How should Pakistanis view the Mughals?

[iamnobody]

Not true and definitely not true for our regions
Our greatest saints came in the Delhi sultanate era by the time Mughals came majority in our region from Kashmir to Sindh, kpk to gawadar (ofcourse talking overall, pockets were still non Muslims) were already

Muslims

When did Muslims become majority in undivided Punjab?

Belittling Mughals is pretty dumb if you happen to be a Muslim. Without their forced conversion strategy, there would be no Pakistan and Bangladesh. And Hindu India would not have 350 million Muslims

 

[Maula Jatt]

When did Muslims become majority in undivided Punjab?

Belittling Mughals is pretty dumb if you happen to be a Muslim. Without their forced conversion strategy, there would be no Pakistan and Bangladesh. And Hindu India would not have 350 million Muslims

Read a book

 

[Olympus81]

Mughals were one of the very few empires to come to South Asia and wanted to build a dynasty.

Their descendants assimilated with the South Asians through inter marriages. Many of the top generals of the Mughals consisted of locals.

Shah Jehan and onwards they were less Central Asians and more South Asians.

Can the same be said of other dynasties? Some came in to pillage, some ruled a few pockets for a few decades unable to put a mark on history.

 

[iamnobody]

Read a book

Which one?

 

[Varunastra]

Mughals can be seen as an opportunity for Pakistan. As Indian education system is hell bent on removing their references Pakistan can be the new flag bearers for mughals and can more vocally claim to be their direct descendants. But then again even they were not really from the land but later became more desi if we can use the term, maybe moreso than any other islamic empire.
Pakistan is always in that weird dilemma I feel, like local muslim rulers didn't form much large empires and that just leads you to look for inspiration and start admiring arabs, persians, etc etc as somehow better.
Indus valley civilization might have been the best bet in that regard but one it is really ancient, two non muslim, three we Indians don't really leave you to own that claim now do we

 

[Tamerlane]

Its a contested subject because Mughals demonized the Pashto language and started the whole language of jinns thing.

Mughals also molested a woman in Pashtunkhwa, and that led to the uprising and eventual independence of Pashtunkhwa from Mughals.

Here’s what ChatGPT says.

How did Mughals treat Pashtuns?

The Mughals, who were a Muslim dynasty that ruled over much of the Indian subcontinent from the 16th to the 19th centuries, generally treated Pashtuns, who are an ethnic group primarily inhabiting the region known as Pashtunistan, which encompasses parts of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, with a mix of diplomatic alliances, military conquests, and policies of assimilation.

The Mughal emperors had varying relationships with the Pashtuns during their rule. Some Mughal emperors, such as Akbar the Great (r. 1556-1605), attempted to integrate Pashtun tribes into their administration through diplomatic alliances, intermarriages, and the appointment of Pashtuns to important administrative positions. Akbar, in particular, pursued a policy of religious tolerance and tried to accommodate the Pashtuns' cultural practices, which helped to maintain relatively peaceful relations between the Mughals and the Pashtuns.

However, other Mughal emperors, such as Aurangzeb (r. 1658-1707), who was known for his strict Islamic policies, pursued a more aggressive approach towards the Pashtuns, often resorting to military conquest and forced conversions to Islam. This led to conflicts and uprisings among Pashtun tribes against Mughal rule.

The Mughals also faced resistance from some Pashtun tribes who preferred to maintain their independence and resisted Mughal attempts at assimilation. Pashtuns, known for their martial prowess, were often recruited into the Mughal military, but they also sometimes rebelled against Mughal authority, leading to tensions and conflicts.

Overall, the Mughal treatment of Pashtuns was complex and varied depending on the specific circumstances and the policies of individual Mughal emperors. While some Pashtuns were integrated into the Mughal administration and society, others resisted Mughal rule and sought to maintain their independence and cultural identity.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Mughals can be seen as an opportunity for Pakistan. As Indian education system is hell bent on removing their references Pakistan can be the new flag bearers for mughals and can more vocally claim to be their direct descendants. But then again even they were not really from the land but later became more desi if we can use the term, maybe moreso than any other islamic empire.
Pakistan is always in that weird dilemma I feel, like local muslim rulers didn't form much large empires and that just leads you to look for inspiration and start admiring arabs, persians, etc etc as somehow better.
Indus valley civilization might have been the best bet in that regard but one it is really ancient, two non muslim, three we Indians don't really leave you to own that claim now do we

Unfortunately..

The Pakistani government decided to support those Muslim monarchs (Afghani, Irani etc) who were not native to our countries and who occupied what is now Pakistan and India but whom the Pakistani government felt should be praised instead of our own Muslim rulers.

 

[Zhukov]

South Asia's Islamic history starts with the Rashidun Caliphate touching Makran.

So, if we stick to our Islamic identity, we don't start nor stop with the Mughals, but go way, way back. In fact, the earliest Islamic dominion to have ruled the regions that made up Pakistan (plus parts of North India and up to Bengal) was the Delhi Sultanate.

Those rulers came from various backgrounds, e.g., Turkic, Persian, etc, but arguably, they did the most to deepen Islam's presence in South Asia (IMO more than the Mughals). The Mughals are part of the wider history, much like the Ummayads, but I'd argue that most of the Muslim identity in South Asia developed during the Delhi Sultanate.

Sir According to my knowledge This popular belief that Conquest of Debal brought Islam to Subcontinent is wrong.
If you want to talk about whole of Subcontinet and south asia, Islam was Introduced first in modern day South India. These southern Kingdoms had Trade relations with Arabs even before Islam and when Arabs Converted to Islam, The Arab Muslim Traders and Merchants started Preaching in South India, Much like Malaysia and Indonesia.
Many merchants were even Sihaba. And the first coverts in South were from the time of Life of Prophet Mohammad SAW.
Even today the Lakshdweep Islands state of india are 99% Muslim population. And According to them, They converted on hands of A Sihabi Ubeedullah who came for preaching Islam. The mosque built by him and His shrine is still there on those Islands.
The first Mosque of India was Built in Life of Rasul Allah In modern day Kerala or Gujarat(Two Masajid Compete for that title) . Remember we used to read the story of An Indian King who saw the Splitting of Moon event by Prophet Muhammad SAW and related it to a prophecy in his religion about last prophet and he converted to Islam Travelled to Mecca Built a Mosque in his kingdom?. That was King of Chera Dynasty in Modern Day Kerala and that mosque is still present in Kerala. Long before Waleed ,Muhammad Bin Qasim and Hajaj Bin Yousaf were even born.

Barwara Masjid of Gujarat
Cheraman Masjid of Kerala
Palaya Masjid of Tamil Nadu
Abrar Masjid in Sri Lanka

All these Masajid were build in Life time of RasulAllah SAW.
South Indian Islam History is way too long to discuss in one post. But it can be safely assumed that Entry Os Islam into South Asia was through South India during Life time of RasulAllah by Sahabi and Taabaen Arab Merchants, Not Conquerers in Sindh as common belief.

 

[Menace2Society]

Invaders, looters, plunderers, just like the rest of them but that is not to say they did not also contribute.

 

[AA_]

Belittling Mughals is pretty dumb if you happen to be a Muslim. Without their forced conversion strategy, there would be no Pakistan and Bangladesh. And Hindu India would not have 350 million Muslims

Of course a hindooo will say this. Truth and Hindoo go like oil and water.

‘Forced conversions a myth; an attempt at falsification of history’ - Mumbai Mirror

Mukhia, who was in Mumbai to deliver the 14th Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial lecture, talks about why he is optimistic despite attempts to erase the Medieval era from history

mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com

Invaders, looters, plunderers, just like the rest of them but that is not to say they did not also contribute.

Do you have any proof of that? I would like empirical evidence this occurred.

 

[Sayfullah]

Invaders, looters, plunderers, just like the rest of them but that is not to say they did not also contribute.

That’s the British.
Aurangzeb R.H. brought the subcontinents gdp to 25% of the worlds gdp.
British looted $40 trillion + worth of resources from the subcontinent

It clear who were looters and who weren’t.

 

[Sayfullah]

I see that some nationalists have divided opinions on Mughals

Pashtuns tribes of Pakistan were clearly in conflict with Mughals- that whole Pashto language of the jinns thing

Punjab I would say it's complicated on one hand we historically celebrated fights against the Mughals ( folk Vaar ballods, my grandpa had a collection dk where they are now)

On the other hand a bunch of Mughal Generals, wazirs, prime ministers, asminsitors, governor's came from the region

In my experience muhajjir populace consider Mughals as their own in every sense of the word to the point in the early decades of Pakistan, as a state for Muslims of South Asia we were supposed to be a successor state to the Mughals (like how Russian czars were to the Romans or Byzantines were to the Romans - it's not exactly a new concept but we're a republic not an empire, so I'd discourage people to think along those lines)

What "kinda" relationship should we have as a people, country with Mughals?
@M. Sarmad @hydrabadi_arab

Yes the Mughals were originally outsiders. However, the Mughals assimilated with the locals and intermarried with the locals. They had locals everywhere in their government.
Maybe during the first two rulers Mughals were still more foreign. But during Akbars time and after the Mughals were more local than foreign. By the time of the last Mughal ruler, it would be injustice to call him non local because of all the intermarrying the Mughals did and the generations of Mughals that were born and raised on the land. Mughal history is firmly part of the subcontinents history. Pakistan is a successor state to the Mughals. The British occupied and destroyed the Mughal empire. After the British occupation left Pakistan came into existence for Muslims of the subcontinent. It’s only natural that Pakistan is the successor state to the Mughal empire. And no Mughals were not occupiers. Maybe if they only last 1 or 2 generations and didn’t intermarry they could have been called occupiers. But Mughals assimilated with the subcontinent and contributed significantly to the subcontinent. During Aurangzeb R.H. time the subcontinent’s gdp was 25% of the world gdp. There were rebellions and revolts during Mughal times but that’s in every empire and country. Pakistan technically has baloch “rebellions”.

 

[-=virus=-]

Islam first came to India by way of Arab spice traders to Kerala iinw. The oldest mosque in the subcontinent is located there, the Mughals came much later iinw..

not a history buff, but.. so lets summon the @Paitoo and the @iamnobody .. you guys prolly have a better idea.

 

[Paitoo]

Islam first came to India by way of Arab spice traders to Kerala iinw. The oldest mosque in the subcontinent is located there, the Mughals came much later iinw..

not a history buff, but.. so lets summon the @Paitoo and the @iamnobody .. you guys prolly have a better idea.

This is true and it is a fact well acknowledged. @Zhukov has already written about this in post #23

 

[iamnobody]

Islam first came to India by way of Arab spice traders to Kerala iinw. The oldest mosque in the subcontinent is located there, the Mughals came much later iinw..

not a history buff, but.. so lets summon the @Paitoo and the @iamnobody .. you guys prolly have a better idea.

Arab merchants couldn't spread Islam. Until the arrival of Muslamic invaders.

I don't blame the Muslims for doing what they did. I blame the Hindus for letting the Muslims do whatever they like.