To Indians and followers of Hindu religion

[TenjikuKensei]

Another thing that the Shankaracharya did to revive Hinduism was to break down the teachings in the Vedas and the Puranas into simpler texts for the common folk. Apart from the Brahmans, hardly anyone new Sanskrit and this earlier restricted the spread of the core values incorporated in the sacred texts. By translating these into the local languages and essentially simplifying the message, he was able to bring back the masses into the Hindu fold.

I agree.

Probably the major reason for the waning of Buddhism in India was the Advaidta Vedanta propounded by Shankara and the Bahkti movement. The Advaidins took the existing Hindu concepts of universal one'nes and explained it through rigorous logic, at least logic good enough that was able to defeat the Buddhists in a series of religious debates held during that era.

The Bhakti movement, which also started in the south; but preceded Shankara by a few centuries took a different approach. It held as much an appeal for the common people as did Advaida did for those of intellectual persuasion. The nayanmars(Of the Shaivite) and the azhwars(of the Vaishnavites) spearheaded the Bhakti movement in India by composing hyms set in the local languages(Initially Tamil nadu). Not only were they accessible to the majority of the population (Which knew neither Sanskrit nor Pali(for Buddhism)) but also had the aditional benefit of being "local". The local temples, villages...mountains were central themes in these bhakti hymes and it allowed the people to relate to such hymns more. The rather remote and reserved Bhuddist literature was not able to compete with the bakhti movement(in terms of sheer numbers). and its hypnotic hyms that even a layman could sing. One could say that the bhakti movement used a popular medium....songs; to convey its message splendidly.

Thus the dual blows of Advaida for the intellectuals and Bhakti for the masses pretty much sealed the fate of Buddhism in India(at least in the south). It was waning in the north as well; with the spread of Shankara's teachings and the spread of the Bhakti movement.

Thus Buddhism was eventually incorporated into that which it had sprung from, Hinduism.

 

[Subramanian]

Could be, but that isn't the topic, right? You started off by saying Central Asian invasions were a negative influence on Hinduism. In essence, you were attributing the so called bad practices in Hinduism on Islam, right?

Tell you something. Every religion has something good and bad. Hinduism did have Sati, right? Did Islam pass on that practice?

We should look at things more holistically. Look at the Central Asian invasions just as a part of the development of the Indian culture and society. Just like the invasions of the Kushanas, the White Huns and the Greeks before them, the Central Asians also helped evolve the Indian culture to its current state today. If not for them we wouldnt have many of the things that we currently consider as distinctly Indian. Things in architecture, like the Dome, in dress, like the Salwar Kameez, different musical instruments and forms of music itself were brought to India by these foreign invaders.

And another thing, resist from viewing them just as Muslims. Islam just happened to be their religion. We don't question the religion of the ones that came before them, do we?

No man,i didn't say that Central Asian influences are bad on Indian culture and even if they were bad,they have somehow integrated into our culture and made it wholesome,i dont how much bloodshed happened.

I dont blame the cultural things that came our way and became one of our own but all this cannot justify the invasion of the muslims.

The central asians even if they had distinct faiths came as invaders who were searching for places to raid rather than waging war in the name of religion.

My problem with the invasions start from Muhammad bin Qasim,Mahmud Ghori and the likes who were waging war in the name of islam.

They clearly had a wedge in their heads when they came here.That was the time when the prophet was waging wars and central asia was getting converted to islam and when they landed here they were not going to give the kaffirs much options other than to die or convert.

Salwar kameez,chicken makhani,taj mahal,sufi music,bulleh shah,nusrat saab etc is all great but not at the cost of giving up my spiritual faith.

 

[Subramanian]

With/without Muslim rule,it would have been the same.(some other people with conquest in their mind would come here).

India was traditionally a place with resources in abundance, supporting expansion of Humans , unlike the surrounding areas.
Naturally making a destination for migrations.




Lemme guess! ,you are a South Indian ,probably a Tamil Brahmin

I am a tam-bram as it might be obvious from my name.i said i dont know how it would have all turned out if there was no muslim rule.
but it is a great feat to be keeping a big country full of hindus even after two book religions going hammer and tongs at it.

 

[Subramanian]

I think you find that it was the hindu warlords that wiped out the Buddhists and not the muslims.

Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. He had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom.
Google

Thats quite sad,but there are lot of people in even TN who were buddhists and there was no violent ways to quell the religion.Legend says that adi shankaracharya was able to do it by winning the debate in religious philosophy with buddhists scholars.

 

[arun]

In a nutshell, from my personal experience and reading, most non-Muslims feel resentful of the Muslims domination of parts of India. They accept it as a part of their heritage (sorry, but I have to mention here the contrast with Pakistan), but don't feel happy about it.

Leaving aside the religious bigots who ruled - during whose rule the life of non-Muslims was obviously hellish - even during the rule of the more tolerant Muslim rulers, non-Muslims were discriminated. This was the way things were back then. As an example, take the Jizya. It was imposed on the non-Muslims for a long time, and not only during the rule of the bigots.

If in today's world, where we come in contact with so many diverse people, when the ideas of tolerance for all religions are well known even if not universally accepted, when the systems of governance are much more sophisticated and when there is international pressure to consider; if in such a world suited for coexistence, religious groups who are weak have to suffer injustices then you can imagine what it must have have been during the medieval period. You were effectively at the mercy of your local ruler or official. If he were a religious zealot, tough luck freely practising your faith, or even keeping your faith at all.

The question of heritage is more difficult, however. I and many like me (I believe a significant majority) accept it as a part of our heritage and are proud of many things it has bestowed upon us. But there are things we detest too. Then there are those who see it as a completely foreign rule and reject this heritage. And there are those who see it as a foreign rule but accept the heritage. So you see, it is quite complicated

But let me ask a question to our Muslim (both Indian and Pakistani) brothers - do you not wish at a deeper level that the whole world followed Islam? It doesn't mean that you don't tolerate the other religions or that you would do anything for it (let alone violence); just that if that were to be the case, wouldn't you be happier? This will give you another way to look at how the non-Muslims of India feel about Muslim 'rule'.

(Note - The above question can be put to the other followers too.)

I don't know where you studied history from, but let me make one thing clear: We Pakistanis exist because of there "killers, rapists, butcherer and conquerors". Call them name and whatnot, they brought Islam to that area and I am grateful for it.

Depends on what you mean. In the absence of this, you would have still existed, but you might not have been Muslim. Or you might have been - no one knows (think about Bangladesh/Indonesia and many others). Hope you understand the difference - you can't expect the Hindus (and others) to be anything but angry about forced conversions, and the violence that accompanied it. But one shouldn't forget that religions spread both ways - through force and through peaceful means.

On the other hand, there is little chance you will feel anything but grateful that it happened. That is the funny thing about forced conversions. Sure, the present generation may resent it, but a few generations down the line, it is gone. It is almost always that way. To give another example, look at Goa. The Christians there are naturally grateful that they are Christians, not withstanding the extreme brutalities accompanying their ancestors' conversion. That is how faith is.

 

[jayron]

I cannot really judge what life would have been like under a muslim king's rule .
I am happy that India got the influence of the Persian and Arabic culture. But I also detest the systematic destruction of the local culture ,the forceful conversions and tyranny of the muslim rulers. Muslims taking pride in Babur and Muhammad Bin Quasim is as offensive as Germans taking pride in Hitler.

I know a Pakistani family here with brothers named Aurangazeb and Babur. There can be no good intent behind such names.

 

[shuntmaster]

One of most destructive aspect that the Muslim invasion brought to the subcontinent was the whole new dimension of the cruelty in warfare. Looting and plundering and pillaging, rape and genocide became part of the warfare. In earlier times, wars were usually fought between armies and soldiers only. The leader of the victorious army would take place of the leader of the loosing army. After the regime change in the defeated party, things went back to normal. Non-combatants were not much affected. But the invading muslim armies followed the scorched earth policy practiced in 7th century Arabia. There was no quarter given to the defeated. Their homes, families, wealth, temples, fields everything was either looted, raped, killed, enslaved or destroyed.

 

[riCoh]

Coming to the OPs original question, most non-muslim Indians have a very negative feeling of the muslim domination (I will not use the word muslim rule) of the Indian subcontinent. I'm a non-hindu Indian, but I feel the Islamic conquest of India almost wiped out the ancient culture and civilization, especially in north India. I come from South-West coast of India which was never really under any muslim ruler except for a very brief period under Tipu Sultan. However, there are significant proportion of the population there who are muslims, who are basically descendants of Arab traders. The Islamic influence in the culture of my hometown is very much present, and we accept it as a part of our own.
Prior to Islamic invaders, there were other others invaders viz. Aryans, Greeks, Huns, Scythians etc. who came to this land. But they all got assimilated into the melting pot called India, and their cultures, traditions and religions got merged into the native cultures, traditions and religions enriching the land called India. But the Islamic invasion was a whole new thing to India. For the first time in India, wars were fought for loot and plunder and spread of an alien religion & culture, at the cost of local culture. Up until the Islams entry into India, India was great center of human creativity. Arts, culture, science, mathematics, surgery, medicine, astronomy, philosophy etc. were flourishing in India (which the muslims/Arabs repackaged and sold it to others as their own). There were many centers of learning, like Nalanda university. People & society were open in their thinking and lifestyle (Ex. Kamasutra, temple sculptures). Women had more freedom and greater role in the society. After the Islamic invasion of the subcontient, many of the negative aspects of Indian/Hindu culture got institutionalised. Purdah and Sati (especially in societies which bore the brunt of the Islamic invasion in Rajastan, Gujarat, Punjab etc.) became more enforced. Caste system got more rigid. With the advent of Islam, India suddenly seemed to run out of its creative energy. The whole of islamic period didn't seem to produce any creative work, except for some islamic monuments, which were built at the cost of the native people.
People can debate endlessly regarding the duration of the 'Islamic rule' in India, but the basic fact remains that for the most part of that history the muslims in India was confined to cities and urban centers, especially in central and Deccan India. The foreign muslim rulers only formed the top part of the power pyramid, with the base grass roots power still residing with the non-muslim natives. Islamisation of the society only started in the later part of the Mughal rule.
Even though 'muslim rule' is seen as retrogressive my most Indians who are aware of the history, we still still accept it as a part of our history and culture. When Islam arrived in India, India was a progressive country and Islam was seen as backward culture coming from Arabia and central Asia. But Indians were too over confident about their strength, too complacent and too divided to see the external threat which would endanger their very way of life.
The flexibility of the Hindu culture is both its strength and its weakness. The ambiguities within the Hindu philosophy causes divisions among the people which the outsiders can easily exploit. On the other hand, the immense ability to absorb new ideas and cultures and flexibilty to absorb blows makes it a survivor and that is the reason that majority of the Subcontinent is still non-muslim and the survival of the one of the oldest human civilization. Islamic dominance of a few centuries is only a part of the 5000years history of the Indian civilization. At the end of the day, irrespective of whether it was good or bad, we take the Islamic phase of our history in our stride.

Great post.
i think this post sums it all.
It doesn't matter how it came but Islamic phase is now a part of our history and we feel proud about it.
And i feel really proud about mughal era especially reign of Akbar who accepted this land as his motherland and gave religious freedom and gave equal importance to art and culture.

 

[1000VA]

Brother you changed my life. Forever live India.

What I have done is nothing Brother,just copy pasted you-tube links.All credits goes to those who made that documentary.
I wish everyone in this forum watch the whole documentary(6hrs) carefully to know about our country(here I mean old India).Especially for some Chinese guys who thinks India was their traditional enemy.Hope this enlighten they how friendly we lived together centuries and shared our culture and thoughts.

 

[A1Kaid]

The Turks were/are just awesome... I was recently in Turkey and visited the military museum there. Here is a picture I took, depicting the spread of the Turks from Anatolia to the far reaches of the known world.

Actually it shows the expansion of the Turkic people from the Altai Mtns into other regions, Anatolia, Caucuses, Eurasia, and Eastern Europe.


Nonetheless, thanks for sharing the picture.

 

[A1Kaid]

For the sake of knowledge, want to know how you see thousand year of muslims rule over Sub-continent. Also the entry of Mohammad Bin Qasim in Sind. (Addressing only Hindu or Hindu religion follower is not kinda religious profiling, just to get the point of view)(please no bashing)

None of them of course have mentioned the tremendous benefits of Islamic rule in Hind. The economic, military, and social prosperity that many Muslim rulers help to usher in. The advancement in laws and order over the large land and large population was also remarkable.

They of course are a defeated people. In fact, many Hindu preachers and leaders during the Gujarat genocide remarked "After a thousand years it is our turn to to bat". They reject the Muslim superiority over India, they cannot tolerate it, for them it is too much.


As much as they dislike Islam and Muslim rulers, leave it up to the Hindustanis to make big bucks off of famous Muslim made buildings like Taj Mahal.

 

[para-site]

None of them of course have mentioned the tremendous benefits of Islamic rule in Hind. The economic, military, and social prosperity that many Muslim rulers help to usher in. The advancement in laws and order over the large land and large population was also remarkable.

They of course are a defeated people. In fact, many Hindu preachers and leaders during the Gujarat genocide remarked "After a thousand years it is our turn to to bat". They reject the Muslim superiority over India, they cannot tolerate it, for them it is too much.


As much as they dislike Islam and Muslim rulers, leave it up to the Hindustanis to make big bucks off of famous Muslim made buildings like Taj Mahal.

Errr.......we were defeated in some parts of north India of that time.....and few negative aspect of those invasions are clearly summed up by you in your post......yeah whatever

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Haider

I hope you don't mind a frivolous intervention, just time-pass, just to cool down after having thoroughly lost my temper reading about some idiotic decisions by people in authority who should have known better. This kind of historical topic, if handled properly, and unless attacked by some t**d without a sense of humour, can add information (not knowledge) and lighten things up; it can also go horribly wrong.

So, hopefully, here goes.

For the sake of knowledge, want to know how you see thousand year of muslims rule over Sub-continent. Also the entry of Mohammad Bin Qasim in Sind. (Addressing only Hindu or Hindu religion follower is not kinda religious profiling, just to get the point of view)(please no bashing)

My assessment is that there are two corrections needed in your original definition, which shouldn't affect the scope of the debate in any significant way, but which does make things more historically accurate:

1. The years of "Muslim" rule - itself a tendentious and inflammatory statement, also inaccurate, which is however a different topic for later discussion, should extend from Iltutmish to Aurangzeb, at the latest to the deposition of Bahadur Shah Zafar II. This gives us dates between and 1857. This is not an attempt at propaganda, as frankly, as an agnostic with friends among votaries of both religions, and many more who refuse to be clubbed under either, it doesn't make any difference to me personally. Some of the worst rows I have got into, both here and in PTH, have been with supporters of the Sangh Parivar. So kindly take this as my honest opinion, which you don't really need to pay attention to: most people choose not to pay attention to the significant things I have to say, only to the sensational bits.
2. It isn't a good idea to define this rule as being over the sub-continent. Nobody to date, not even the British, have ruled over the entire sub-continent. If anybody wants, I can walk them through the Maurya, the Gupta, the Khilji, the Tughlaq, the Mughal and the British empires and explain my point in detail. For now, this is my personal opinion, and you are free to consign it to the nearest friendly neighbourhood spittoon.

muslims never ruled Bharat for 1000 yrs thats rubbish the moghuls were defeated by the Marathi empire and the Sikh empire


Muslim Period 1100–1800 CE
Islamic Rulers 1206–1707 CE
- Delhi Sultanate 1206–1526 CE
- Deccan Sultanates 1490–1596 CE

Vijayanagara Empire 1336–1646 CE
Mughal Empire 1526–1803 CE
Maratha Empire 1674–1818 CE

Numerous interesting topics are generated by this comment. I am not sure whether to put my fat head into the Yeti's mouth, or play safe and concentrate on improving my game of backgammon.

Let's try a tentative and cautious wave of a helmet at the end of a bayonet, and see what happens.

Using 'Muslim' as a category is a real downer, as it brings in the basher in all those who aren't 'Muslim'. At the same time, obviously Haidar meant precisely that period of Indian history when strong rulers of the Muslim religion reigned in various parts of India. He obviously wants to know in a broad sense, anecdotally, what non-Muslims think this period stood for. So let us go forward, with a sideways rap on the knuckles for Haidar (sorry!) for being naughty.

Yeti is broadly correct in pointing out the dates, but not accurate. The closest we get to agreement is 1206 to 1707, and we disagree by 150 years; while he wants to stop the clock at the end of Aurangzeb, I think it only fair to go on until the Sepoy Mutiny, 1857, which really removed the last vestiges of Mughal rule from India.

I am sure people will ask what is behind the elimination of either Muhammad bin Qasim in the Sind, or Mahmud of Ghazni, or Iltutmish' master, Muhammad of Ghor. Quite simply, transience, and marginal relevance.

Transient, because bin Qasim's bringing in Arab rule in the Sind was not of long duration, and the entire expedition was unwound within a relatively short duration, soon after bin Qasim's unexpected and wholly undeserved recall and cruel death.

So, too, were Mahmud's smashing raids; they were just that, raids, with no administrative impact on India. On the other hand, there were huge political and social and even anthropological consequences. Given half a chance, I would like to remind people what it entailed, in various aspects.

Finally, the rather more focussed efforts of Muhammad of Ghor. He, too, was transient, in a personal sense; his efforts brought about the Sultanate of Delhi, and initiated a period of immigrant rule of the Gangetic Plain which lasted for a little over 600 years, by itself among the longest lasting durations of imperium in India. The fact that it was split among half a dozen dynasties does detract from the political achievement to some extent, but the duration was not trivial; we are not discussing the Xatraps of the west, the Saka princes, or their Pallava underlings, or even the Kushana or the Indo-Greeks.

The second point was about marginal relevance. bin Qasim, Mahmud and Muhammad were all engaged with the border marches, those territories in fact which are described by the new-fangled Indus Man theories of Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan. While I am a staunch admirer of Chaudhry Sahib, I think his historical proposition needs much more validation before it can be accepted as canonical. That is not to deny its brilliant insights. It is a delightful exposition, but needs time to be matured by discussion and debate. At the moment, it only serves as not-well-understood ammunition during food fights between different sets of amateurs of history. Worth avoiding, just to avoid the loud and shrill tones on both sides.

You have to understand only time when Muslims ruled almost of the S. Asia was under the Mughals..

Right after it got to its peak, it crumbled under pressure from Marathas, Sikhs, etc..

When modern North west India and Pakistan was being invaded by Muslims, Empires like the Cholas wasnt being affected..

Interesting and relevant points, but asynchronous. This could lead to misunderstanding(s) and unnecessary accusations of mischief.

As a matter of fact, the Mughals were strong in the Gangetic Plain, latterly in Bengal, in Rajasthan, and in the Indus Valley. They never managed to get the upper hand over the longest rulers in any part of India for any period, the Ahoms and their 600 year domination of the Brahmaputra basin. Finally, as has been pointed out, their entry into the Deccan was very late, and crumbled into provincialism very, very soon. Far more than the Mughals, it was the Bahmani Kingdom and its successor states which influenced the history of South India, with its three key river basins, counting the Narmada and the Mahanadi out of this.

As regards the maps, they are hugely misleading and asynchronous. This is by no means to suggest that they are deliberately so. It is just that not everybody in this military studies and analysis forum, which concentrates on contemporary, not on historical military issues, may be aware that what is being described is the high point of Chola imperium, in the 11th century AD. At this time, it was just about very broadly contemporary with Mahmud of Ghazni (Mahmud died in 1030, so he preceded this period by about a decade, although Chola power was burgeoning even during his dates). While the example is good in its own way, perhaps a better example could be found.

@Yeti

You forgot the Ghaznavids and Timurids, these were Turk - Ruled Muslim Empires which Conquerd Parts of India !

Strictly speaking, the first was transient, the second is the Mughal Empire, dealt with separately. Yeti hasn't forgotten them at all.

Indeed, the mughals too were a Turkic people.

Quite. Nobody, not even a Turk can figure out the details of Turkish clans. The Mughals, the Timurids, to be precise, were Barlas Turks by some accounts, Chaghatai by others. There are reasons why Timur their ancestor described himself as he did; primarily to cover himself in the glory of Chengiz Khan. But this is about India, not about that other fascinating region, Central Asia.

They were Turkic, and Timur plundered and left. Ghaznavid had parts of Pakistan and North west India.

They are a hybrid of many peoples.

I am baffled.

Timurid refers not to Timur, but to his descendants, Babur onwards.

Thought it fell under the Moghul empire?

Umm, Ghaznavid, no, Timurid, yes; in fact, it is the Mughal empire.

The Ghaznavid empire grew to cover much of present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northwest India, and the Ghaznavids are generally credited with launching Islam into Hindu-dominated India. In addition to the wealth accumulated through raiding Indian cities, and exacting tribute from Indian Rajas the Ghaznavids also benefited from their position as an intermediary along the trade routes between China and the Mediterranean. They were however unable to hold power for long and by 1040 the Seljuks had taken over their Persian domains and a century later the Ghurids took over their remaining sub-continental lands.

Transient, and marginal. My own opinion only, and I'm not even a good Hindu. So don't anyone rush out of the house and wreak dire vengeance for this.

Timur, Ghazni, Muhhamed-Bin-Qasim, etc looted and brought the loot back to their land. Mughals, India was their land.

btw Why have you added "Hindu" religion ? The people who got the worst were the poor Buddhists, the Islamic invasions marked the end of Buddhism in the subcontinent

Technically true; it must be remembered that Buddhism was in retreat from 800 AD onwards, and this catastrophic turn, and the wholesale massacres that followed, were the last straw.

First of all India was NOT under Muslim rule for 1000 years..I guess you are not including South-India,Marathas,Sikhs and Rajputs in your INDIA..

Regarding Muhammad Bin Qasim,Mahmood Ghaznavi and Muhammad Ghouri..
They were looters who had a great fighting force at their disposal who plundered the Hindukush region and this was a normal thing those days..

If i have to choose the most powerful King in the Indian subcontinent , I would choose Chandragupta Mourya , Ashok , Porus (i know many people here believe that Alexandar defeated Porus but what i have come to know after extensive research ,thats not the truth.) , Shershah Suri , Hyder Ali,Tipu Sultan and Maharaja Ranjeet singh..

Three comments:
1. I am afraid that the Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs were very much part of the north Indian empires during this period, specifically the Khilji, the Tughlaq, and the Mughal, and including others as well.
2. bin Qasim was emphatically not concerned with the Hindu Kush. Mahmud's area of raiding covered far, far more than the Hindu Kush. So did Muhammad of Ghor's attacks. Perhaps we need to review which region we are referring to. The Hindu Kush refers to the mountain boundaries between north-west India and Afghanistan. By that definition, my second point is relevant.
3. I have known that Porus' defeat at the hands of Alexander is moot, ever since my father's presentation of the matter to the Asiatic Society in the 70s. Professor R. C. Majumdar was still alive and present; his reaction was non-committal, and more or less on the lines that while the circumstantial evidence was strong, history was not written on circumstantial evidence but on the comparative weight of sources, as judged by trained historical minds.

So while agreeing with you informally, I must remind you that in historical terms, this is not yet accepted.

 

[BackStabber]

None of them of course have mentioned the tremendous benefits of Islamic rule in Hind. The economic, military, and social prosperity that many Muslim rulers help to usher in. The advancement in laws and order over the large land and large population was also remarkable.

They of course are a defeated people. In fact, many Hindu preachers and leaders during the Gujarat genocide remarked "After a thousand years it is our turn to to bat". They reject the Muslim superiority over India, they cannot tolerate it, for them it is too much.


As much as they dislike Islam and Muslim rulers, leave it up to the Hindustanis to make big bucks off of famous Muslim made buildings like Taj Mahal.

How true

You are a real gem

 

[Joe Shearer]

The second page seems to be entire Turk.

Haidar-garu, with your permission, I shall cite and comment on only some of the posts. Others are either one-liners in fact or in spirits, and in any case, who's interested to read what an old fart has to say about these pearls of wisdom and rubies of knowledge?

Aw geez... Not at ALL... this is a western over simplification. Babur was not a Mongol. His mother claimed descent from Chengez Khan, but his father was Timurid.

Maybe we need to talk about this a bit. Let's see who else says what.

The Turks from Central Asia, which the Mughals are relatet are mixed with Mongols which invaded Turkic Areas under Dshingis Khan. Later the Mongols in Turkic Areas also convetred to Islam and mixed with Turkic Populations of Central Asia.

Timur had Mongol Ancestor, but he spoke a Turkic Language called "Chagatai". Chagatai was widespreadet in Central Asia. Durring the first Time in Mughal Empire Chagatai were an executive Language.

Dshinghis Khan, eh?

You already know, from your comment, where the reality lies, and we need merely re-state it in some depth to bring our friends up to date.

Thought Mongols were from central asia like Genghis khan and co

They precisely are. From Mongolia, which lies due north of China, although following the 15th century conquests of Genghis Khan,their territory covered a huge part of the Eurasian landmass. More soon.

The Turks were/are just awesome... I was recently in Turkey and visited the military museum there. Here is a picture I took, depicting the spread of the Turks from Anatolia to the far reaches of the known world.

This is an amazing statement and I must take exception to its surface implications*.

I beg to differ..Mughals did not like the people of indian subcontinent (that includes Muslims )..For reference you can read BABARNAAMA..They settled here because they had no other option.

Only single sane ruler was AKBAR . After him every single ruler of mughal dynasty harmed indian subcontinent..

That was specifically true of Babar. It was not true of others of his family. I am sorry, but this is a wild exaggeration. After all, it was Jehangir who immersed himself in art and painting, not foreign art and painting, but Indian art and painting, to the extent that he could spot the brushstrokes of his different maestros. It was Jehangir again who was a keen naturalist and knew his birds and animals as few rulers have done before or after. Not the signs of a man who hated the country.

So too, with Shah Jehan, who spent hours on architecture and took immense personal interest. It is difficult to believe that this commitment and devotion was to a disliked, let alone hated country.

In the next generation, Dara Shikoh was hated by the Mullahs because of his efforts to press on where his great-grandfather had gone and learn more about the philosophical lore of his adopted country.

As for the emperors after Aurangzeb, it is wholly wrong to state that they hated India. They knew nothing else.

Even Aurangzeb did not hate India; he hated Indians who were not observant Muslims, cultural and social customs that he felt violated the law that a good Muslim should keep and those individuals who threatened his rule, thereby threatening what he was most zealous to guard and uphold, the rule of his dynasty.

Ultimately we all claim ancestry from Adam, but the Timurid line is distinct and separate from the Mongols.

The Timurid line is very simply the descendants of Timur. This was the way that the Mughals were described, this was their dynastic name, just as Maurya was Ashoka's, and Achaemenid was that of Cyrus and Darius.

Turk/Turkic is a lingustic term like Indo-European. Turks can be Caucasoid in Anantolia and Mongoloid in other parts or mix in Central Asia.. How many Anatolians have Turkic genes from Central asia? It people united by common language.. I can tell the difference from an Anatolian and a Central Asian Turk..

In principle, it is difficult to disagree, although I am more than disturbed by your using the grossly outdated term Caucasoid. If you were to say that there were /are genetic and blood-type related differences, I would find it far more well-expressed. However, this is in ignorance of the actual situation. I have to get back after looking up what the haplotype studies show about Anatolia and about Central Asia.

Timurid claims he is a descendent of Genghis Khan, just like Babur. I am not doubting that.

Are we talking about Timurid as descendant of Timur, or as another name for Timur?

Did you mean Timur claimed descent from Genghis Khan? In that case, Babur is automatically descended from Genghis Khan, as he was indubitably a descendant of Timur.

I should like to write separately on the Turkish question, on who they were, and how they appear suddenly on the early mediaeval scene, and what their relationship was with the Mongols, and the later history of Central Asia after Genghis overthrew all the known landmarks and civilised settlements. And finally on the descent of Babar, and the issues of Barlas vs. Chaghatai Turks.

* I just read a very recent post where the poster pointed out that the schematic displayed by TechLahore, Moderator, actually shows the spread of the Turks from the Altai Mountains. That is exactly what it is of course, and not as reported, a spread outward from Anatolia!

<Long exhalation of pent-up breath>