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

[miandadrules]

It’s unlikely to have affinity for a coloniser unless the population is subjected to systematic, persistent long term abuse.

Then you develop a form of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[big_gamer007]

History is written by the rulers. Current rulers will spread history the way they want, tomorrow some new rulers will change history and portray it the way they want.

That is how the world works, nothing new in this regard.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">‘Aurangzeb was not secular,’ says Maharashtra CM as row with Congress over Aurangabad name continues<a href="https://t.co/bHF0xH9jYF">https://t.co/bHF0xH9jYF</a></p>— scroll.in (@scroll_in) <a href="https://twitter.com/scroll_in/status/1347837504364240901?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[SpiritOf1903]

History is written by the rulers. Current rulers will spread history the way they want, tomorrow some new rulers will change history and portray it the way they want.

That is how the world works, nothing new in this regard.

And so it was. What's galling, is Pakistan wouldn't dare rename places where there were documented tyrants. No, they're having statues erected.

 

[MenInG]

Kolkata (AFP) – A destitute Indian woman who claims she is heir to the dynasty that built the Taj Mahal has demanded ownership of an imposing palace once home to the Mughal emperors.

Sultana Begum lives in a cramped two-room hut nestled within a slum on the outskirts of Kolkata, surviving on a meagre pension.

Among her modest possessions are records of her marriage to Mirza Mohammad Bedar Bakht, purported to be the great-grandson of India's last Mughal ruler.

His death in 1980 left her struggling to survive, and she has spent the past decade petitioning authorities to recognise her royal status and compensate her accordingly.

"Can you imagine that the descendant of the emperors who built Taj Mahal now lives in desperate poverty?" the 68-year-old asked AFP.

Begum has lodged a court case seeking recognition that she is rightful owner of the imposing 17th-century Red Fort, a sprawling and pockmarked castle in New Delhi that was once the seat of Mughal power.

"I hope the government will definitely give me justice," she said. "When something belongs to someone, it should be returned."

Her case, supported by sympathetic campaigners, rests on her claim that her late husband's lineage can be traced to Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last emperor to reign.

By the time of Zafar's coronation in 1837, the Mughal empire had shrunk to the capital's boundaries, after the conquest of India by the commercial venture of British merchants known as the East India Company.

A massive rebellion two decades later -- now hailed as India's first war of independence -- saw mutinous soldiers declare the now frail 82-year-old as the leader of their insurrection.

The emperor, who preferred penning poetry to waging war, knew the chaotic uprising was doomed and was a reluctant leader.

British forces surrounded Delhi within a month and ruthlessly crushed the revolt, executing all 10 of Zafar's surviving sons despite the royal family's surrender.

Zafar himself was exiled to neighbouring Myanmar, travelling under guard in a bullock cart, and died penniless in captivity five years later.

Independence symbol

Many of the Red Fort's buildings were demolished in the years after the uprising and the complex fell into disrepair before colonial authorities ordered its renovation at the turn of the 20th century.

It has since become a potent symbol of freedom from British rule.

India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru hoisted the national flag from the fort's main gate to mark the first day of independence in August 1947, a solemn ritual now repeated annually by his successors.

Begum's court case hinges on the argument that India's government are the illegal occupants of the property, which she says should have been passed down to her.

The Delhi High Court rejected her petition last week as a "gross waste of time" -- but did not rule on whether her claim to imperial ancestry was legitimate.

Instead the court said her legal team had failed to justify why a similar case had not been brought by Zafar's descendants in the 150 years since his exile.

Her lawyer Vivek More said the case would continue.

"She has decided to file a plea before a higher bench of the court challenging the order," he told AFP by phone.

'Justice will happen'
Begum has endured a precarious life, even before she was widowed and forced to move into the slum she now calls home.

Her husband -- who she married in 1965 when she was just 14 -- was 32 years her senior and earned some money as a soothsayer, but was unable to provide for their family.

"Poverty, fear and lack of resources pushed him to the brink," she added.

Begum lives with one of her grandchildren in a small shack, sharing a kitchen with neighbours and washing at a communal tap down the street.

For some years she ran a small tea shop near her home but it was demolished to allow the widening of a road, and she now survives on a pension of 6,000 rupees ($80) per month.

But she has not given up hope that authorities will recognise her as the rightful beneficiary of India's imperial legacy, and of the Red Fort.

"I hope that today, tomorrow or in 10 years, I will get what I'm entitled to," she said.

"God willing, I will get it back... I'm certain justice will happen."

AFP

 

[Itachi]

Coming to the subject, I don't think Indians ever accepted mughal as "us". Though they ruled, the assimilation wasn't there.

There are also many instances where the foreign party gets assimilated to the extent that people think of them as their "own". For example, in assam, the ahoms came in 1228 but they blend with the existing society so much that people accepted the ahoms same as others.

Mughals couldn't build that trust and hence there was never a "love" from mughal empire. So falling out of love is meaningless.

 

[Napa]

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.

<b>The Mughals were the last Indian empire that ruled most of the country. </b>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

I look back at this post from a couple of years ago and realize how biased my own school education had been.

The Mughals were not the "last Indian empire that ruled most of the country", the Marathas were. I had to read history by myself decades after finishing school to get a more accurate understanding of history.

The following map shows the Maratha Confederacy in 1760. The Marathas were barely mentioned in my school textbooks written by Congress appointees.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I look back at this post from a couple of years ago and realize how biased my own school education had been.

The Mughals were not the "last Indian empire that ruled most of the country", the Marathas were. I had to read history by myself decades after finishing school to get a more accurate understanding of history.

The following map shows the Maratha Confederacy in 1760. The Marathas were barely mentioned in my school textbooks written by Congress appointees.

View attachment 113988

Tbf the Marathas were a largely insignificant empire in the greater context who found their peak in the short period where Mughals had declined but the British hadn’t come in with full force. They hardly had enough time outside Maharashtra and surrounding areas to be able to stamp their authority in any kind. You can go to north India and Pakistan today and you will barely find a handful, if any, evidences of the event that the Marathas had control over this region. It was simply because in many of these regions their so called controlled lasted barely a couple of months so they didn’t even get to appoint their own people let alone leave any lasting legacciesz

So that map tou show can hardly be called accurate when their so called ‘rule’ in some of these areas mentioned on the map barely lasted a couple of months. Surely you need to have control over a region for Atleast a year to be truly ‘ruling’ it.

So actually your initial assertion was correct.

 

[Napa]

It was simply because in many of these regions their so called controlled lasted barely a couple of months so they didn’t even get to appoint their own people let alone leave any lasting legacciesz

So that map tou show can hardly be called accurate when their so called ‘rule’ in some of these areas mentioned on the map barely lasted a couple of months.

You need cites if you are going to make claims like "barely lasted a couple of months".

In 1719, an army of Marathas marched to Delhi after defeating Sayyid Hussain Ali, the Mughal governor of Deccan, and deposed the Mughal emperor. The Mughal Emperors became puppets in the hands of their Maratha overlords from this point on.

... ended in 1818 with the defeat of Peshwa Bajirao II at the hands of the British East India Company.

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

That's a period of 100 years, not a "few months".

So actually your initial assertion was correct.

No, it wasn't.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

You need cites if you are going to make claims like "barely lasted a couple of months".



That's a period of 100 years, not a "few months".



No, it wasn't.

Lol we are talking about all of subcontinent not Deccan only. Tell me how long their ‘rule’ was in Sindh or Peshawar or Bengal or what forms as UP.

I know it’s been a theme recently with indiana bigging Marathas to be some great empire which ruled for centuries but the simple fact is that outside of Maharashtra, Deccan and surrounding areas their legacy is either nonexistent or that of rape and plunder as it is in Bengal

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Lol we are talking about all of subcontinent not Deccan only. Tell me how long their ‘rule’ was in Sindh or Peshawar or Bengal or what forms as UP.

I know it’s been a theme recently with indiana bigging Marathas to be some great empire which ruled for centuries but the simple fact is that outside of Maharashtra, Deccan and surrounding areas their legacy is either nonexistent or that of rape and plunder as it is in Bengal

Or even Punjab for that matter

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

The simple fact is that the Marathas just didn’t have the manpower and logistical reach to really rule areas like Punjab, Sindh, Peshawar, Bengal for a significant period. When they were doing their adventures in in the north west they actually started losing their influence back in their home base so it made sense to focus there.

Coming in and winning battles in a vacuum isn’t the tough part which is what Marathas were able to do in the northwest. But for ruling it that doesn’t work and Marathas found that.

 

[Napa]

we are talking about all of subcontinent not Deccan only. Tell me how long their ‘rule’ was in Sindh or Peshawar or Bengal or what forms as UP.

As far as I know, Delhi was not part of Deccan and arguably the most important city in India that the Marathas mostly controlled from 1719 to their loss to the British in 1803, a period of 85 years.

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

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delhi_(1803)

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

As far as I know, Delhi was not part of Deccan and arguably the most important city in India that the Marathas mostly controlled from 1719 to their loss to the British in 1803, a period of 85 years.

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

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delhi_(1803)

Tell me how long did they ‘rule’ in Punjab, northwest ie Peshawar, Sindh and Bengal?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

So for Mr. [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION], Delhi constitutes ‘all of India’ now )

Also even then Marathas didn’t have direct control for most of that period and got their behinds whooped in Panipat III. That’s a separate topic tho. Really wanna know how long did Marathas hold Punjab, Peshawar, Sindh and Bengal

 

[James]

Keep it on the level please chaps.

 

[Technics 1210]

I think the real question is not why India fell out of love with Mughal Empire, but why Indians have fallen in love with the West (NRIs).

 

[MP2011]

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

A. On 26th May 2014.

 

[Itachi]

I think the real question is not why India fell out of love with Mughal Empire, but why Indians have fallen in love with the West (NRIs).

Human psychology always has a tendency to explore what is unknown out there. Some people has greater affinity hence they go with it.

 

[Dingolfy]

Coming to the subject, I don't think Indians ever accepted mughal as "us". Though they ruled, the assimilation wasn't there.

There are also many instances where the foreign party gets assimilated to the extent that people think of them as their "own". For example, in assam, the ahoms came in 1228 but they blend with the existing society so much that people accepted the ahoms same as others.

Mughals couldn't build that trust and hence there was never a "love" from mughal empire. So falling out of love is meaningless.

Lol. There was no ‘India’ in Mughal times but hundreds of small kingdoms who fought and killed each other. And the so-called Hindu kings didn’t even consider majority of Indians as Hindus.

 

[Itachi]

Lol. There was no ‘India’ in Mughal times but hundreds of small kingdoms who fought and killed each other. And the so-called Hindu kings didn’t even consider majority of Indians as Hindus.

In my post, "India" refers to the umbrella of those same small kingdoms which were defeated (which you've mentioned above; only we used different terms).

Secondly, an entity such as hindu or muslim come in to play when there is significant presence of any other similar entities. Otherwise, different non religious interests come in to play.

 

[Dingolfy]

In my post, "India" refers to the umbrella of those same small kingdoms which were defeated (which you've mentioned above; only we used different terms).

Secondly, an entity such as hindu or muslim come in to play when there is significant presence of any other similar entities. Otherwise, different non religious interests come in to play.

Dude, for the majority of ‘Indians’ at that time, rulers didn’t matter as all of the kings treated them like dogs whether its Hindu or Muslim.
Why do you thing Dalits in Maharashtra still celebrate British victory against so-called Hindu Marathas?
Only an ignorant right-winger who have no clue about history would dismiss Mughals as ‘others’. They ruled India over 200 plus years and contributed heavily towards architecture, food,music,cuture and many more. And of-course atrocities had been committed during their rule but even Marathas raided Bengal and Sringeri Mutt and looted Hindus.

 

[Itachi]

Dude, for the majority of ‘Indians’ at that time, rulers didn’t matter as all of the kings treated them like dogs whether its Hindu or Muslim.
Why do you thing Dalits in Maharashtra still celebrate British victory against so-called Hindu Marathas?
Only an ignorant right-winger who have no clue about history would dismiss Mughals as ‘others’. They ruled India over 200 plus years and contributed heavily towards architecture, food,music,cuture and many more. And of-course atrocities had been committed during their rule but even Marathas raided Bengal and Sringeri Mutt and looted Hindus.

Whether one accepts someone or not, it depends on that person or the community only. Time doesn't matter since I may know you for years yet I may not feel comfortable with you while I can feel at home with another person in a matter of days or months.

 

[Dingolfy]

Whether one accepts someone or not, it depends on that person or the community only. Time doesn't matter since I may know you for years yet I may not feel comfortable with you while I can feel at home with another person in a matter of days or months.

Yeah, sure. Thats why Dalits celebrate ‘invader’ victory every year because they felt so ‘comfortable’ and ‘welcomed’ during Marathas rule.

 

[street cricketer]

I don't think Indian Hindus were ever "in love" with the Mughal empire. Their view of the Mughal empire wouldn't be any different to the view of Punjabi muslims towards the Sikh empire. A few might be proud, many might be indifferent and many can hold negative sentiments.

Also Indians tend to hold different views for different Mughal kings, Akbar often tends to receive the most favourable view because he was the most tolerant to other faiths among all Mughal kings, while Aurangazeb the least support because he was known to be relatively intolerant to Hinduism. The likes of Babur, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, etc., neither receive overtly positive or negative views. But yeah, they were indeed a big part of Indian subcontinent history, at least in northern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and therefore cannot be sidelined as alien invaders which is a load of **.

 

[Itachi]

Yeah, sure. Thats why Dalits celebrate ‘invader’ victory every year because they felt so ‘comfortable’ and ‘welcomed’ during Marathas rule.

If they feel comfortable with celebrating, who are you or I to say otherwise?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dude, for the majority of ‘Indians’ at that time, rulers didn’t matter as all of the kings treated them like dogs whether its Hindu or Muslim.
Why do you thing Dalits in Maharashtra still celebrate British victory against so-called Hindu Marathas?
Only an ignorant right-winger who have no clue about history would dismiss Mughals as ‘others’. They ruled India over 200 plus years and contributed heavily towards architecture, food,music,cuture and many more. And of-course atrocities had been committed during their rule but even Marathas raided Bengal and Sringeri Mutt and looted Hindus.

A point excellently made which helps cut through the subterfuge of the hindutva camp who are keen to rewrite history.

 

[sweep_shot]

Mughal Empire Appreciation Thread

This thread is about the achievements and accomplishments of one of the greatest subcontinental empires in history.

I believe it is wrong to call them invaders and other derogatory names (like many Indians do here). Their contribution should be acknowledged; not jeered.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Cuisine, Art are 2 things that come to my mind. The fusion of Indian and Central Asian/Turkic cuisine and art is still appreciated in India.

 

[sweep_shot]

Cuisine, Art are 2 things that come to my mind. The fusion of Indian and Central Asian/Turkic cuisine and art is still appreciated in India.

Yes. I love Mughal cuisine. Big fan of Mughlai paratha.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The architecture. Shalimar gardens in Pakistan was built by them I believe.

 

[Stewie]

Why would you love people who plundered and conquered and then ruled over your country for years and years and years?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Why would you love people who plundered and conquered and then ruled over your country for years and years and years?

Mughals are invaders and there is no question about it. They did not adopt local customs and traditions and lived in their forts and palaces happily. However, they did contribute to the fusion in food and art.

 

[Stewie]

Mughals are invaders and there is no question about it. They did not adopt local customs and traditions and lived in their forts and palaces happily. However, they did contribute to the fusion in food and art.

But that still wouldnt mean you love them.

The Brits brought a lot of stuff to the subcontinent as well, but I think you and I would probably stand united in hating them for lording over us all those years.

 

[JaDed]

I believe it is wrong to call them invaders and other derogatory names (like many Indians do here). Their contribution should be acknowledged; not jeered.

Wrong to call them? While you can appreciate the architecture/art etc and if you want but no way should any kings and queen be put on a Pedestal whether its Ashoka or Akbar.

Your blind bias is remarkable.

What’s next we should not say Britain was a colonizer?

 

[MenInG]

The Union government has approved the renaming of Maharashtra's Aurangabad city as 'Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar' and that of Osmanabad city as 'Dharashiv'.
Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis shared the news on Twitter.

Aurangabad derives its name from Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, while Osmanabad was named for a 20th century ruler of the princely state of Hyderabad.

Chhatrapati Sambhaji, the eldest son of warrior king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, was the second ruler of the Maratha state founded by his father. Sambhaji Maharaj was executed on Aurangzeb's orders in 1689.

Dharashiv, the name of a cave complex near Osmanabad, dates back to the 8th century as per some scholars.

Hindu right-wing organisations had been demanding renaming of the two cities for long.

Mr Fadnavis tweeted two letters from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the deputy secretary of the state General Administration Department dated February 24.

The letters stated that the Centre had no objection to the change in the names of these two central Maharashtra cities.

Mr Fadnavis thanked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for the decision.

The state government headed by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde 'did what was promised ', he said.

To rename Aurangabad as Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv was the last cabinet decision of the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress government which collapsed last June following Shinde's rebellion against Uddhav Thackeray.

The new government headed by Eknath Shinde scrapped the cabinet decision and took a fresh decision.

Reacting to news, Aurangabad MP and All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Imtiaz Jaleel tweeted that they will show their strength for Aurangabad.

"Aurangabad is, was and will always be our city. Now wait for our show of strength for Aurangabad. A massive morcha for our beloved city! Get ready Aurangabadis to defeat these forces (BJP) playing politics in the name of our city. We condemn & we will fight," he tweeted.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ambadas Danve said the renaming was a victory of Shiv Sena founder late Bal Thackeray's stand.

Ambadas Danve, leader of opposition in the Maharashtra Legislative Council, tweeted that Thackeray had "renamed" the city of Aurangabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar way back on May 9, 1988.

"The name of the person (Aurangzeb) who broke the temple of Kashi Vishweshwar has been erased," he wrote.

NDTV

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Im not sure what modern school textbooks influenced by the current government teach but the way we learnt it as kids was

1. Babar -

Brought then modern artillery which helped him
defeat Lodhi at Panipat. Dude hated India and longed for his native land.

2. Humayun

Unfortunate to barely have the throne but Sher Shah Suri was an excellent administrator and build the Grand Trunk Road

3. Akbar

Said to be highly intelligent and that is corroborated by the accounts of visiting Jesuit priests of the time(though he could not read apparently) . A great military strategist but a heretic in the eyes of Muslim orthodoxy and he tried to found a syncretic religion. Was the most tolerant of all Mughal emperors since he allowed Jain and Hindu scholars to debate on even terms with Muslim theologians.
Allowed Christian missionaries to function in his empire

4. Jahangir

An incompetent drunk. A Jesuit account says that he would have converted to Catholicism but he didn't like the fact the he could keep only 1 wife )

5. Shah Jahan

Less tolerant of his non Muslim subjects than his predecessors. Given to grandeur and lavishness. Not a particularly competent administrator

6. Aurangazeb

An austere, religious man in his personal life. Extremely bigoted and fought expensive wars , emptying the treasury. Tried to have absolute control over the Deccan but managed only to destroy the Mughal empire .

 

[Champ_Pal]

Im not sure what modern school textbooks influenced by the current government teach but the way we learnt it as kids was

1. Babar -

Brought then modern artillery which helped him
defeat Lodhi at Panipat. Dude hated India and longed for his native land.

2. Humayun

Unfortunate to barely have the throne but Sher Shah Suri was an excellent administrator and build the Grand Trunk Road

3. Akbar

Said to be highly intelligent and that is corroborated by the accounts of visiting Jesuit priests of the time(though he could not read apparently) . A great military strategist but a heretic in the eyes of Muslim orthodoxy and he tried to found a syncretic religion. Was the most tolerant of all Mughal emperors since he allowed Jain and Hindu scholars to debate on even terms with Muslim theologians.
Allowed Christian missionaries to function in his empire

4. Jahangir

An incompetent drunk. A Jesuit account says that he would have converted to Catholicism but he didn't like the fact the he could keep only 1 wife )

5. Shah Jahan

Less tolerant of his non Muslim subjects than his predecessors. Given to grandeur and lavishness. Not a particularly competent administrator

6. Aurangazeb

An austere, religious man in his personal life. Extremely bigoted and fought expensive wars , emptying the treasury. Tried to have absolute control over the Deccan but managed only to destroy the Mughal empire .

Imagine if Jehangir did convert to Christianity. Some of the posters here would be hating Mughals more than Hindu right wingers.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Im not sure what modern school textbooks influenced by the current government teach but the way we learnt it as kids was

1. Babar -

Brought then modern artillery which helped him
defeat Lodhi at Panipat. Dude hated India and longed for his native land.

2. Humayun

Unfortunate to barely have the throne but Sher Shah Suri was an excellent administrator and build the Grand Trunk Road

3. Akbar

Said to be highly intelligent and that is corroborated by the accounts of visiting Jesuit priests of the time(though he could not read apparently) . A great military strategist but a heretic in the eyes of Muslim orthodoxy and he tried to found a syncretic religion. Was the most tolerant of all Mughal emperors since he allowed Jain and Hindu scholars to debate on even terms with Muslim theologians.
Allowed Christian missionaries to function in his empire

4. Jahangir

An incompetent drunk. A Jesuit account says that he would have converted to Catholicism but he didn't like the fact the he could keep only 1 wife )

5. Shah Jahan

Less tolerant of his non Muslim subjects than his predecessors. Given to grandeur and lavishness. Not a particularly competent administrator

6. Aurangazeb

An austere, religious man in his personal life. Extremely bigoted and fought expensive wars , emptying the treasury. Tried to have absolute control over the Deccan but managed only to destroy the Mughal empire .

Lol is this info from a school textbook or a twotter thread lmao. No legitimate textbook or school would he teaching about potentially converting to Christianity and then not doing that for reasons of polygamy. School hai ya tabloid newspaper?

 

[rickroll]

Im not sure what modern school textbooks influenced by the current government teach but the way we learnt it as kids was

1. Babar -

Brought then modern artillery which helped him
defeat Lodhi at Panipat. Dude hated India and longed for his native land.

2. Humayun

Unfortunate to barely have the throne but Sher Shah Suri was an excellent administrator and build the Grand Trunk Road

3. Akbar

Said to be highly intelligent and that is corroborated by the accounts of visiting Jesuit priests of the time(though he could not read apparently) . A great military strategist but a heretic in the eyes of Muslim orthodoxy and he tried to found a syncretic religion. Was the most tolerant of all Mughal emperors since he allowed Jain and Hindu scholars to debate on even terms with Muslim theologians.
Allowed Christian missionaries to function in his empire

4. Jahangir

An incompetent drunk. A Jesuit account says that he would have converted to Catholicism but he didn't like the fact the he could keep only 1 wife )

5. Shah Jahan

Less tolerant of his non Muslim subjects than his predecessors. Given to grandeur and lavishness. Not a particularly competent administrator

6. Aurangazeb

An austere, religious man in his personal life. Extremely bigoted and fought expensive wars , emptying the treasury. Tried to have absolute control over the Deccan but managed only to destroy the Mughal empire .

Are these really from SCHOOL textbooks? Many of these points sound too scandalous for school curricula.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Are these really from SCHOOL textbooks? Many of these points sound too scandalous for school curricula.

Some of this stuff I've read around 17 years ago. I must apologise for the 'Jahangir not converting because of monogamy' part. I've read this about some Muslim monarch but misremembered it as Jahangir.

What I do remember is that the young prince Salim was tutored by Jesuit priests and had even commissioned Christian art of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in his bedroom.

Hunting wild boar and drinking wine seems to have been favourite pastimes of his.

Anyway, I admit I was wrong about that 1 point. But why are other points scandalous?

Actually I'm not sure about the Jahangir not converting because of

 

[PakLFC]

The Indian's fell in love with the British instead White girls, boys and culture are prettier and superior to the Mughal one They wanted to learn Angrezi too

 

[SpiritOf1903]

The Indian's fell in love with the British instead White girls, boys and culture are prettier and superior to the Mughal one They wanted to learn Angrezi too

Hmm... cricket's the blessing

Are you Pakistani?. Pak has the most beauty....

 

[PakLFC]

Hmm... cricket's the blessing

Are you Pakistani?. Pak has the most beauty....

Blessing? I wish they had bought Football the world sport instead of this little followed ball bat game. Pak has most beauty in what? I am Pak through and through

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Blessing? I wish they had bought Football the world sport instead of this little followed ball bat game. Pak has most beauty in what? I am Pak through and through

Sure

 

[daytrader]

"New India Doesn't Need Madrassas": Himanta Biswa Sarma's Latest Shocker
"New India doesn't need madrassas. It needs universities, schools, and colleges," Himanta biswa Sarma said.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma today said that he plans to shut down all madrassas in the state. Addressing a public rally in Karnataka's Belagavi, Mr Sarma mentioned that his government has closed 600 madrassas already and close all the others soon.
"We don't need madrassas. We need engineers and doctors," Mr Sarma said.

When asked by a journalist to elaborate on his intention behind the move, Mr Sarma said that new India needs schools, colleges, and universities instead of madrassas.

"New India doesn't need madrassas. It needs universities, schools, and colleges," he said.

In the past, Mr Sarma has often indicated his desire to either reduce madrassas or scrutinise the education being given at these institutions. There are currently 3,000 registered and unregistered madrassas in Assam.

In 2020, he introduced a law that would facilitate converting all state-run madrassas into "regular schools". Mr Sarma had said the state police were working with Bengali Muslims, who have a positive attitude towards education, to create "a good environment" in the madrassas. Science and mathematics will also be taught as subjects in the madrassas, and the right to education respected and a database of teachers maintained, he had said.

NDTV