

Doubt it. 26 years of war with no decisive victory doesn't leave much behind.

Aurangzeb also worked with Hindu rulers. There were more Hindu nobles in his empire than any other Mughal emperors. His mistake was expanding to far in the Deccan. He should have taken some of it, and then left the rest to the next emperor.

The point is not that he didn't have some Hindu subjects, the point is that he created very strong Hindu and Sikh enemies with whom he could not reach an accommodation.

Simple fact: Akbar took an empire and at the end of his reign it was 3 times larger and wealthier. Aurangzeb took an empire and 12 years after his death it was zero.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Aurangzeb was nothing but an animal, his attempt to destroy the Kailasa temple was cowardly, pathetic, just like him... So many of the hindu's got their rear end kicked by the Mughals to which they converted to Islam. The ancestors of the hindus' that resisted the Mughals are carrying on with their ancient culture today...

Judge people by the era that they live in. While its wrong by modern standards to destroy a temple, in the medieval era there were consequences against rebelling against the King.

Also what resistance are you talking about??? High caste Hindus served the Mughals faithfully for 200 years. They served in their army and bureaucracy. They sent their daughters to harems. When the Mughals invaded Muslims already ruled North India, so its not like Hindus lost there Kingdom which would make them resist the Mughals. If anything Mughal era was better for them the Sultanate era.

Also there was no mass conversion of Hindus in the Mughal era. The heartland of their empire is overwhelmingly Hindu. The regions which became Muslim, Pakistan, Kashmir, and Bangladesh, were Buddhist majority, which were already Muslim before the Mughals came. Had they cared about Islam they could have easily converted the low castes, and dalits, in the rest of India.

The only real Muslim population increase from the Mughal era was Muslim soldiers, and immigrants marrying local women, and raising the children as Muslim.

 

[AdamM97]

Because they’re ruled by Hindu Nationalists, not hard to see.

In the same way that Europeans refer to Alexander of Macedon as a ’Great’ for conquering ”the known world”, yet Chengiz Khan is a barbarian. Khalistanis and Punjabi Muslim Nationalists glorify Ranjit Singh (despite his atrocities against Punjabi and Kashmiri Muslims), and Pakistanis glorify the Mughals and Ghaznavids (despite their atrocities towards Hindus). Our perspective of history is based on our current political and social views. I don’t think there’s a single person(apart from historians) that can view history from an unbiased perspective.

Most people need to distinguish between history and the past. The past is what has already happened but history is our interpretation of the past.

 

[Mamoon]

With the exception of Babur the rest of the Mughals were born in South Asia. Thats 22 out of 23 emperors. They were born and bred here, they married local women, they are buried here. The idea that they are foreign is absurd.

It might not be part of your culture, but for the majority of Muslims, the Muslims era is definitely part of our culture. Our cuisine, architecture, poetry, saints, language, music come from that era.

If everyone followed their original culture, there would be one culture on planet Earth. Culture changes. In Turkey the Anatolian population assimilated into the Turkish culture, and they now identify with the Ottoman Empire, and not the Byzantine Empire. The same way the subcontinent Muslims were assimilated into the various Muslim empires, and they identify that culture. The good thing with the Indo-Persian culture is that took many elements from both the local Indian culture, and Persian culture and fused it, so you get elements of both.

It doesn’t matter where they are born. They were foreigners who didn’t belong in India.

There is a difference between embracing a culture and whitewashing it. There is nothing wrong with embracing Muslim culture who came to the subcontinent with swords and gave our forefathers the choice between Islam and life as second class citizens, but we have embraced Muslim culture at the expense of forgetting our past.

Pakistan was home to the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the greatest civilizations in history. Today, our schools pretend that our history started when Bin Qasim reached the shores of Sindh and conquered Debal, and very little is taught about the Indus Valley Civilization.

Pakistan has no identity without Islam and it is our own undoing, because we have complete distances ourselves from our past.

The Ottoman Empire was founded by ethnic Turks not invading Arabs. An Arab like Bin Qasim didn’t show up on their shores to become their first hero.

 

[AdamM97]

It doesn’t matter where they are born. They were foreigners who didn’t belong in India.

There is a difference between embracing a culture and whitewashing it. There is nothing wrong with embracing Muslim culture who came to the subcontinent with swords and gave our forefathers the choice between Islam and life as second class citizens, but we have embraced Muslim culture at the expense of forgetting our past.

Pakistan was home to the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the greatest civilizations in history. Today, our schools pretend that our history started when Bin Qasim reached the shores of Sindh and conquered Debal, and very little is taught about the Indus Valley Civilization.

Pakistan has no identity without Islam and it is our own undoing, because we have complete distances ourselves from our past.

The Ottoman Empire was founded by ethnic Turks not invading Arabs. An Arab like Bin Qasim didn’t show up on their shores to become their first hero.

Except that most Pakistanis didn’t convert to Islam ’by the sword’. I wouldn’t be surprised if you learned it from a youtube video or something. Most Punjabis converted to Islam due to social prestige, in fact a lot of Punjabi Muslim converts are the descendants of 19th century Hindus and Sikhs who converted to Islam. Sindhis used to be Buddhists and converted to Islam due to its lack of caste system. Balochs, Pashtuns and Kashmiris converted much earlier to Islam.

As for the Ottoman part, most Turkish people are actually the descendants of Anatolian, Armenian, Greek, Georgian, Albanian and Bulgarian Orthodox Christians who assimilated into the Ottoman Turkish society after the fall fo the Byzantine Empire. Ataturk was born in Thessaloniki, Greece(then Ottoman Empire) and his father himself was an Albanian.

 

[Itachi]

Because though they had ruled most of India (not all), India is too big to culturally influence every portion. When you rule someone, you need to inject your culture, tradition into the place which you have occupied. Mughals failed in doing that since their influence could be attributed to mostly Central and a bit of west and south part of India. Rest, they continued their own. When you don't impact someone on THAT level, it is easy to forget.

Even when mughals attacked new states, the soldiers who were left behind and their generations used to fight against mughals themselves as those were assimilated in the local culture.

When you try to rule in such a state where multiple diversity exists, it is hard to make an impact as a whole and mughals were no different.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Mughals were fine. It was the defeat of Dara Shikoh by Aurangzeb which proved to be the pivotal moment for india and laid the foundation for muslim fundamentalism in india. If only Dara had won.

Then India wouldn’t be what it is now. Traces of Muslim rule is visible in many many aspects of modern Indian life and society.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Do what they are doing now. Benefit from the architecture and make money out of it but don’t promote it on tourism sites, brochures etc.

If people want to go to India to see the Taj Mahal they should be welcome, but India shouldn’t be inviting people to India because they have the Taj Mahal.

Looking at history of civilisations in India, majority of people (atleast in North India) arrived from ‘abroad’ much later than other civilisations were already established in Mespotamia, Persia and Greece. So where do you draw line in the sand?

 

[Zaz]

Answer to the OP since BJP came into power of course

This racist anti muslim party is now making it a objective to change history too in anyway shape and form they can

Now if your not hindu you are foreign as they are making the mughals out to be never mind they were born and bred in india

 

[Technics 1210]

Because India fell in love with the British.

There's a word for this.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Except that most Pakistanis didn’t convert to Islam ’by the sword’. .

Proof ?

 

[Slog]

Proof ?

Lol what’s your proof

 

[CricketCartoons]

Then India wouldn’t be what it is now. Traces of Muslim rule is visible in many many aspects of modern Indian life and society.

Was Dara not Muslim enough for you?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

With the rise of Hindutva. Basically in Hindutva religion and language must originate in the country or else its considered foreign. For Hindu nationalist, Ancient India includes not just Pakistan and Bangladesh, but Afghanistan as well. 99% of first generation Muslim Kings, whether they were Mughals, Sultans, Nawabs, were born in this geographic region, by the second generation it was 100% being born in the boundaries of "Akhand Bharat".

However their religion originated in Arabia and their language originated in Iran, therefore they are considered foreign "invaders". So there is no question of honoring them, or feeling pride at their accomplishments.

Here is your answer. At the time of the Mughal empire there was no such thing as Hindu Nationalism, which as a term itself doesn't even make sense. Hinduism was all inclusive and was more of a philosophy than a political movement for thousands of years. Only in the last century or so has it become something with shrinking borders and rising anger.

 

[AdamM97]

Proof ?

Read books on this topic. One good recommendation is ”The Idea of Pakistan” by the American Political Scientist Stephen Phillip Cohen. You can find the pdf online, just looked it up.

Another tip: Stop believing everything you read on Twitter and Youtube. Most of it is fake news. I’ve seen so much historical revisionism from Hindu Nationalism on Twitter and Youtube.

 

[troodon]

Mughals were invaders and ruled the natives forcefully.

Hence there will not be much love from modern day Indians. In this day of information age, most people see what Mughals have done to India. They were self serving megalomaniacs and enjoyed the best time in India. From food, comforts to women. They had everything.

There is nothing to be proud of them specifically. They neither promoted education/science/universities nor tried to assimilate into local culture.

Mughals will be remembered for their cuisine though. Of course the monuments they have built in memory of they loved ones. Other than that, they contributed nothing.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Mughals were invaders and ruled the natives forcefully.

Hence there will not be much love from modern day Indians. In this day of information age, most people see what Mughals have done to India. They were self serving megalomaniacs and enjoyed the best time in India. From food, comforts to women. They had everything.

There is nothing to be proud of them specifically. They neither promoted education/science/universities nor tried to assimilate into local culture.

Mughals will be remembered for their cuisine though. Of course the monuments they have built in memory of they loved ones. Other than that, they contributed nothing.

What did Hindu Rajas contribute to India at the same time? Propagation of caste discrimination and widow burning?

 

[Zaz]

Mughals were invaders and ruled the natives forcefully.

Hence there will not be much love from modern day Indians. In this day of information age, most people see what Mughals have done to India. They were self serving megalomaniacs and enjoyed the best time in India. From food, comforts to women. They had everything.

There is nothing to be proud of them specifically. They neither promoted education/science/universities nor tried to assimilate into local culture.

Mughals will be remembered for their cuisine though. Of course the monuments they have built in memory of they loved ones. Other than that, they contributed nothing.

An absolute rubbish post full of lies and of racist ramblings

The mughals contributed greatly in every sphere of life

If they were simply looters who sucked india dry then the british wouldnt have hung around for 150 years making billions and calling india the jewel in their crown

 

[ahmedzee]

Maybe we should ask India for Taj Mahal. We should try to put it somewhere in Lahore if india doesn't want it.

Besides, OP mentions why is there the hate. Well, he say the moghul haters in this thread who are openly saying Moghuls were invaders and some kind of barbaric kings. If they were barbaric, i assure you there won't be a single hindu who would remain.

Funny world we live in where majority indians hate the moghuls who brought structure to the sub-continent, but would love the Nazi idealogy.

 

[ahmedzee]

An absolute rubbish post full of lies and of racist ramblings

The mughals contributed greatly in every sphere of life

If they were simply looters who sucked india dry then the british wouldnt have hung around for 150 years making billions and calling india the jewel in their crown

Post of this thread. Should open up some eyes here of all the Moghul haters.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Mughals were invaders and ruled the natives forcefully.

Hence there will not be much love from modern day Indians. In this day of information age, most people see what Mughals have done to India. They were self serving megalomaniacs and enjoyed the best time in India. From food, comforts to women. They had everything.

There is nothing to be proud of them specifically. They neither promoted education/science/universities nor tried to assimilate into local culture.

Mughals will be remembered for their cuisine though. Of course the monuments they have built in memory of they loved ones. Other than that, they contributed nothing.

Like i said earlier, everyone was an ‘invader’ in India at some point of time in history. This is called evolution.

Unlike Brits, Mughals (and their armies) made India their home, settled their, married with the locals, built a system of governance (albeit unfair in parts to hindus but so is every other ruling system). Had a lasting impact on Indian Poetry, Architecture, Language, tradition, Cuisine. Whether modern days Hindus accept it or not, they themselves are living examples of the culture that evolved in India during Muslim rule.

Also genetically and racially Mughals and their armies of Afghan, Turk and central asian soldiers were already linked to the earlier population of northern india. At the end of the day Ancestral North indian phenotype also has its origins in west Central asia. Indus Valley civilisations was part of the larger empires based in Modern day Persia.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Later mughal emperor were much more Indian, than the ones who First arrived. Many like Shah jahan, Aurangzeb etc had hindu mothers and looked like Indians (than Turko Mongol).

Google the pic of last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons. They just look like any other person from Delhi/Punjab area. You get my drift....

 

[Napa]

Looking at history of civilisations in India, majority of people (atleast in North India) arrived from ‘abroad’ much later than other civilisations were already established in Mespotamia, Persia and Greece. So where do you draw line in the sand?

Not really. As you seem to have some knowledge of phenotype, you should understand that Y-chromosome haplogroup F originated in India and from there spread to most of the world excluding Africa.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Not really. As you seem to have some knowledge of phenotype, you should understand that Y-chromosome haplogroup F originated in India and from there spread to most of the world excluding Africa.

Lol, obviously everything originated in India.
Go and watch ‘Goodness gracious me’ on youtube, you will hear what you like to hear.

 

[Napa]

Lol, obviously everything originated in India.
Go and watch ‘Goodness gracious me’ on youtube, you will hear what you like to hear.

Instead of silly "lolling" why don't you read about Y-chromosome haplogroup F? Lots of respectable scientific sources are available.

Don't let British TV determine your worldview.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Instead of silly "lolling" why don't you read about Y-chromosome haplogroup F? Lots of respectable scientific sources are available.

Don't let British TV determine your worldview.

Dont let ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’ slogan hinder your world view. Here a basic but good read for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

 

[Napa]

Dont let ‘Mera Bharat Mahan’ slogan hinder your world view. Here a basic but good read for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

The basic reading is very basic. But did you read it yourself? It has the following map of dispersion of Y-chromosome haplogroup F. What is the place of origin of this population? Your suggested reading actually proves my point.

 

[Knight_Rider]

The basic reading is very basic. But did you read it yourself? It has the following map of dispersion of Y-chromosome haplogroup F. What is the place of origin of this population? Your suggested reading actually proves my point.

View attachment 98800

Did you read the article? Coz it clearly mentions about origins of North indians. Also Hablogroup F is only one component of the equation. Even if it had origins on western fringes of current India. It doesn’t necessarily mean that india is cradle of civilisation.

IVC was part of greater Persia and on the western fringes of Southasia. So the current geographical boundaries dont mean anything in that context. India was backwaters and unnoticed in the times when there were great civilizations in Masopotamia, Greece, Persia etc

The ONLY noticable era for India (in world History) starts after the arrivals of Muslim Invaders. It was a Jhoppar Patti before that

 

[Swashbuckler]

The ONLY noticable era for India (in world History) starts after the arrivals of Muslim Invaders. It was a Jhoppar Patti before that

Buddha was born in jhoppar patti? Buddhism spread from where, under whose reign? Mahavira? Gupta empire which till date has accounted for max intellectual accomplishments in this region? All insignificant?

 

[Swashbuckler]

The ignorance when it comes to SC history among PPers is shocking. It seems pre-Mughal (or Bin Qasim?) history isn't taught in schools in Pakistan.

Coming to OP, many parts of India like Odisha, TN, Kerala, North East which had no contact with Mughals don't care. Mainly the Hindi belt area has the legacy of Mughals, this is just a phase. Under BJP history becomes comedy, no nuance, either with us or against us. In the battle of Haldighati Akbar's army was led by a Hindu Rajput while Rana Pratap's forces were led by an Afghan Pathan, but trust BJP to give it a communal spin.

Mughals like all medieval rulers had their positives and negatives. If you ask me almost all rulers were greedy, selfish egomaniacs, doesn't matter what religion or place of origin. Some better than others, in Indian textbooks Akbar is portrayed as a good emperor, Aurangzeb not so. Most of the negatives aren't covered in our history books, whether it be the oppressive caste system under Guptas or intolerance under the Mughals.

 

[Napa]

Did you read the article? Coz it clearly mentions about origins of North indians. <b>Also Hablogroup F is only one component of the equation.</b> Even if it had origins on western fringes of current India. It doesn’t necessarily mean that india is cradle of civilisation.

You obviously are unable to interpret scientific data. Haplogroup F is 90% of the world's non-African Y-chromosome, it is not "a component", it is the dominant.

IVC was part of greater Persia and on the western fringes of Southasia. So the current geographical boundaries dont mean anything in that context. India was backwaters and unnoticed in the times when there were great civilizations in Masopotamia, Greece, Persia etc

The ONLY noticable era for India (in world History) starts after the arrivals of Muslim Invaders. It was a Jhoppar Patti before that

Maybe in the "world history" that you learned in your school textbooks, but not in the real world.

Read up about the Mauryas, the Guptas, Gautama the Buddha, Ashoka, Aryabhatta, Panini, Bhaskara etc. Knowledge is more important than buildings. The "Muslim Invaders" contributed almost nothing to the development of the sciences and mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_mathematicians

This thread is getting a bit old for me, no more replies till I see something intelligent.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Read up about the Mauryas, the Guptas, Gautama the Buddha, Ashoka, Aryabhatta, Panini, Bhaskara etc. Knowledge is more important than buildings.

I think I covered the Gupta Empire in some detail in some other thread, their intellectual achievements and legacy. Also the age of enlightenment , I mean come on Buddha didn't appear from thin air, nor did the Tamil prince Bodhi Dharma who introduced Zen Buddhism and founded martial arts at Shaolin Temple. Not in the mood of repeating points or educating others. If people choose to be like frogs in the well their choice. Don't know whether this is deliberate or indeed if the history curriculum taught in some parts of the world is deficient.

I think all empires contributed in their own way towards making India what it is today, no need to downplay one to make the other good. Mughals had good and bad apples, some great achievements and terrible lows. Personally not a big fan of medieval kings, I much prefer people of some intellectual value. Also this is a never ending topic, if I talk about achievements of some era another person can easily counter that by talking about some bad events. Sure some Mughals built architectural wonders, but some of them also took part in massacres and killings of Sikh Gurus. Where does this end? No use romanticizing or fantasizing about the past, better take inspiration from the good stuff and try not to repeat past wrongs.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Buddha was born in jhoppar patti? Buddhism spread from where, under whose reign? Mahavira? Gupta empire which till date has accounted for max intellectual accomplishments in this region? All insignificant?

Is that all you could come up with from your book of Glorious History of Bharat?

Yes still a jhoppar patti.

 

[Knight_Rider]

I think I covered the Gupta Empire in some detail in some other thread, their intellectual achievements and legacy. Also the age of enlightenment , I mean come on Buddha didn't appear from thin air, nor did the Tamil prince Bodhi Dharma who introduced Zen Buddhism and founded martial arts at Shaolin Temple. Not in the mood of repeating points or educating others. If people choose to be like frogs in the well their choice. Don't know whether this is deliberate or indeed if the history curriculum taught in some parts of the world is deficient.

I think all empires contributed in their own way towards making India what it is today, no need to downplay one to make the other good. Mughals had good and bad apples, some great achievements and terrible lows. Personally not a big fan of medieval kings, I much prefer people of some intellectual value. Also this is a never ending topic, if I talk about achievements of some era another person can easily counter that by talking about some bad events. Sure some Mughals built architectural wonders, but some of them also took part in massacres and killings of Sikh Gurus. Where does this end? No use romanticizing or fantasizing about the past, better take inspiration from the good stuff and try not to repeat past wrongs.

None of these Mickey mouse empires had any influence on greater world civilisations, How majority of world evolved and so on. They were not even dominant of what is current India.

For example, I was in the British museum last month and they have floors dedicated to world civilizations from Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Levant, Greece, Persia, China and so on. There was NOTHING on india because “there was nothing significant in India”. Your whining wouldn’t change how world sees Ancient India.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Current one of pride are Marathas , the shupwr Hindu saviors lol , probably gonna snap out of it after 20 years.

Yup, unnecessarily glorified, their evil acts have been glossed over. Their system of caste oppression and atrocities in places like Bengal, Gujarat aren't talked about enough. Marathas even ransacked the Sringeri temple and it was restored by Tipu Sultan, try explaining that to the saffron brigade. We lack objectivity when it comes to talking about history, either glorify the past or see only evil.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Is that all you could come up with from your book of Glorious History of Bharat?

Yes still a jhoppar patti.

None of these Mickey mouse empires had any influence on greater world civilisations, How majority of world evolved and so on. They were not even dominant of what is current India.

For example, I was in the British museum last month and they have floors dedicated to world civilizations from Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Levant, Greece, Persia, China and so on. There was NOTHING on india because “there was nothing significant in India”. Your whining wouldn’t change how world sees Ancient India.

Futile discussing with you. If you are happy flaunting your ignorance good luck.

 

[Napa]

I think I covered the Gupta Empire in some detail in some other thread, their intellectual achievements and legacy. Also the age of enlightenment , I mean come on Buddha didn't appear from thin air, nor did the Tamil prince Bodhi Dharma who introduced Zen Buddhism and founded martial arts at Shaolin Temple. Not in the mood of repeating points or educating others. If people choose to be like frogs in the well their choice. Don't know whether this is deliberate or indeed if the history curriculum taught in some parts of the world is deficient.

I think all empires contributed in their own way towards making India what it is today, no need to downplay one to make the other good. Mughals had good and bad apples, some great achievements and terrible lows. Personally not a big fan of medieval kings, I much prefer people of some intellectual value. Also this is a never ending topic, if I talk about achievements of some era another person can easily counter that by talking about some bad events. Sure some Mughals built architectural wonders, but some of them also took part in massacres and killings of Sikh Gurus. Where does this end? No use romanticizing or fantasizing about the past, better take inspiration from the good stuff and try not to repeat past wrongs.

Good stuff, I agree with what you say. I did in earlier posts point to Akbar as a ruler who could get along with others, leading to his success.

Yes, I agree the Medieval kings were generally deficient. The slower pace of scientific advancement during the Medieval times was due to the kings being too busy cutting each others throats rather than patronizing knowledge.

"[H]istory curriculum taught in some parts of the world is deficient" is the answer. History taught there, as to a varying degree everywhere, is biased towards serving the interests of the power elite.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Mughals constructed some wonderful buildings but had they utilized their resources towards knowledge dissemination, education, scientific advancement India wouldn't have lagged so much behind Europe not just militarily but also growth of the mind, we wouldn't have been colonized so easily either. When Europeans had their renaissance and were busy constructing universities our kings were building mausoleums and gardens. Moreover buildings will come and go, ideas will survive much longer. For the Muslim world the Islamic Golden Age was the zenith, ended with the Siege of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan. Likewise for India it is the Gupta age, even more than enlightenment age (roughly 600-400 BC).

 

[CricketCartoons]

Likewise for India it is the Gupta age, even more than enlightenment age (roughly 600-400 BC).

Gupta age was not the golden age for india. even historians have stopped calling it that. Read about it if you are serious about upsc exams.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Futile discussing with you. If you are happy flaunting your ignorance good luck.

No, it’s actually you inflating your bubble.
If I remember correctly, all of these points have previously been discussed on this forum. So you can dig the thread out and read the replies on there.

At the end of the day, India didnt give anything to the world civilizations. Infact their own empires and systems were inferior that they always got trampled over by other Civilizations.

I am not just saying it to slate you. I take pride in fact that some of my own ancestors must have been Indians (Hindus native to the land) but that doesn’t make things rosy for me. I accept that fact that neither Hindu empires nor Muslim empires from the Sub Continent achieved much at the world stage.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Gupta age was not the golden age for india. even historians have stopped calling it that. Read about it if you are serious about upsc exams.

I acknowledged in a previous post about the caste discrimination prevalent under the Guptas, that it became a monster under them. But if you read my post again I am talking about intellectual legacy, birth of ideas.

 

[Swashbuckler]

No, it’s actually you inflating your bubble.
If I remember correctly, all of these points have previously been discussed on this forum. So you can dig the thread out and read the replies on there.

At the end of the day, India didnt give anything to the world civilizations. Infact their own empires and systems were inferior that they always got trampled over by other Civilizations.

I am not just saying it to slate you. I take pride in fact that some of my own ancestors must have been Indians (Hindus native to the land) but that doesn’t make things rosy for me. I accept that fact that neither Hindu empires nor Muslim empires from the Sub Continent achieved much at the world stage.

Ancient India gave Buddhism to the world, surely that isn't nothing? Also some kickass mathematicians, astronomers and philosophers. Do you not notice the Indic influence in South East Asia? Medieval India gave some remarkable architectural wonders, poets, cuisine, intangible cultural legacy etc. Take more pride in the feats of your ancestors. If you won't respect your roots no one else will.

 

[Napa]

Ancient India gave Buddhism to the world, surely that isn't nothing? Also some kickass mathematicians, astronomers and philosophers. Do you not notice the Indic influence in South East Asia? Medieval India gave some remarkable architectural wonders, poets, cuisine, intangible cultural legacy etc. Take more pride in the feats of your ancestors. If you won't respect your roots no one else will.

I haven't come across Subcontinental Muslims who take pride in the intellectual achievements of their Hindu ancestors. No doubt such Muslims exist, but there are probably not many of them.

If they took pride in the intellectual achievements of their Hindu ancestors, it would conflict with their conversion to Islam, which for them was a transition from ignorance to enlightenment. It would lead to an irreconcilable split in their view of their historical identity.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Well, islam only arrived 1400 years ago and history of human civilizations is much older than that.

The reason why we cant be proud of our pre-islamic history is that because there is nothing much there to be proud of. You are giving Budha, as an example but for majority of the world, thats just a religious figure like many others (people dont call Jesus an achievement of western civilization). Other than this, please list those Mathematicians and Scientists, Scholars and Philosophers etc who arose from India? What were their contributions?

The reason why Hinduism shrank from Afghanistan and southeast asia (indonesia etc), is because people refused it as a viable and credible religion. Almost 40% of combined Subcontinents population is Muslim, such a large number couldn’t have been forcefully converted. So accept the fact that people left Hinduism by choice and its Ok to do that.

 

[Bosanquet]

None of these Mickey mouse empires had any influence on greater world civilisations, How majority of world evolved and so on. They were not even dominant of what is current India.

For example, I was in the British museum last month and they have floors dedicated to world civilizations from Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Levant, Greece, Persia, China and so on. There was NOTHING on india because “there was nothing significant in India”. Your whining wouldn’t change how world sees Ancient India.

I have no wish to comment on your prejudices regarding pre-islamic India BUT I would like to know one thing.
Did you actually LOOK around you while visiting the Chinese gallery in British museum? Because if you did then you may have noticed that China occupied only half of that Gallery. The other half was occupied by 1000 artefacts from India (by that I mean the entire sub-continent). Indeed it is known as the China and India gallery. I saw a particularly fine Chola bronze Nataraj when I last visited in 2018.
Perhaps you didn't actually make it as far as this gallery. It is a VERY large museum and I have never managed to take in more than 2 galleries in a single visit. Even after 20+ visits in the last 2 decades I find new wonders every time.
I suggest you go again and actually see the stuff from India - even if it offends your pre-conceptions.

 

[Knight_Rider]

I have no wish to comment on your prejudices regarding pre-islamic India BUT I would like to know one thing.
Did you actually LOOK around you while visiting the Chinese gallery in British museum? Because if you did then you may have noticed that China occupied only half of that Gallery. The other half was occupied by 1000 artefacts from India (by that I mean the entire sub-continent). Indeed it is known as the China and India gallery. I saw a particularly fine Chola bronze Nataraj when I last visited in 2018.
Perhaps you didn't actually make it as far as this gallery. It is a VERY large museum and I have never managed to take in more than 2 galleries in a single visit. Even after 20+ visits in the last 2 decades I find new wonders every time.
I suggest you go again and actually see the stuff from India - even if it offends your pre-conceptions.

Fair enough and will check it out next time. Though still looking for those marvellous achievements from Pre-slamic India.

Come on list some (that really are worthy of a mention)!

 

[Swashbuckler]

[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] don't take BJP motormouths seriously when it comes to intellectual matters. Among the educated Indians familiar with Mughals if you ask them to describe the various Mughal emperors this will be how they will view them (in general, not exceptions):

Babur- invader, destroyer of Ayodhya Ram temple (strictly talking about how they are perceived)

Humayun- scholar, will be viewed sympathetically because of his constant troubles

Akbar- 'The Great' as taught in our textbooks, only one apart from Ashoka who gets the 'Great' title. Seen as a tolerant, chilled guy, famous for his nine gems (navratnas), symbol of communal harmony etc.

Jahangir- drunkard from Mughal-E-Azam movie, inept, hated by Sikhs because he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan

Shah Jahan- great builder, romantic hero, pitiable figure in his final years when he was imprisoned by his son

Aurangzeb- the only Mughal hated by most (Babur ruled for only 4 years), bigot, despot, cruel, intolerant, made enemies out of everyone and caused deaths of millions, destroyer of temples, execution of Guru Teg Bahadur and Sambhaji, reason for decline of Mughal empire, polar opposite of 'Akbar the Great'. His brother Dara Shikoh is viewed favorably, always a 'what if' question.

Lesser Mughals- hardly anyone cares about them except Bahadur Shah Zaffar of 1857 fame. He is viewed sympathetically. Sikhs hate Farukhsiyar.

People love the literature/poetry of that era, also the cuisine which even BJP ******* enjoy. When it comes to architecture, if Indians have changed their view drastically how come Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc draw so many visitors? Even our textbooks speak highly of the Mughal empire whilst neglecting many important dynasties from South India, the Delhi bias, doesn't matter Hindu or Muslim.

If the empire's views are judged more objectively I don't think that is hate. You do admit that Mughal empire also saw many unfortunate events, right? Now with information more freely available I think there is more scope to see both sides, even Hindu kings aren't spared with recent surge in Dalit centric politics. Happens worldwide, even in USA. But history shouldn't be rewritten as per whims of some BJP clowns. Mughals (apart from Babur) were as much Indian as their contemporary Hindu kings, also didn't drain India dry like the European colonizers.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Fair enough and will check it out next time. Though still looking for those marvellous achievements from Pre-slamic India.

Come on list some (that really are worthy of a mention)!

Do you know how many UNESCO World Heritage Sites are there from India? Ever checked them out? Anyway I will tag you in another thread where I made some posts.

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] don't take BJP motormouths seriously when it comes to intellectual matters. Among the educated Indians familiar with Mughals if you ask them to describe the various Mughal emperors this will be how they will view them (in general, not exceptions):

Babur- invader, destroyer of Ayodhya Ram temple (strictly talking about how they are perceived)

Humayun- scholar, will be viewed sympathetically because of his constant troubles

Akbar- 'The Great' as taught in our textbooks, only one apart from Ashoka who gets the 'Great' title. Seen as a tolerant, chilled guy, famous for his nine gems (navratnas), symbol of communal harmony etc.

Jahangir- drunkard from Mughal-E-Azam movie, inept, hated by Sikhs because he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan

Shah Jahan- great builder, romantic hero, pitiable figure in his final years when he was imprisoned by his son

Aurangzeb- the only Mughal hated by most (Babur ruled for only 4 years), bigot, despot, cruel, intolerant, made enemies out of everyone and caused deaths of millions, destroyer of temples, execution of Guru Teg Bahadur and Sambhaji, reason for decline of Mughal empire, polar opposite of 'Akbar the Great'. His brother Dara Shikoh is viewed favorably, always a 'what if' question.

Lesser Mughals- hardly anyone cares about them except Bahadur Shah Zaffar of 1857 fame. He is viewed sympathetically. Sikhs hate Farukhsiyar.

People love the literature/poetry of that era, also the cuisine which even BJP ******* enjoy. When it comes to architecture, if Indians have changed their view drastically how come Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc draw so many visitors? Even our textbooks speak highly of the Mughal empire whilst neglecting many important dynasties from South India, the Delhi bias, doesn't matter Hindu or Muslim.

If the empire's views are judged more objectively I don't think that is hate. You do admit that Mughal empire also saw many unfortunate events, right? Now with information more freely available I think there is more scope to see both sides, even Hindu kings aren't spared with recent surge in Dalit centric politics. Happens worldwide, even in USA. But history shouldn't be rewritten as per whims of some BJP clowns. Mughals (apart from Babur) were as much Indian as their contemporary Hindu kings, also didn't drain India dry like the European colonizers.

Good detailed post.

However one thing I would like to point out. Many atrocities (even on Hindus) happened even under these so called hindu empires including the flavor of the decade the Marathas (who in the grand scheme of things were are not even comparable to the Mughals, Mauryas etc considering how short their peak was). However this seems to be ignored

 

[Bosanquet]

Fair enough and will check it out next time. Though still looking for those marvellous achievements from Pre-slamic India.

Come on list some (that really are worthy of a mention)!

I am only writing about my 2nd favourite museum here. You could do worse than going round that gallery if you really wanted to learn something about the artistic history & heritage of the sub-continent. But of course the vast majority of such artefacts are not in the British museum, they remain in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. We only managed to loot a small portion of it: damn!

 

[Swashbuckler]

Good detailed post.

However one thing I would like to point out. Many atrocities (even on Hindus) happened even under these so called hindu empires including the flavor of the decade the Marathas (who in the grand scheme of things were are not even comparable to the Mughals, Mauryas etc considering how short their peak was). However this seems to be ignored

Marathas had their dark moments but in terms of scale they weren't comparable to the worst atrocities under Aurangzeb, Timur and a few other Delhi Sultans. Even Akbar had his fair share of atrocities, inevitable in medieval era come to think of it, but that side of Akbar isn't well known. Something similar with the Marathas I guess, there is a threshold and someone like Aurangzeb breached it so much and so often and ****** off so many groups that his image was permanently tarnished.

Coming to Marathas a section of Bengalis hate them even today, and people are more willing to explore the uncomfortable bits of history irrespective of the situation of Indian politics now. Check out the 2018 Bhima Koregaon controversy where Hindutva forces clashed with Dalits celebrating the anniversary of defeat of Marathas at the hands of the British, part of the Dalit awakening, Dalits (Mahars) fought against the high caste Peshwas in that battle. Things are slowly changing and hopefully history is analyzed more objectively, it isn't black and white.

 

[troodon]

What did Hindu Rajas contribute to India at the same time? Propagation of caste discrimination and widow burning?

They are Indians and we will deal with their craaaap. They are no better either. That does not mean that we allow invaders from central asia or Turkey to come and occupy our lands and make our people their subjects.

At least some Indian rulers built some universities and promoted the Indian culture. Can't same the same for the Mughals.

Regarding caste, it is a terrible thing. Thanks to British for banning a few things. Modern day India abolished Caste discrimination at least on paper.

 

[KB]

Also there was no mass conversion of Hindus in the Mughal era. The heartland of their empire is overwhelmingly Hindu. The regions which became Muslim, Pakistan, Kashmir, and Bangladesh, were Buddhist majority, which were already Muslim before the Mughals came. Had they cared about Islam they could have easily converted the low castes, and dalits, in the rest of India.

Good to see someone challenging the simplistic ideas of how Islam was supposedly spread in South Asia.

Richard Eaton is preeminent among historians who have studied the matter of conversion to Islam in South Asia. He has studied the growth of Muslim communities in the Deccan and the Punjab, but is most well known for his study on the ‘rise of Islam’ in Bengal. It was, as he reminds us, a region that became home to the second largest Muslim ethnic group after the Arabs. Eaton argues there was no conscious effort on part of the Mughals to convert Bengalis to Islam in a region that stood at the fringes of Muslim political power.

In explaining conversion, Eaton highlights the following. Those that converted in eastern Bengal were forest peoples that had little exposure to Hinduism. As the course Bengal’s rivers moves eastwards the area witnessed a transition to settled agriculture, specifically wet rice cultivation. The Mughals gave land grants to many Muslim religious leaders who were tasked to clear forests and to make the land arable. A close relationship developed between a local Muslim leadership and forest peoples. The eastern Bengali landscape became dotted with mosques and shrines. Therefore the rise of Islam in Bengal owed much to the confluence of environmental and political factors, to the expanding agrarian frontier on one hand and the expanding Muslim political frontier on the other.

Eaton also reveals how complex conversion was. This was no instant turning to new light. Instead he sees it as a long-drawn out three stage process: "inclusion" (as Islamic superhuman agencies were accepted alongside local divinities), “identification” (as Islamic superhuman agencies were merged with Bengali agencies) and "displacement"(as Islamic superhuman agencies supplant local deities).

Islam therefore, in the region of Bengal, became the religion of the axe and plough. As a final thought which is not directly related to Eaton’s book: the memory of the tracts of jungles being cleared by their ancestors created a deep connection to land amongst Bengali peasants and shaped Muslim Bengali cultural discourse.

 

[hamid.s]

Good to see someone challenging the simplistic ideas of how Islam was supposedly spread in South Asia.

Richard Eaton is preeminent among historians who have studied the matter of conversion to Islam in South Asia. He has studied the growth of Muslim communities in the Deccan and the Punjab, but is most well known for his study on the ‘rise of Islam’ in Bengal. It was, as he reminds us, a region that became home to the second largest Muslim ethnic group after the Arabs. Eaton argues there was no conscious effort on part of the Mughals to convert Bengalis to Islam in a region that stood at the fringes of Muslim political power.

In explaining conversion, Eaton highlights the following. Those that converted in eastern Bengal were forest peoples that had little exposure to Hinduism. As the course Bengal’s rivers moves eastwards the area witnessed a transition to settled agriculture, specifically wet rice cultivation. The Mughals gave land grants to many Muslim religious leaders who were tasked to clear forests and to make the land arable. A close relationship developed between a local Muslim leadership and forest peoples. The eastern Bengali landscape became dotted with mosques and shrines. Therefore the rise of Islam in Bengal owed much to the confluence of environmental and political factors, to the expanding agrarian frontier on one hand and the expanding Muslim political frontier on the other.

Eaton also reveals how complex conversion was. This was no instant turning to new light. Instead he sees it as a long-drawn out three stage process: "inclusion" (as Islamic superhuman agencies were accepted alongside local divinities), “identification” (as Islamic superhuman agencies were merged with Bengali agencies) and "displacement"(as Islamic superhuman agencies supplant local deities).

Islam therefore, in the region of Bengal, became the religion of the axe and plough. As a final thought which is not directly related to Eaton’s book: the memory of the tracts of jungles being cleared by their ancestors created a deep connection to land amongst Bengali peasants and shaped Muslim Bengali cultural discourse.

Didn't know my ancestors were "forest peoples"!!

Agree with the statement that there was no forced conversion en masse. Maybe in few instances but by far it was peaceful and amicable.

Bengal has always been very agrarian due to geography and fertile lands. It mostly became muslim due to Arab traders coming through Chittagong in the 11th century and then later by the Turkish general Bakhtiyar Khalji (1200s) and then by Yemeni saint Shah Jalal in the Sylhet area (1300s).

Bengal has been Muslim for at least couple of centuries before the Mughals arrived.

Prior to the Mughals, it was the Bengal Sultanate between 14th to 16th century. The Bengal Sultanate was a Sunni Muslim monarchy with Indo-Turkish, Arab, Habshi and Bengali Muslim elites.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Read books on this topic. One good recommendation is ”The Idea of Pakistan” by the American Political Scientist Stephen Phillip Cohen. You can find the pdf online, just looked it up.

Another tip: Stop believing everything you read on Twitter and Youtube. Most of it is fake news. I’ve seen so much historical revisionism from Hindu Nationalism on Twitter and Youtube.

Tip: requesting to read a book when a question is asked to validate the statement is poor. Onus on you buddy, show proof how majority of the current day Pakistanis choose Islam due to their own will and not due to external pressure...Another tip: Assumptions of could've, would've, should've will not be considered proof...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They are Indians and we will deal with their craaaap. They are no better either. That does not mean that we allow invaders from central asia or Turkey to come and occupy our lands and make our people their subjects.

At least some Indian rulers built some universities and promoted the Indian culture. Can't same the same for the Mughals.

Regarding caste, it is a terrible thing. Thanks to British for banning a few things. Modern day India abolished Caste discrimination at least on paper.

So can I ask you, where are you living, and which culture is it you wish to preserve? Is it India? For some reason I had some idea you claimed to be in Canada.