The Glory of the Mughal Empire

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

To be honest, i never even knew Ainu had south asian genetic markers until i read into the genetic studies when i was in college. It makes me have a fondness for South Asian cultures and history, bro. In some way, we are ...related. lol .

We damn well are lol . Well it's great to see that people are pursuing to study these things. It definitely increases our knowledge about these things and brings us closer, no doubt.

 

[sahaliyan]

Agreed. Academically speaking though, Is this theory of proto-caucasoids taking the sea-routes to Japan THE MOST PROMINENT? What about other ones? Is there disussion in Japan over this? I wonder what the 'folk tales' or 'folk myths' of Ainu say about this.



Wow. Mind-blowing. Are there movies that deal with the glorious Ainu (with English sub-titles)

@sahaliyan
Brother, you should suggest some movies that depict the story of Manchus or Qing China. Do you know any? (with English sub-titles)

Sorry,I don't know any

 

[Bang Galore]

Sapta sindhu-according to many historians-does not necessarily refer to any fixed set of seven rivers in the Indian subcontinent. When the Indo-Iranian people got divided into Indic and Iranian people and settled in different areas, they named different rivers in those areas as their seven holy rivers. So the Hapta Hendu of Iranians may not be the same as Sapta Sindhu of Indians.

Not likely, the Avesta names all other surrounding places too. No room for other areas . However, anything is theoretically possible but considering that the Avesta still does not know of western Iran, there is little possibility of the hapta həndu being any other place. Iranian historians largely agree.

Btw, while there was certainly a separation of "Indians" & "Iranians", it would never have been a straight clear cut separation in the beginning. The mythologies of the.two people clearly reflect that. (specifics are for another thread, another time)

 

[Foot12]

Like I said earlier, these guys will claim that Bamiyan Buddha statues never existed!

Well, there are barely any ancient or early medieval Buddhist and Hindu buildings in modern Pakistan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh because most of the building were destroyed by the Turkic Delhi Sultanate rulers. All the great buildings from ancient
and early medieval period are from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha and southern India as these regions were mostly ruled by Hindu rulers.

 

[Chak Bamu]

You don't actually believe that do you? Its like Kim Jong Un writing his autobiography and claiming to be best at everything, and North Koreans believing it . When you are a King, you can be anything, and no on one would dare question you.

My views are well-considered and formed in light of evidence, instead of bigotry. I am not calling Babur a paragon of virtue. Neither I am saying that he is an example to be followed - though his ambition, fortitude, skill, and learning despite extremity of adversity is to be much appreciated. I just said that he was not a barbarian and pointed out some of the reasons why. He was a product of his age and times, and we can not judge him by today's standards.

 

[Chak Bamu]

On the issue of temple destruction by Aurangzeb, described by well known history scholar Richard Eaton:
http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf
http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples2.pdf

‘It’s a myth that Muslim rulers destroyed thousands of temples’ | Tehelka.com
"You also examined at length the destruction of temples in this period. What did you find?
The temple discourse is huge in India and this is something that needs to be historicised. We need to look at the contemporary evidence. What do the inscriptions and contemporary chronicles say? What was so striking to me when I went into that project after the destruction of the Babri Masjid was that nobody had actually looked at the contemporary evidence. People were just saying all sorts of things about thousands of temples being destroyed by medieval Muslim kings. I looked at inscriptions, chronicles and foreign observers’ accounts from the 12th century up to the 18th century across South Asia to see what was destroyed and why. The big temples that were politically irrelevant were never harmed. Those that were politically relevant — patronised by an enemy king or a formerly loyal king who becomes a rebel — only those temples are wiped out. Because in the territory that is annexed to the State, all the property is considered to be under the protection of the State. The total number of temples that were destroyed across those six centuries was 80, not many thousands as is sometimes conjectured by various people. No one has contested that and I wrote that article 10 years ago."

Hindutva nationalists cannot stomach facts and calling Eaton a liar because of what he said above:
Hindu temple destructions a myth: Richard Eaton - India FactsIndia Facts
Richard Eaton's negation of Islamic Fanaticism

Niccolao Manucci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manucci (1639–1717) a 17th century Italian with all his contemporary biases cannot be a neutral source. Storia do Mogor has many inconsistencies:
"Controversy
Manucci spent almost his entire life in India. He would then send home the manuscript for "Storia do Mogor" which was lent to the French historian François Catrou in 1707. Catrou wrote another version as Histoire générale de l’empire du Mogul in 1715. The original then emerged in Berlin in 1915 and was written in three different languages. This version was translated and then published. Among those who have doubted Manucci's authenticity are the famous British historian Stanley Lane-Poole and Ali Sadiq.

There are some popular events that are so misinterpreted that it is very hard to believe in the veracity of this authors work especially his work "Storia do Mogor". Some major examples are: 1) On page 120 on this book, Manucci writes that Akbar (3rd mughal ruler) was born in Persia. It is a very well known fact that has been confirmed by many independent authors that Akbar was born in Sindh (in modern day Pakistan) and not Persia.

2) On page 122 Manucci writes about the confrontation between Chand Bibi (regent of Bijapur) and Akbar. It is mentioned by Manucci that Akbar forces defeated Chand Bibi's forces and Akbar fell in love with her and moved her to his own palace. This event is again wrongly portrayed by Manucci, Akbar forces were able to defeat Chand Bibi's forces (they lost once) but Chand Bibi was in fact killed by her own troops and never by Akbar (almost all historians agree on this).

3) Again on page 123 comes a completely flawed story about Akbar. Manucci mentioned that Akbar forces attacked Chittor fort and by deceit Akbar took 'Jaimal' a prisoner and asked his wife 'Rani Padmini' to marry Akbar and join his harem or else he will kill Jaimal. Then Manucci expounds in great detail about how Rani Padmini played a trick on Akbar and assured the release of her husband Jaimal (Jai Mall) from Akbars fort. While this event is true but it completely out of time. This event happened in early 1300 AD, almost 250 years before Akbar was born or 350 years before Manucci was born. It was Alauddin khilji, sultan (king) of Delhi at that time who attacked chittor and not Akbar. Rana Rattan Singh was husband of Padmini while Manucci writes Padmini's husband as Jaimal, Jaimal was commander of Chittor forces in 1567 battle. This incident is widely recorded in Indian history through many paintings and writings and there is not even an iota of doubt that Manucci's work here is not representing history correctly.

There are numerous other incidents in this book which are completely flawed, this raises very big concerns about the veracity of Manucci's work, especially his writings about initial Mughal rulers Humayun, Babar and Akbar."

Thanks a lot @kalu_miah - You are a treasure of historical information.

One could expect that people like @Foot12 , @kadamba-warrior , and others would learn something here. But then some people find certain prejudices very useful and keep them close and do not allow even a breath of criticism to touch these prejudices.

I did not think that this thread would still be alive, but just look at it - active even today.

 

[wolfschanzze]

Just to note one example of their contribution:

Fathullah Shirazi who worked for Akbar the Great in the Mughal Empire, developed a volley gun.
Considered one of the most remarkable feats in metallurgy, the seamless globe was invented in Kashmir by Ali Kashmiri ibn Luqman in 998 AH( 1589-90), and twenty other such globes were later produced in Lahore and Kashmir during Mughal time.It was believed by modern metallurgists to be technically impossible to produce metal gloves without any seams.These Mughal metallurgists pioneered the method of wax casting while producing these seamless globes.

As for contribution in the field of botany, namely agricultural science, I reference the works of Dr. Kanuja Kumari, Ph.D (2012):

Agriculture science has existed in India since ancient times. India has been an agricultural country from time immemorial and has played a major role in determining the economic condition of any period. The Indian peasantry formed the backbone of the economy and the economic setup. Agriculture science and its development has been a continous process . The Rigveda says “ Get rid of gambling and then learn the art of Farming.” The techniques of cultivation was present in Rigvedic period and went on progressing in the early medieval and Mughal period. The cropping patterns, irrigation facilities, water management manures had developed in the Mughal period. The measurement system , the land revenue system had reached to another level during the reign of Akbar. He introduced the Ain- i- Dahsala system to make the land revenue system more organised and to enhance the tax collection of the empire. The agriculture science determined the socio- economic condition of the farmers.


Reference:
Kumari, Kanuja (2012). Agricultural Period during the Mughal Period and its Socio-Economic Impact. International Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences. Retrieved from:
http://psrcentre.org/images/extraimages/IJHAS013025.pdf

Wax casting was pioneered by south indians much before mughals copied from them.That is how they used to make bronze statues using lost wax technique.

 

[wolfschanzze]

@ ,

Babur was indeed a man of foresight and was capable in strategy, the army that he commanded were composed of men from different parts of the world; many of them were Persian, Afghani tribesmen, Mongols, Turkmen. In the campaign to Peshawar, he had to motivate his soldiers, many of whom were so used to the cool temperatures of Central Asia, to continue on despite the heat of India's summers. To success, he and his army of central asians were able to subjugate the Punjab and also defeated the Rajputs and made them into loyal allies. Contrary to what others say, Mughals , especially under the reign of Babur , Hamuyan, Akbar -- they actually contributed a sense of acceptance. Rajputs , who were always Hindus , remained Hindu and practice the religion of their forefathers without persecution from Mughals. In fact, Mughal princes would marry Rajput princesses and thus the court culture of Mughal Emperors were transferred onto the Rajputs and to an extent even in Delhi.

Let's be objective when we compare the Babur's actions to that of another of his kinsmen, Hulagu Khan, who led the Mongol invasion in the Siege of Baghdad. Khan was notorious for his brutality committed on soldiers of the Abassid Caliphate. In fact when Hulagu Khan's forces took Baghdad, instead of offering surrender terms to Al-Musta'sim Billah, or even offered to give him clemency and mercy. Hulagu Khan had the Caliph tied to his horse and dragged all throughout Baghdad until the Caliph was literally dragged and stamped to death by the hooves of Mongol horses. Let us compare that with Babur, shall we?

Babur started his campaign in November 1525, when he reached Peshaar he got the news that Daulat Khan Lodi had switched sides and drove out Ala-ud-Din. Babur then marched onto Lahore to confront Daulat Khan Lodi, only to see Daulat's army melt away at their approach. Daulat surrendered and was pardoned, thus within three weeks of crossing the Indus Babur became the master of Punjab.

Babur, unlike Hulagu, gave mercy to his opponent and pardoned him. So it is incorrect to make a blank judgment on Babur that he and his kin were excessively brutal or unmerciful. Compared to actions committed by other Mongol Lords, Babur was a saint.

Lastly, I find it rather interesting that some posters here keep on claiming Babur and the Mughals as foreign invaders. I mean, most of humans are invaders, India is the amalgamation of foreign invaders that have in a way contributed to the overall entity, and genetic make up of the people. Present day Indians and Pakistanis are not 'pure', but a mix of ethnicities. If we really want to refer to the 'pureness' of indigenous people in the subcontinent , I would say that the 'pure' Indians are the Dravidians, who are literally of another race. These are the people that inhabit the Andaman islands and parts of Southern India. The rest of the people in India are a mixture of Aryan peoples and Dravidian. And these are the caucasoids, the people that make up North East India's 7 states were never really considered part of 'Bharat', but were independent states that had much closer ties with Austroloids and Austronesians of continental South East Asia. These had more genetic and cultural similarities with the Mon Khmer who made up the Khmer Empire, also with the Tai peoples that settled and ruled what was the Sukkothai Empire, Lan Xang Kingdom and the Ayuthaya Kingdom.

So I deign to say that invaders and 'foreign' peoples have been influencing India and the subcontinent since time immemorial. I would even say that invasion and foreign influence is not limited to the subcontinent only, the same can be said in East Asia, South East Asia, The Americans (North, Central ans South), and even in Europe.


Regards,
I remain,
@Nihonjin1051

This dravidian race theory was first put forward by Bishop robert caldwell.Untill then dravidian was a language during Max Mueller time.Later made into race by British Indologists to seperate south Indians from North India and ensure the cultural disconnect so they can be ruled easily.Nobody believes in these Dravidian Aryan race theories even Europe where Nazis had race science discarded these theories as imaginative.Only ones that keep harping on Dravidian and Aryans are pakistanis (while rest of the world knows these theories are fake like Aryan Invasion Theory ,later Aryan Migration theory now just a hoax).
The pakistanis feel they are somehow different from Indians and related to arabs that was the basis of their nation founding so they justify using such age old discarded demolished by science theories still.People who believe Dravidian and Aryan races should have their heads checked.
Regarding North East India not being considered as part of India?If you go by Pakistanis then yeah it was not part of India since the Mughals could not conquer it.Yeah right:p
While old sanskrit texts speak of Assam as Kamrup whose armies and kings took part in MahaBharata war.North East was part of India only pakistanis deny it as they think they are descendants of Mughals.

 

[B+ Dracula]

In every Great Empires, there are some overly zealous rulers. In the Roman Empire, there was Commodus, Caligula, Nero. Araungzeb may have been a militant ruler, but the austerity and enlightened rule of previous Emperors should not be ignored.

you truly deserve to be called Neutral Umpire.....
Ur right, he is over zealous ruler who jolt down the basic foundation of Mughal Empire, later emperor tried their best to save empire but it was too late, Moreover Mughals formed Secular government in India. They did some Blunders but they never commit Hindu Genocide

 

[Aepsilons]

you truly deserve to be called Neutral Umpire.....
Ur right, he is over zealous ruler who jolt down the basic foundation of Mughal Empire, later emperor tried their best to save empire but it was too late, Moreover Mughals formed Secular government in India. They did some Blunders but they never commit Hindu Genocide

Definitely. Its important to appreciate ALL aspects of history, and analyze objectively.

 

[Ajatashatru]

Not likely, the Avesta names all other surrounding places too. No room for other areas . However, anything is theoretically possible but considering that the Avesta still does not know of western Iran, there is little possibility of the hapta həndu being any other place. Iranian historians largely agree.

Btw, while there was certainly a separation of "Indians" & "Iranians", it would never have been a straight clear cut separation in the beginning. The mythologies of the.two people clearly reflect that. (specifics are for another thread, another time)

Ancient Indian and Iranian mythologies overlap in some areas and diverge in others. But yes both the Indic and the Iranian people derive their mythologies from earlier times when Indo-Iranian people had not broken into two branches so there are many similar concepts in their respective cultures.

 

[Bang Galore]

Ancient Indian and Iranian mythologies overlap in some areas and diverge in others. But yes both the Indic and the Iranian people derive their mythologies from earlier times when Indo-Iranian people had not broken into two branches so there are many similar concepts in their respective cultures.

Not exactly. The divergence happened a little later than most people think ( if you go by the mythological connections) Avesta mythology bears connection with late Rg veda mythology and develops from there.

They did some Blunders but they never commit Hindu Genocide

A very good point actually. Too many people use the word genocide easily. While the Mughals with the exception of Akbar, did demolish temples, most did so on whims except for Aurangzeb. However, at no point, did Mughal rule (even Aurangzeb's) ever approach the intolerance of Muslim Kingdoms in the Middle East & Central asia. Certainly no genocide. Must be kept in mind. Within Indian history, there were good & bad Muslim rulers (referring to religious intolerance alone) but when compared to the wider Muslim world, there were hardly the worst. Everything is a matter of perspective.

 

[Ajatashatru]

Not exactly. The divergence happened a little later than most people think ( if you go by the mythological connections) Avesta mythology bears connection with late Rg veda mythology and develops from there.

When the divergence happened is a separate matter altogether. But it cannot be denied that avesta was not created out of Rig Veda. In fact both the Avesta and the Rig Veda developed out of even older Indo-Iranian mythology. And there's no reason to suggest that Iranians originated on the banks of Indus. That brings us to out of India theory which is not accepted by mainstream historians (not even by Indians) and at most is at the fringes of modern linguistics.

 

[Bang Galore]

When the divergence happened is a separate matter altogether. But it cannot be denied that avesta was not created out of Rig Veda. In fact both the Avesta and the Rig Veda developed out of even older Indo-Iranian mythology. And there's no reason to suggest that Iranians originated on the banks of Indus. That brings us to out of India theory which is not accepted by mainstream historians (not even by Indians) and at most is at the fringes of modern linguistics.

The Avesta was not created out of the Rg veda, no one has ever argued that. Merely that top Avesta scholarsthink that Avesta mythology shows connection to late Rg veda mythology(as indeed does the language -to the 8th mandala of the Rg veda to be exact) suggesting an interaction during that period regardless of what happened earlier. As far as suggesting that Iranians originated on the bank of the Indus, I'm certainly not going there nor am I a fan of the OIT . Just pointed out that among the 16 homelands the Avesta lists is the Hapta Həndu. You can make of it whatever you will.

The only reason that was brought up in this thread was because a poster made a light hearted comment on Iranians claiming the Indus as their land in 1000 years. I suggested that the particular claim had already been made in the Avesta. Nothing more.

P.S.: Gone off topic plenty. My last post on this matter. Thanks.

 

[anonymus]

Aurangzeb was an Emperor in the true sense of the word but his biggest mistake was starting fights his successors were not capable of ending, it should be noted that he did not lose any territory despite being at war with almost everyone but the minute he died territories were lost all over.

No,

Sikhs, Jats and Maratha practically seceded with Rajputana following suit. His desire to capture South India resulted in Mughals losing North which was their power center.

A historical point ignored by chest thumpers like @mughal arslan shah mirza on this forum is that Mughal Empire started disintegrating during the lifetime of Aurangzeb, not after his death. Marathas crossed Vindhyas, regarded as natural border between North and South India, and captured Malwa in 1705, two years before Aurangzeb's death.

He started wat which he could not win and brought down Mughal empire in this process.

Moreover if you judge Aurangzeb by his military stature, he was ferocious. He was brilliant when it comes to warfare.His biggest issue was that he took on the Muslim Shia sultanates in the extreme south of India and unnecessarily funded these wars despite the fact that these sultanates had mughals in them and were friendly to the Central command of Mughals more or less. He made too many enemies.

There were no Shia sultanates in extreme South or even in proper South anywhere. Bijapur and Golconda were in Central India specifically in Madhya pradesh and Maharashtra.