Remembering India's Forgotten Holocaust

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
My father introduced me to him. A great book and a great man.

Interestingly as per his Guru Sri Yukteshwar Giri, Dwapar Yuga started on 1699 Baisakhi the same day Khalsa order was born. I think I had a discussion on this with @Virendra


My relative, also a Sikh is a member of SRF too.

Self-Realization Fellowship
Yes, there are many theories on the length of Yugas and consequently the time when one ends and other begins.
But the cyclic nature of Yugas is accepted by most camps/theories and ancient civilizations.
There is broad agreement that either :
a) we're nearing the end of Kali Yuga in few decades from now
or
b) we have already left it, having recently come into Dwapar Yuga few centuries back (around 1700 A.D. as you say).

This difference again as I said, is because some people interpret Yugas as equal duration (i.e. we're still in KY) while others say 4:3:2:1 ratio for Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali yugas (i.e. we've passed into DY).
The advocates of unequal durations are invoking astronomical arguments based on elliptical-overlapping orbits of our Sun and the Sirius B.
If one wants to dive deep into it, there's a lengthy youtube video to watch- v=put hlfYHAV1i8w
It has a lot of things, but you can leave rest and concern only on the Sun-Sirius and gallactic realignment related astronomical arguments.
I have a smaller video with only the relavant info, will try to post it later, don't have the url right now.

Regards,
Virendra
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
The smaller version :
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137
@Ray German and english are very much closely connected like Bengali and Hindi. English has many German words.

What I am saying learning english is well but not english medium school as it destroys our culture.

Nevertheless Hindi considering it's very large number of native speakers, is safe and so is Bengali, because of Bangladesh, my worries are Marathi, Tamil, Telegu and Assamese these languages.

Btw not all English medium schools teach mother tongue, CBSE and ICSE dont follow 3 language formula.

I did not insult you in my last post, I said when our existence(in importance which comes first) is in danger because of Global warming and we still dont care, then how can we expect people to value our culture and language etc which are secondary in importance. I never insulted you. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

abhi_the _gr8_maratha

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
2,193
Likes
609
Country flag
@ITBP good point. German and english have connection cause in 5th century, 3 german races named angles, jute, saxon traveled to england. The word Anglo is derivative of 'Angle' race. That's why german and english have connection
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137
So you mean the Mughals educated or tried to educate every kid, free treatment, maintained law & order and fought back invaders?
And the Indian Kings did not do all that? :hmm:
Where is all this coming from ?? :D
Educating every one was not contemporary state way. Show me a Hindu king who tried to educate every kid. Btw there are Rajput Muslims too, so do you think hence they converted to Islam, then thy suddenly became non-Indian?

Seriously, if that is all the Mughal Emperors could do, then it falls short even by the savage standards of medieval era.

Let me give a picture of what happened in the country during famines, which were far more frequent than the one time peanuts Shah Jahan offers.
"The inhabitants of these two countries were reduced to the direst extremity. Life was offered for a loaf, but none would buy; ranks were sold for a cake, but none cared for it; the ever bounteous hands were stretched out to beg for food and the feet which had always trodden the way of contentment walked about only in search of substance for a long time dog's flesh was sold for goat flesh and the pounded bones of dead were mixed in flour and sold. When this was discovered, the seller was brought to the justice. Destitution at length reached such a pitch that menbegun to devour each other and the flesh of a son preferred to his love The numbers of the dying caused obstructions in the roads. Every man whose dire sufferings did not terminate in death and who retained the power to move warned off to the towns and villages of the countries. Those lands which had been famous for fertility and plenty of resources reta in no traces of production". (Abdul Hamid Lahori, 1868:235)

Peter Mundy records (pg 34-35) that :
from the party of 21 British traders who travelled from Surat to Agra and Patna, 17 died of sickness. Meantime the camp of Shah Jahan at Burhanpur was filled with the provisions of a ll kinds of luxurious life indicates the gulf between the life lifestyle of a common man and the king.

Qazinivi states in Badshah Nama that in such a land, Shah Jahan still demanded revenue and said that those who couldn't pay shall be sold as slaves.
Families were separated and destroyed as a result, let alone the loss of honour, material and personal liberty.
Not only that, Shah Jahan had decreed that such slaves should be sold only to Muslim lords.

India suffered famines almost every second year in those decades. Should we exempt Shah Jahan because he setup a few soup kitchens here and there on one occasion?
Shah Jahan is recognized as the owner of the richest Empire of his time. Yet what did he do to improve the lives of his people?
Even when the land was scorched dry and naked like living hell, why was Shah Jahan wasting treasury of 4 crores in winning the disputed region of Kandahar from his Iranian counterpart, instead of taking take of the crisis in his own Kingdom?
Why was he spending hard earnt taxes of our people for constructing buildings of personal use or gratification?

Abdul Hamid Lahori states that people died in such huge scores that roads were obstructed by the corpses. But no, Shah Jahan's coffers and revelry were unmoved, untouched.
When people neede State help with tools, infrastructure to fight the dwindling rains, what Shah Jahan and his State gave them was the farmans of more and more taxes.

Shah Jahan's annual revenue in 1647 was 220 million rupees, of the income of the crown lands was thirty million rupees". (Thomas, 1871:29).
Jadunath Sarkar writes that he had jewelry worth fifty million rupees, one of his rosaries was valued 800,000 million rupees and the aigrette he wore on his turban on the anniversary of his coronation cost 1.24 million rupees. He further reckons that Shah Jahan gave away the gifts of ninety five million rupees in the first twenty years of his reign.
The amount of 6.5 million rupees was spent on the construction of a new city of Shah jahanabad including the cost of fortifying Peacock throne, "it was the richest and most superb throne which has ever been seen in the world.

Contrast Shah Jahan's wasteful expenditures in constructing lofty buildings, with Sher Shah Suri who for example spent State revenue in constructing 5 highways and 700 sarais where each was used as an inn, health & educational centre.

Bernier says : "this country is ruined by the necessity of defraying the numerous charges required to maintain the splendor of courts and to pay a large army maintain for the purpose of keeping people in subjection."
Show me a single country where famine did not happen in medieval era? On which scale you are criticizing Shah Jahan? On Modern scale? Mughals were far better than British. Show me a single king of medieval era who did not engage in warfare. Yes, Mughals had too many problems during Kandahar conflicts but India too had many internal problems during 1971. So to to clean up own problem India should not have helped Bangladeshis, what do you think?

Before you criticize Mughals, you should know when Babur attacked India his soldiers killed more afghan muslims than Indian Hindus. In medieval era no matter which was your religion if you cant obey your ruler you are finished. Farmers irrespective of their religion, if they dont pay tax were subject to be persecuted. Mughal Ijaradars tortured Sindhi Muslim peasants as well.

During Deccan conflict, in one incident, some Muslim soldiers were captured, Kaji said hence they are Muslims they should not be executed, then Aurongjeb requested Kaji to see any other law apart from Hanafi law to save empire, then Kaji ordered those soldiers to be killed and this order was obeyed.

Dont think medieval History is only Hindu vs Muslims thing. It was an era power struggle, religion and language were just mere helpers to fulfill your objective, for example shivaji used Marathi Nationalism to achieve his goal, he did not follow it.

Now that you mention Indian GDP, let me cover that as well.
In Shah Jahan's rule 36.5 % of the entire assessed revenue of Mughal empire was allotted to sixty eight princes and Amirs.
Further 25% to 587 senior officers.
Thus 62% of the wealth of 220 million rupees of Mughal empire was arrogated by 665 elite individuals.
What did the commoners get, other than toiling to generate all that revenue, even to the cost of life, family, honour.

Regards,
Virendra
Show me a single Medieval Government which used it's most budget to help people. Even when British empire was flourishing even then many poor British migrated to new world. British empire is in modern era all though.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
That is yet to be settled.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-41.html#post496979
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...7120-taj-mahal-tejo-mahalaya-controversy.html
If Taj Mahal is a ShahJahan sanctioned creation from the scratch, how is it that the official Journal of the Imperial courts says at page 403 volume 1 :
"Raja Man Singh's Manzil was acquired from Jai Singh by emperor ShahJahan for burying the queen"
Sure I don't need to remind anyone that Manzil is persian for 'Mansion'
And who would name a cenotaphe, a burial place as a 'Mansion'.

I'll ignore Jaziya etc for a while, please expand on the economic prosperity part and how we can attribute all that to the actions of Mughal empire.

Regards,
Virendra
The Tejo Mahala controversy was done by P.N. Oak who is regarded as a crackpot by all renowned historians. As for the controversy itself, Taj Mahal was built by Shah Jahan and that is history. Most of the info saying otherwise is from a blog which we cannot trust.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Yes, there are many theories on the length of Yugas and consequently the time when one ends and other begins.
But the cyclic nature of Yugas is accepted by most camps/theories and ancient civilizations.
There is broad agreement that either :
a) we're nearing the end of Kali Yuga in few decades from now
or
b) we have already left it, having recently come into Dwapar Yuga few centuries back (around 1700 A.D. as you say).

This difference again as I said, is because some people interpret Yugas as equal duration (i.e. we're still in KY) while others say 4:3:2:1 ratio for Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali yugas (i.e. we've passed into DY).
The advocates of unequal durations are invoking astronomical arguments based on elliptical-overlapping orbits of our Sun and the Sirius B.
If one wants to dive deep into it, there's a lengthy youtube video to watch- v=put hlfYHAV1i8w
It has a lot of things, but you can leave rest and concern only on the Sun-Sirius and gallactic realignment related astronomical arguments.
I have a smaller video with only the relavant info, will try to post it later, don't have the url right now.

Regards,
Virendra
Well my grandfather was a pujari and well versed in religious matters. He had told me that this is Kali Yuga and the world is going to end. As for the other pandits saying otherwise I think they are wrong. Also the Yuags are not of equal length. In the holy Hindu scriptures it is mentioned quite clearly that Satya Yuag ,followed by the Treta Yuga,the Dwarpa Yuga and finally the Kali yuga where all the morality of the world will go away.

(P.S. I do not believe in such yugas. I a more of a evolution guy)
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Bengal Famine of 1943, India

In 1943, millions of people in Bengal starved to death, with most historians setting the toll at 3-4 million. British authorities took advantage of war-time censorship to keep the news quiet; after all, the world was in the midst of World War II. What caused this famine in India's rice belt? Who was to blame?

As so often happens in famines, this one was caused by a combination of natural factors, socio-politics, and callous leadership. The natural factors included a cyclone, which hit Bengal on January 9, 1943, flooding the rice fields with salt water and killing 14,500 people, as well as an outbreak of the Helminthosporium oryzae fungus, which took a heavy toll on the remaining rice plants. Under ordinary circumstances, Bengal might have sought to import rice from neighboring Burma, also a British colony, but it had been captured by the Japanese Imperial Army.

Obviously, those factors were beyond the control of the British Raj government in India or the Home Government in London. The series of cruel decisions that followed, however, were all down to British officials, mostly those in the Home Government. For example, they ordered the destruction of all boats and rice stocks in coastal Bengal, for fear that the Japanese might land there and seize the supplies. This left the coastal Bengalis to starve on their now-scorched earth, in what was called the "Denial Policy."

India as a whole did not have a food shortage in 1943 - in fact, it exported over 70,000 tons of rice for use by British troops and British civilians in the first seven months of the year. In addition, wheat shipments from Australia passed along the Indian coast, but were not diverted to feed the starving. Most damning of all, the United States and Canada offered the British government food aid specifically for Bengal, once the plight of its people became known, but London turned down the offer.

Why would the British government behave with such inhumane disregard for life? Indian scholars today believe that it stemmed in large part from the antipathy of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, generally considered one of the heroes of World War II. Even as other British officials like Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery and Sir Archibald Wavell, India's new viceroy, sought to get food to the hungry, Churchill blocked their efforts.

A fervent imperialist, Churchill knew that India - Britain's "Crown Jewel" - was moving toward independence, and he hated the Indian people for it. During a War Cabinet meeting, he said that the famine was the Indians' fault because they "breed like rabbits," adding "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." Informed of the rising death toll, Churchill quipped that he only regretted that Mohandas Gandhi was not among the dead.

The Bengal Famine ended in 1944, thanks to a bumper rice crop. As of this writing, the British government has yet to apologize for its role in the suffering.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@Ray German and english are very much closely connected like Bengali and Hindi. English has many German words.

What I am saying learning english is well but not english medium school as it destroys our culture.

Nevertheless Hindi considering it's very large number of native speakers, is safe and so is Bengali, because of Bangladesh, my worries are Marathi, Tamil, Telegu and Assamese these languages.

Btw not all English medium schools teach mother tongue, CBSE and ICSE dont follow 3 language formula.

I did not insult you in my last post, I said when our existence(in importance which comes first) is in danger because of Global warming and we still dont care, then how can we expect people to value our culture and language etc which are secondary in importance. I never insulted you. :)
English and German have near similar words but not the Grammar or the cojointing of words or "sandhi".

Sanskrit and German are near similar.

Similarities between German and Sanskrit
After studying German grammer and while studying Sanskrit grammer, I came across some very interesting similarities between the two. Perhaps this is one of the reason why the "Aryan" theory came into existence after Europeans discovered the linguistic similarities of the ancient Indians with Europeans. The similarity is the underlying base for the Indo-Germanic languages. However to my mind the root cause of this similarity is not because European sprache spread across the globe towards the East along with Aryans (the theory has now been established as a bunkum except being tenaciously held by some racists and Marxists), but rather Sanskrit spread towards Europe which was at that point of time a mainly barabarian regime devoid of any capability of constructing a civilized form of language. Sanskrit was probably then as popular as English is today and thus early Europeans eagerly and zealously adopted the syntax as their base.
Coming to the similarities that I observed -
1. Declension of adjectives - In German adjectives are declined based on gender, number and cases. In sanskrit the adjectives are declined based on number, gender and cases. Declension of adjectives in Sanskrit follow their resp. nouns which they modify.
2. In German nouns differ on the basis of gender, i.e. each noun can be classified into masculine, feminine and neuter gender much like that in Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, in addition nouns follow declension on the basis of cases and numbers, apart from genders (Shabdaroop).
3. Declension of pronouns in number, gender and cases - ihm, ihn, er, sie, ich, du, mich, mir, dich, dir etc. Similarly Sanskrit has declension of pronouns in number, gender and cases (ayam, aham, tvam, mama, tava, te, me, vayam etc.)
4. The prefixes which add to the verbs to form new verbs in German like emp, be, ent etc,. are similar to Upasargas in Sanskrit which add to the verbs in the beginning to form new verbs. There are 20 such Upasargas or prefixes - like pra para, apa, sam, ni etc.
5. Short form of language constructs - German language has short forms like da, im, am. Sanskrit has short forms like te, me, nau, nah, vah
6. Avyayas in Sanskrit which does not change in cases, genders or numbers but drive cases in a sentence formation are similar to adverbs like mit, gegen, on, an, in, bei which drive the case formation (e.g.dative with mit)
7. The 7 cases in Sanskrit can be mapped against the 4 cases in German (Nominative - prathama, Accusative - dwitia, tritiya, saptami, Possessive - sasthi and Dative - chaturthi, panchami
8. There are in several word formations - e.g Nacht - Nakta (both means night), tochter - duhita (Persian -dukhtar as intermediate, means daughter), hansa-hamsa, stern-tara (star) etc.
9. Compound words - German language has these monstrous compound words (combination of two or three words) and Sanskrit has the "sandhi" words which are equally monstrous
jabdakhata: Similarities between German and Sanskrit
Bengali is also similar to Bengali. Like German, there are many impersonal constructions. When expressing coldness/hunger the expression is "amar thaan'da lagch'he" (Mir ist kalt) "amar khidaa legech'he" (Mir ist hungrig), which literally means "to me there is cold"/"to me there is hunger".

Also the verb is at the end of a sentence.

German for I will be waiting for you = Ich werde auf dich warten

Bengali = āmi āpanāra jan'ya apēkṣā karbo.

I am still at a loss as to how a language can destroy a culture.

Religious fervour or imposition of Urdu in East Pakistan did not destroy the Bengali culture.

As far as insulting me is concerned, it really does not worry me. I am capable to defending myself and of that I am sure. Further, this is the cyberspace and it can be wild. I accept that fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Educating every one was not contemporary state way. Show me a Hindu king who tried to educate every kid.
Right so again, who brought the points of welfare and education in this debate?
I'm yet to see the connection of this line of reasoning with the main argument.

Btw there are Rajput Muslims too, so do you think hence they converted to Islam,
I've been through this many times. Rajput is a Hindu community consisting of Hindu royals and their progeny.
It has evolved from being the upper crust of north Indian kshatriyas to a Hindu caste.
Muslims are monolithic and do not recognize any castes. One can either be a Muslim or a Rajput.
This act of being A and B at the same time is an old tactic (driven by equations of power & identity).
There's a term for royals in Muslims.too - Amir. Their progeny is called Amirzada / Mirza.
Instead of harping on the laurels of the house they left behind, better these people call themselves Mirza/Amir.
You don't get to have your foot in both the doors. Ought to pick one.

then thy suddenly became non-Indian?
:facepalm: And when did I ever said Muslims are not Indians. I don't like this debate's orientation.

Show me a single country where famine did not happen in medieval era? On which scale you are criticizing Shah Jahan? On Modern scale?
Not on modern scale. I'm not the one looking for secularism in a Mughal of Medieval era. So I don't apply modern standards on medieval history.
That ShahJahan and other Mughals were on war path is not exceptional from contemporary point of view.
Problem is, that even after sucking the people dry with taxes and hoarding huge revenue in his coffers, he prefers to wage ambitious (not of self-defense) wars when the same people were starving.
That is ShahJahan being very sensible and responsible as an Emperor.

Mughals were far better than British. Show me a single king of medieval era who did not engage in warfare.
They all did, be it for ambition or self-defense.
My problem is not with Mughals going to war, but with their timing and Imperial status (meaning you have highest revenue and thus have biggest responsibility toward the people who gave you that revenue).

Yes, Mughals had too many problems during Kandahar conflicts but India too had many internal problems during 1971. So to to clean up own problem India should not have helped Bangladeshis, what do you think?
:facepalm: Now who is pitting things on modern scale? Apples and oranges.
Was India having a once in century famine in 1971?
Was India having frequent famines in the decades before? Have you even compared the magnitude of these famines with the problems of India in 1971. (Are you reading my posts fully)?
Was Shah Jahan fighting in self-defense? Or was he pumping the public tax money in a large campaign to win an area for sheer ambition and prestige?
Did the people of Kandahar region fled and pleaded pious Shah Jahan to save them from a genocidal ruler?

Before you criticize Mughals, you should know when Babur attacked India his soldiers killed more afghan muslims than Indian Hindus.
Nobody was record keeping the exact number of casualties Babur caused in India (he was still an invader), details about the dead's religion is a far cry.

In medieval era no matter which was your religion if you cant obey your ruler you are finished. Farmers irrespective of their religion, if they dont pay tax were subject to be persecuted. Mughal Ijaradars tortured Sindhi Muslim peasants as well.
How does that prove Mughal empire was not religiously biased and monetarily so greedy that they did not hesitate from selling famine struck families as slaves to extract revenue or buy horses in exchange.
I'm not saying everything in Turkish and Mughal empires was driven by religion. but the bias and heavy usage is clearly visible.

During Deccan conflict, in one incident, some Muslim soldiers were captured, Kaji said hence they are Muslims they should not be executed, then Aurongjeb requested Kaji to see any other law apart from Hanafi law to save empire, then Kaji ordered those soldiers to be killed and this order was obeyed.
And what can we prove with that one incident? I can cite umpteen number of cases where native Kings trusted muslims and patronized Islam (many times only to be stabbed in return), even when they were not some very powerful Imperials.
I'd like to know how many muslim women were sold as slaves from India and how many were forced into harems or bars nearby Akbar's residence, where the huge aggregation of 'take home' dancers led to frequent scuffle among men. Muslim women are supposed to be behind the veil. So who were these women?
Yes it was overruled sometimes when it came in way of the Emperor's purpose of victory, but the huge bias did exist.

Don't think medieval History is only Hindu vs Muslims thing.
I never did. It is many things beyond that.

It was an era power struggle, religion and language were just mere helpers to fulfill your objective, for example shivaji used Marathi Nationalism to achieve his goal, he did not follow it.
Strange that only Islam had the habit of getting used like that.
Don't drag other religions into it. Nobody waged a Jihad quoting from Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism.

Show me a single Medieval Government which used it's most budget to help people. Even when British empire was flourishing even then many poor British migrated to new world. British empire is in modern era all though.
Please stop this sommersault. I'm not the one who deviated discussion into welfare states.
Medieval India was not an Independent entity.
Medieval India and majority of its native Kingdoms were under the boots of Turks and Mughals.
Medieval India gave up its taxes and crops to feed the coffers of Turkish/Mughal Imperial States.
So who is responsible to cover the contingency of famines and provide relief when there's dire need of it?
The one who collects taxes and issues farmans to the subjects .. The Imperial throne.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
The Tejo Mahala controversy was done by P.N. Oak who is regarded as a crackpot by all renowned historians.
Shooting the messenger.
I couldn't care lesser if all the renowned historians would tell me Martians used to stop at Moon as a Sarai before landing on Earth.
I prefer the truth coming from a two faced ugly monster, than the lies of a sweet fairy.

Those eminent historians aren't authors of primary sources of history.
They only (mis) interpret the primary sources.
Oak didn't pull things out of a hat. He has duly quoted the same primary sources of medieval history, just like the eminent historians who regard those diverging otherwise as 'crackpots'.
He may err as many times as any other historian whom one loves to swear by.

As for the controversy itself, Taj Mahal was built by Shah Jahan and that is history. Most of the info saying otherwise is from a blog which we cannot trust.
No Oak is not the only one claiming a different origin for Taj and the blog (whicever) is not the only place from where "most of the info saying otherwise" comes.
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137
Right so again, who brought the points of welfare and education in this debate?
I'm yet to see the connection of this line of reasoning with the main argument.
You said this-
So you mean the Mughals educated or tried to educate every kid, free treatment, maintained law & order and fought back invaders?
And the Indian Kings did not do all that? :hmm:
Where is all this coming from ?? :D
So I brought Social welfare state.

I've been through this many times. Rajput is a Hindu community consisting of Hindu royals and their progeny.
It has evolved from being the upper crust of north Indian kshatriyas to a Hindu caste.
Muslims are monolithic and do not recognize any castes. One can either be a Muslim or a Rajput.
This act of being A and B at the same time is an old tactic (driven by equations of power & identity).
There's a term for royals in Muslims.too - Amir. Their progeny is called Amirzada / Mirza.
Instead of harping on the laurels of the house they left behind, better these people call themselves Mirza/Amir.
You don't get to have your foot in both the doors. Ought to pick one.
Rajput is not a caste, it is group of people with mixed Huna and Indian ethnicity. Hunas attacked India and then settled in Rajputana area and married Indian woman and converted to Hinduism. Just like some Jats converted to Islam.

:facepalm: And when did I ever said Muslims are not Indians. I don't like this debate's orientation.
I cant find exactly where, but once you said "our people like Shibaji or Rana"

Not on modern scale. I'm not the one looking for secularism in a Mughal of Medieval era. So I don't apply modern standards on medieval history.
That ShahJahan and other Mughals were on war path is not exceptional from contemporary point of view.
Problem is, that even after sucking the people dry with taxes and hoarding huge revenue in his coffers, he prefers to wage ambitious (not of self-defense) wars when the same people were starving.
That is ShahJahan being very sensible and responsible as an Emperor.
btw all medieval kings used to fight each other.

They all did, be it for ambition or self-defense.
My problem is not with Mughals going to war, but with their timing and Imperial status (meaning you have highest revenue and thus have biggest responsibility toward the people who gave you that revenue).


:facepalm: Now who is pitting things on modern scale? Apples and oranges.
Was India having a once in century famine in 1971?
Was India having frequent famines in the decades before? Have you even compared the magnitude of these famines with the problems of India in 1971. (Are you reading my posts fully)?
Was Shah Jahan fighting in self-defense? Or was he pumping the public tax money in a large campaign to win an area for sheer ambition and prestige?
Did the people of Kandahar region fled and pleaded pious Shah Jahan to save them from a genocidal ruler?
You have some good points, again I say medieval kings were like this. For example when France was starving then French Government declared war on English on American liberation war.

Nobody was record keeping the exact number of casualties Babur caused in India (he was still an invader), details about the dead's religion is a far cry.
If you read Guru Nanak and other contemporary writers' writing you will find not only Hindus even many Muslims too opposed Babur. It was also said due to Babur's invasion Muslims were not able to offer Namaz 5 times in a day. In Rudouli Mughals killed Muslim saints too. Richrad Eton says there is no evidence that show Mughals persecuted Hindus first instead they attacked Muslims more.

And what can we prove with that one incident? I can cite umpteen number of cases where native Kings trusted muslims and patronized Islam (many times only to be stabbed in return), even when they were not some very powerful Imperials.
I'd like to know how many muslim women were sold as slaves from India and how many were forced into harems or bars nearby Akbar's residence, where the huge aggregation of 'take home' dancers led to frequent scuffle among men. Muslim women are supposed to be behind the veil. So who were these women?
Yes it was overruled sometimes when it came in way of the Emperor's purpose of victory, but the huge bias did exist.
It proves Mughals were against any one who opposed them. Be it Hindu and Muslim. Alauddin Khilji killed 30,000 Muslims in 1 day just for revolting. But I do admit Hindu's Hindu religion many times provided extra excuse to torture them through out medieval history.

Strange that only Islam had the habit of getting used like that.
Don't drag other religions into it. Nobody waged a Jihad quoting from Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism.
They did, Sultan Mahmud after getting recognition from Khalifa, declared he would wage Jihad against Hindus of India, every year, Akbar himself declared Jihad against Mebar and declared Mughal's victory as "victory of Islam" over Hindus.

Please stop this sommersault. I'm not the one who deviated discussion into welfare states.
Medieval India was not an Independent entity.
Medieval India and majority of its native Kingdoms were under the boots of Turks and Mughals.
Medieval India gave up its taxes and crops to feed the coffers of Turkish/Mughal Imperial States.
So who is responsible to cover the contingency of famines and provide relief when there's dire need of it?
The one who collects taxes and issues farmans to the subjects .. The Imperial throne.

Regards,
Virendra
Despite all famines(I agree to your logic) there was little to do, considering primitive transport system. Mughal Government policy was a bit contradictory. Farmers should be given minimum requirements for their livelihood, same time Mughal Jaigirdar and ijaradar system used to torture farmers.

You are saying that hence there were famines so Mughals at first needed to take care of people completely like a way modern government does, it is modern way.
 
Last edited:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top