A Mughal goes to Pakistan to renew blood ties

[Iqbal_Brar]

And yet in the first Battle of Panipat a Mughal army of 12000 men defeated Delhi Sultunate army of 100000. Numbers isnt everything my friend, a good general can achieve wonders with minimal resources. As said weak rulers lead to the fall of the Mughals.

true.. but maybe im biased but personally i dont think they could match the experience, tactics and the generals which sikh armies had obtained by that time.. those guys were pretty much born in a state of war for 200-300 continous years..

 

[LaBong]

And yet in the first Battle of Panipat a Mughal army of 12000 men defeated Delhi Sultunate army of 100000. Numbers isnt everything my friend, a good general can achieve wonders with minimal resources. As said weak rulers lead to the fall of the Mughals.

You have take into consideration the technological edge Babur had over Afghans. The mighty matchlock played a decisive role in first battle of Panipath.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

Ruttie was a parsi, she converted to Islam to marry Jinnah. Her father was very incensed by this and Ruttie did keep in contant with her family.

Jinnah later in his life got very involved in politics and his wife become very lonely.


His family still keeps in contact with each other but its like children of siblings who find their own way and that is what happened. Becuase some of his nieces married people in India, they stayed back. Dina spends most of her time in US anyway.

It's odd and very offensive how Indians bring up the matter of Jinnahs private life to somehow demean him.

Thanks for the info.. didn't know.. and well yeh sorry if its offensive but I don't hold Jinnah in very high esteem.. I would share my views why I think like that but you will find them offensive so I won't.. and by the way.. I dislike the other elitists such as Nehru just as much.. and Gandhi is just another level..

Pakistani's do not question Gandhi and the troubled relation with his first born who struggled a lot becuase of it.

We also do not mention Gandhi's reaction when he found out that his son converted to Islam.

No problem if you do.. I don't hold Gandhi in high esteem either.. though more than Jinnah but he was still very selfish in a lot of ways.. and the way he is promoted as "father of nation" in India is totally ridiculous if you ask me.. but again I'll try not to share my views on him either.. considering ill probably tick off the chunk of Indians on this board..

 

[FullMetalJacket]

true.. but maybe im biased but personally i dont think they could match the experience, tactics and the generals which sikh armies had obtained by that time.. those guys were pretty much born in a state of war for 200-300 continous years..

Very true. From what I heard, Sikhs were present in the Marathan armies, and fought the Mugals and the British.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

Very true. From what I heard, Sikhs were present in the Marathan armies, and fought the Mugals and the British.

Thats ridiculous.. where did you hear that??? Maratha armies were much hated in North India because they put taxes on northern indian kingdoms... most Sikhs provided food and shelter to Afghans to help drive marathas out...

 

[T-Faz]

Its strange you accuse me of generalizing when your post below isnt too different. You chose a few examples from this thread (and may be even this forum?) to generalize all Indians as taking a personal interest in Jinnah's private life.

Many do and that is the truth becuase his relation with Dina is used as a way of making him look communal. Personal life should not be a point of interest becuase there are many details unknown to us becuase of Jinnah's secretive lifestyle.

Similarly Islamists use itt o make look like an Islamic warrior.

Again, I didn't mean to pick unnecessarily fights, just wanted to show that it happens both sides.

It does and it should not happen becuase their personal life is not the point of discussion and it should not be either.

Thanks for the info.. didn't know.. and well yeh sorry if its offensive but I don't hold Jinnah in very high esteem.. I would share my views why I think like that but you will find them offensive so I won't.. and by the way.. I dislike the other elitists such as Nehru just as much.. and Gandhi is just another level..

No problem if you do.. I don't hold Gandhi in high esteem either.. though more than Jinnah but he was still very selfish in a lot of ways.. and the way he is promoted as "father of nation" in India is totally ridiculous if you ask me.. but again I'll try not to share my views on him either.. considering ill probably tick off the chunk of Indians on this board..

If you haven't got anything good to say then don't say anything at all.

 

[Nalwa]

Very true. From what I heard, Sikhs were present in the Marathan armies, and fought the Mugals and the British.

You heard wrong. Lol.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

The way indians think about Mughals, I believe that descendents of Mughal emperors are better off in Pakistan than they are in india.


We Pakistanis hold lots of respect for Mughals.

We hold respect for you too. . . .

 

[Omar1984]

oo yea?? what zilla? what tehsil? what pind? so you're zameendars? cuz i think ure just all talk... tenu punjabi takk tah bolni aundi nii... vadda aya zameendar....

And why would i tell an indian punjabi in the internet the name of my pind in Punjab province of PAKISTAN, that my ancestors lived for generations. I lived most of my life outside my ancestral village but still the zameen of my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather in the village will eventually go to me. You have absolutely nothing in Pakistan's Punjab province. Even a Baloch (who has not even a drop of Punjabi blood) can buy property in Pakistan's Punjab province but you indian punjabis can not.

By the way, everyone who knows me knows I'm more fluent in Urdu than Punjabi. I even talk in Urdu with my elders in the village and they respond in Punjabi. Go to any cafe in Lahore and Rawalpindi and hear what language the youth speak with one another. Most of the time you'll hear Urdu.

And why would I lie about being Punjabi. We Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan. Most of Pakistan army is Punjabi, most of Pakistan government officials are Punjabi, most of ISI is Punjabi, its not like you indian punjabi who make just 3% of your country's population. We Pakistani Punjabis are Pakistani nationalists. Theres hardly any punjabi nationalists, most Pakistani Punjabis are Pakistani Nationalists.

yaa don't worry... the first flag of khalistan i will personally flutter over your pindh.. if you have one that is...

Pakistan's Punjab province doesnt even have 1% Sikh population. 98% of the population in Pakistan's Punjab province is Muslim. And the largest minority in Pakistan's Punjab province is Christian. Even if you combine Sikhs with Hindus, that wont even make 1% in Pakistan's Punjab Province.

We Muslim Punjabis have our own homeland, Pakistan, the name a Muslim Punjabi Chaudhry Rahmat Ali gave to us. Our heros are Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, and Chaudhry Rahmat Ali. For you indian punjabis your hero is ranjit singh.

We Pakistani Punjabis want you indian punjabis to make your Khalistan out of your side of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh more than anyone in Pakistan. It was Punjabi Zia Ul Haq who supported the Khalistan movement and it was the Sindhi Benazir Bhutto who helped india destroy the Khalistan movement. We want you indian punjabis to make your Khalistan so we have a friendly border like we have up north with China. So if you really want to please us Punjabi Pakistanis then you should work hard in making your Khalistan. Go on now and quit being obsessed about my people because we are more than happy with Pakistan and being Pakistani.

 

[Kambojaric]

You have take into consideration the technological edge Babur had over Afghans. The mighty matchlock played a decisive role in first battle of Panipath.

Indeed the technological advantage was on Baburs side but to say that that was it, no other reason is wrong. Lodi could have easily surrounded the tiny mughal army, however ironically the opposite happened. Babur was patient, he chose the location of the Battle, he made Ibrahim attack, he had his strategy planned out, whilst Ibrahim just attempted a brute force charge. The mughal cannons were protected by a chain of wagons, another innovative idea of Babur. At the end of the day the better general won.

 

[Kambojaric]

true.. but maybe im biased but personally i dont think they could match the experience, tactics and the generals which sikh armies had obtained by that time.. those guys were pretty much born in a state of war for 200-300 continous years..

Yes Sikhs were fierce warriors, we all know that, nevertheless a good general can defeat any army. My point is that the Mughals themselves were responsible for their own downfall. The desperate reforms that were needed werent happening. More and more power was given to nobles who were mostly corrupt and only served their own factions purposes (Syed Brothers). As mentioned the Turani/Irani nobles constantly fighting. A strong king could have brought a stop to this but that king never came.

 

[Peshwa]

Actually was the other way around. Mughals joined the Afghans against the Maratahs hence the 3rd Battle of Panipat.

Battle of Panipat (1761) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the rest of post agreed, Marathas and Sikhs were the powers Britain needed to defeat in order to secure domination of India. Nevetheless a competant Mughal King could still have turned things around after the Marathas were defeated at Panipat.

You're right, that was my mistake wrt. the Mughals.....

Though I will mention that in my reading I have come accross the fact that the mother of a North Indian Muslim King had requested the Marathas to intervene in the fate of Delhi...
It might have been the Kingdom of Oudh....Im going to try to find the excerpt...

 

[Peshwa]

Thats not history Peshwa.. thats mythology...

try this..

This is from the same source that you quoted....

As mentioned...Rajput is a "varna" or caste representative of the ruling community in the ancient India....

Their use in the modern term may have been changed, but its reference in ancient texts remains as per my claim...

The Sanskrit word Rajputra is found in ancient texts, including the Vedas, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata. It was used by the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini in the 4th century BCE. The word Kshatriya ("warrior") was used for the Vedic community of warriors and rulers. To differentiate royal warriors from other Kshatriyas the word Rajputra was used, which literally means "Son of King" Rajputra eventually was shortened to Rajput. It should be mentioned that not all Rajputs were Kings, as such some were in other professions also like army, farmers, shepherds etc.

 

[Peshwa]

Thanks for the info.. didn't know.. and well yeh sorry if its offensive but I don't hold Jinnah in very high esteem.. I would share my views why I think like that but you will find them offensive so I won't.. and by the way.. I dislike the other elitists such as Nehru just as much.. and Gandhi is just another level..



No problem if you do.. I don't hold Gandhi in high esteem either.. though more than Jinnah but he was still very selfish in a lot of ways.. and the way he is promoted as "father of nation" in India is totally ridiculous if you ask me.. but again I'll try not to share my views on him either.. considering ill probably tick off the chunk of Indians on this board..

Identical feelings here as well.....Not a fan of the trio or their policies...

Nevertheless....I am also of the opinion that these men had something that made them special...
"They weren't born great, they made themselves great"

Which is why no matter what there is a lot we can learn from them.....

Thats just me though...

 

[Peshwa]

Yes Sikhs were fierce warriors, we all know that, nevertheless a good general can defeat any army. My point is that the Mughals themselves were responsible for their own downfall. The desperate reforms that were needed werent happening. More and more power was given to nobles who were mostly corrupt and only served their own factions purposes (Syed Brothers). As mentioned the Turani/Irani nobles constantly fighting. A strong king could have brought a stop to this but that king never came.

The Mughal downfall can be attributed in a large part to the abandoning of the secular policies during Akbar's time that made the Mughals popular...
Rajputs and other Hindu rulers remained loyal to the Mughals until the reign of Aurenzeb whos policies reversed all the advances made by his ancestors