Mughal influence in India and Indian history

[Neemo neemo]

Namaste Levina Ji, aap kaisi ho?
Religious intolerance erupted under Aurangzeb. The turks, afghans etc. had the same policy of jizyah for Hindus like the Mughals. In fact Akbar was the one who abolished jizyah.
How is Gupta invasion of other princely states better than Mughal invasions? The Guptas did not send Buddhist monks, they also sent soldiers like the Mughals did.

Namaste Levina Ji ??????

@levina I guess tumhare Karan-Arjun aa gaye.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Who cares ........ its HISTORY. Today, Hindus are laughing digest that

People of India care. Rana sanga was a traitor who invited a foreigner to attack India.

LOL..... surrender does not mean defeat ... retard spotted.

Shivaji surrendered too...... only to live another day and establish the maratha Empire that kicked Mughal @ss

Yes surrender is worse than defeat. It signifies a lack of courage which was evident in amar singh. And did amar singh ever fight back after his surrender?

All your bravado is based on some fake mythical history which has no basis on truth. History records rajputs as those people who served mughals and fought against Sikhs and marathas. Feel free to believe in your imaginary history.

This thread is anyway about Mughals not the rajput duplicity.

 

[Makaramarma]

Namaste Levina Ji, aap kaisi ho?

Religious intolerance erupted under Aurangzeb. The turks, afghans etc. had the same policy of jizyah for Hindus like the Mughals. In fact Akbar was the one who abolished jizyah.

How is Gupta invasion of other princely states better than Mughal invasions? The Guptas did not send Buddhist monks, they also sent soldiers like the Mughals did.

More Rubbish,

Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar's motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters.

The Rajput women of Chittor prefered "Jauhar" (immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar's harem.

Worse he was a drunkard.

Abul Fazl in Ain-i-Akbari (Blochmann,V.1,p.276), ".. His majesty (AKBAR) has established a wine shop near the palace ... The prostitues of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be counter, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have a virgin they should first have His Majesty's [Akbar's] permission. In the same way, boys prostituted themselves, and drunkeness and ignorance soon lead to bloodshed ... His Majesty [Akbar] himself called some of the prostitutes and asked them who had deprived them of their virginity?" This was the state of affairs during Akbar's rule, where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and murderous assaults were permitted by the king himself.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

He created a new religion many muslims like Hazrat Mujadad Alafsani were against him

All religious true Muslims should have the same feeling towards an apostate. Akbar was a decent fellow, far better than the savages who came before and after him. The Pakistani hatred or at least ignorance for the only non Muslim mughal emperor is understandable.

 

[Zibago]

All religious true Muslims should have the same feeling towards an apostate. Akbar was a decent fellow, far better than the savages who came before and after him. The Pakistani hatred or at least ignorance for the only non Muslim mughal emperor is understandable.

Yep our hero is mujadad alafsani

 

[Indian Patriot]

Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar's motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters.

Kings be it Hindu or muslim always had the lust for women. Harems was not an exclusive mughal invention, Hindu kings also had concubines and dozens of wives. Don't tell me Ashoka had only one wife and was a virgin before marriage. Don't troll here.

And Akbar did not have to fight war for women. The rajputs themselves approached Akbar and married off their women to Akbar. It was a pure political move. Marrying to Akbar gave the rajputs prestige and important position.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The problem was him creating a new religion and distorting Islam

He did not distort Islam. He left it.

 

[Makaramarma]

People of India care. Rana sanga was a traitor who invited a foreigner to attack India.

Rana Sanga and his son MahaRana Pratap are remembered for their courage in fighting the Mughals.

This is known to every Indian. Are you sure you are one ?

Yes surrender is worse than defeat. It signifies a lack of courage which was evident in amar singh. And did amar singh ever fight back after his surrender?

All your bravado is based on some fake mythical history which has no basis on truth. History records rajputs as those people who served mughals and fought against Sikhs and marathas. Feel free to believe in your imaginary history.

This thread is anyway about Mughals not the rajput duplicity.

Surrender is a strategic military move. Amar Singh entered into a treaty with Shah Jahan, who negotiated on behalf of Jehangir in 1615, where in it was agreed that Ruler of Mewar will not be bound to present himself in person at Mughal court.

He maintained his dignity and ensured the death of the Mughals.

LOL. at your desperate attempts to cook uup history.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Yep our hero is mujadad alafsani

Your country. Your rules.

 

[anonymus]

LOL!! Who was against the mughals? The rajputs would continue to serve the Mughals till 1857. Raja Man singh was only one among the many rajputs who took up mansabdari under Akbar.



Is that why the son of pratap Amar Singh surrendered before the Mughals?



Lo behold, another rajput serving the mughals.

Now this is borderline lunacy, and I have seen you throw a fit in most threads.

If you lose a war, you do not have much of a choice. Barring a couple of loyal clans, Rajputs only stuck with Mughals as long as Mughals could overpower them.

And Rajputs are not just limited to Rajasthan. There is substantial number of them in UP too.

Security Research Review: Volume 1(3) Was Late Medieval India Ready for a Revolution in Military Affairs III? - Airavat Singh

Aurangzeb, after being unable to put down Rajput rebellion, settled Pashtuns in Rohilkhand region in order to change demography of West UP. These Pashtuns are called Rohillas.

The Mughals did not crumble after Aurangzeb's death. A mughal emperor Farukhsiyar who hand over a firman to the british which would change Indian history forever.

No it did.

After Aurangzeb's death, only his son was what we could call as half decent administrator. When he dies in 1712, Mughal empire dies with him. Faruksiyar had handed over duty free trading right to East India company in Bengal. Rst of the empire, whether Rajputana, Maratha, Sikh, Deccan. Malwa was not in his control, and company has to negotiate separately with those powers. Even that Firman was not worth the paper it was written on. Mughal governor of Bengal ignored that Firman. Farukhsiyar did not controlled even Moradabad, which was 150 Km away from Delhi.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The Mughals came into power during Akbar. If not for Akbar the Mughals would have been extinct with the humiliating defeat of Humayun at the hands of Sher Shah Suri.

Humayun had to leave everything and run from corner to corner like a pitiable refugee. Nobody would have ever mistook him for a prince but he was fortunate to have a band of small but very loyal followers. They stuck with with through thick and thin until he got some relief in Iran.

It was Akbar who re-build and consolidated the empire. It was Akbar who tamed the rajputs and spread his empire to distant lands right upto bengal.

The Mughals were strong till Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb was a recklessly ambitious man. He wanted a vast empire and he achieved that as well but he made enemies everywhere. Primarily against the Marathas and the Sikhs. He had to waste 27 years in the Deccan trying to subjugate the Marathas. To his horror he found that the Marathas were not so keen on joining hands with the Mughals like the rajputs did.

The Afghans on the north western frontiers of Mughal empire were also rebelling and the Sikhs are an altogether different story. He was fighting a war on all the fronts and as a result his treasury was exhausted.

Not all Rajput kingdoms surrendered to the mughals. Some collaborated and some did not. I personally do consider Man Singh for example as a traitor.

 

[Makaramarma]

Kings be it Hindu or muslim always had the lust for women. Harems was not an exclusive mughal invention, Hindu kings also had concubines and dozens of wives. Don't tell me Ashoka had only one wife and was a virgin before marriage. Don't troll here.

And Akbar did not have to fight war for women. The rajputs themselves approached Akbar and married off their women to Akbar. It was a pure political move. Marrying to Akbar gave the rajputs prestige and important position.

LOL.... WRONG.

Jauhar happened ONLY during Mughal invasions. NEVER during Hindu wars.

Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajah's into his harem." (pp.212). An account of how the Jaipur rulers were coerced into sending their daughters to the Mogul harem is found in Dr. Srivastava's book Akbar - The Mogul (Vol.1). Shelat notes (p.90)," (after the "Jauhar" that followed the killing of Rani Durgawati) the two women left alive, Kamalavati (sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad (daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter Akbar's harem."

It should also be observed that adimittance into Akbar's harem was available mainly to virgins and others' were "disqualified". Inspite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as slaves and prostitutes, it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous and noble emperor.

After the capture of Chittor, says Smith (p.64), ".. Akbar exasperated by the obstinate resistance offered to his arms, treated the town and garrison with merciless severity. The 8000 strong Rajput garrison having been zealously helped during the seige by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre which resulted in the death of of 30,000 (even thought the struggle was over). Many were made prisoners." Such terrible was his humanitarian outlook as towards his defeated adverseries.

L.M. Shelat writes more on this incident that (pp.105), "neither the temples nor the towers escaped the vandalism of the invaders". There were events where intolerant Akbar ordered the excision of one man's tongue, trampling opponents to death by elephants and other private or informal executions and assacinations. After a victorious battle at Ahemadabad, in accordance with the gruesome custom at the times, a pyramid was built with the heads of the rebels, more than 2000 in number. At one time, enraged on seeing a hapless lamplighter coiled up near his couch, Akbar order that the servant be shreded into thousand pieces!

In the Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazal writes, "... he [Husayn Khan, Akbar's governer at Lahore] ordered the Hindus as unbelievers to wear a patch (Tukra) near the shoulders, and thus got the nick name of Tukriya (patcher)." (Bochmann., p.403) The patch was obviously to mark the "unbelievers" out as pariahs for providing special degrading treatment.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Kings be it Hindu or muslim always had the lust for women. Harems was not an exclusive mughal invention, Hindu kings also had concubines and dozens of wives. Don't tell me Ashoka had only one wife and was a virgin before marriage. Don't troll here.

And Akbar did not have to fight war for women. The rajputs themselves approached Akbar and married off their women to Akbar. It was a pure political move. Marrying to Akbar gave the rajputs prestige and important position.

Many rajputs pimped their daughters. Others jumped into the fire instead. Secondly harem was entirely an Islamic invader thing. Hence the origin of the word itself.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Rana Sanga and his son MahaRana Pratap are remembered for their courage in fighting the Mughals.

Rana sanga - Invites babur, a Mughal and foreigner to invade India. LOL!!

Rana Pratap - Flees from chittor leaving behind his subjects to die when Akbar lays down a siege. Pratap did not defend his fort for even one day. And again in haldighati pratap runs away from the battlefield leaving behind his men to die at the hands of the combined mughal+rajput army.

Some courage indeed.

Surrender is a strategic military move. Amar Singh entered into a treaty with Shah Jahan, who negotiated on behalf of Jehangir in 1615, where in it was agreed that Ruler of Mewar will not be bound to present himself in person at Mughal court.

LOL!! Amar singh surrenders to Shah Jahan?

He maintained his dignity and ensured the death of the Mughals.

How did he ensure the death of Mughals, by bitching and gossiping? Are you even conscious of what you are typing?

LOL. at your desperate attempts to cook uup history.

You are pathetic. Go and read history first.

Many rajputs pimped their daughters. Others jumped into the fire instead. Secondly harem was entirely an Islamic invader thing. Hence the origin of the word itself.

The word harem may have been invented in mughal era. Don't tell me the Mauryas, Guptas etc. did not have a palace full of concubines.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

LOL.... WRONG.

Jauhar happened ONLY during Mughal invasions. NEVER during Hindu wars.

Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajah's into his harem." (pp.212). An account of how the Jaipur rulers were coerced into sending their daughters to the Mogul harem is found in Dr. Srivastava's book Akbar - The Mogul (Vol.1). Shelat notes (p.90)," (after the "Jauhar" that followed the killing of Rani Durgawati) the two women left alive, Kamalavati (sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad (daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter Akbar's harem."

It should also be observed that adimittance into Akbar's harem was available mainly to virgins and others' were "disqualified". Inspite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as slaves and prostitutes, it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous and noble emperor.

After the capture of Chittor, says Smith (p.64), ".. Akbar exasperated by the obstinate resistance offered to his arms, treated the town and garrison with merciless severity. The 8000 strong Rajput garrison having been zealously helped during the seige by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre which resulted in the death of of 30,000 (even thought the struggle was over). Many were made prisoners." Such terrible was his humanitarian outlook as towards his defeated adverseries.

L.M. Shelat writes more on this incident that (pp.105), "neither the temples nor the towers escaped the vandalism of the invaders". There were events where intolerant Akbar ordered the excision of one man's tongue, trampling opponents to death by elephants and other private or informal executions and assacinations. After a victorious battle at Ahemadabad, in accordance with the gruesome custom at the times, a pyramid was built with the heads of the rebels, more than 2000 in number. At one time, enraged on seeing a hapless lamplighter coiled up near his couch, Akbar order that the servant be shreded into thousand pieces!

In the Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazal writes, "... he [Husayn Khan, Akbar's governer at Lahore] ordered the Hindus as unbelievers to wear a patch (Tukra) near the shoulders, and thus got the nick name of Tukriya (patcher)." (Bochmann., p.403) The patch was obviously to mark the "unbelievers" out as pariahs for providing special degrading treatment.

Akbar indeed is over glorified. But eventually he tempered down. Compared to other mughal rulers, he was far more tolerant, especially after he left Islam.