The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[Galaxy]

That issue was dead and buried as it took the thread OT. but before you ask others to read all the posts, did you read yourself? Just because you kept saying a 100 times be was Uzbek, does it make him not an "Indian". Do you know his mother was a Sindhi? That he was born in Sindh? By your own definition of those who you qualify as Indian pre 1947, Akbar was born within those boundaries.

He asked this question about defination of Indian and about Akbar. So replied.

Hamida Banu Begum mother of Akbar was born in 1527, to Shaikh Ali Akbar Jami, a Persian Shia, and a friend and preceptor to Mirza Hindal, the youngest son of first Mughal Emperor and Humayun's father, Babur. Ali Akbar Jami was also known as Mir Baba Dost, who belonged to the lineage of Ahmad Jami Zinda-fil. Hamida Banu's mother was Mah Afraz Begum, who married Ali Akbar Jami in Paat, Sindh.

 

[Abir]

What about the people from Arunachal Pradesh? Are they Indian too? They have never been included in what you call subcontinent, nor does Indian history ever mention them.

 

[Galaxy]

@ Abir

I have answer for all your questions. Don't know should i reply or not as it will be not related to topic.

 

[Yusuf]

He asked this question about defination of Indian and about Akbar. So replied.

Funny you bolded all that was convenient for you, but didn't bold the part which mentioned she was settled in Paat, Sindh where Humayun married Hamida and it was the same place where Akbar was born. Exactly what we call selective listening, selective posting etc.

Shahzade (son of the emperor) Akbar was born on 23 November 1542 (the fourth day of Rajab, 949 AH), at the Rajput Fortress of Umerkot in Sindh (in modern day Pakistan), where Emperor Humayun and his recently wedded wife, Hamida Banu Begum of Paat village were taking refuge. At birth Akbar was named Badruddin, because he was born on the night of a badr (full moon).

So Akbar was born in Sindh, is he indian or Uzbeki though his ancestry may be anything?

 

[Yusuf]

What about the people from Arunachal Pradesh? Are they Indian too? They have never been included in what you call subcontinent, nor does Indian history ever mention them.

Tshering from Sikkim will not like this question nor the answer if it says be is not Indian.

 

[Galaxy]

Funny you bolded all that was convenient for you, but didn't bold the part which mentioned she was settled in Paat, Sindh where Humayun married Hamida and it was the same place where Akbar was born. Exactly what we call selective listening, selective posting etc.

Shahzade (son of the emperor) Akbar was born on 23 November 1542 (the fourth day of Rajab, 949 AH), at the Rajput Fortress of Umerkot in Sindh (in modern day Pakistan), where Emperor Humayun and his recently wedded wife, Hamida Banu Begum of Paat village were taking refuge. At birth Akbar was named Badruddin, because he was born on the night of a badr (full moon).

So Akbar was born in Sindh, is he indian or Uzbeki though his ancestry may be anything?

I bolded which was important. He was born in Rajput fortess in Sindh, But that is irrelevant as it's only place. His Father/Mother were not Indian. It goes to Uzbek/Persian.

Hamida Banu Begum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[warriorextreme]

What about the people from Arunachal Pradesh? Are they Indian too? They have never been included in what you call subcontinent, nor does Indian history ever mention them.

Ancient literature mentions places like kambojdesha(cambodia) and aravsthan(Arabia)...

 

[Yusuf]

I bolded which was important. He was born in Rajput fortess in Sindh, But that is irrelevant as it's only place. His Father/Mother were not Indian. It goes to Uzbek/Persian.

Hamida Banu Begum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His place of birth was not important enough to be bolded by you?
He is born within the confines of the sub continent. His parents can be born anywhere.

My sister and brother in law are born in India. Their son in Australia. Which country's citizen is my nephew?

Don't get crazy logic as per your convenience.

 

[Yusuf]

The threads scope has to be either enlarged to include all kings, and also define who qualifies to be called an "Indian" pre 1947. This is crazy. People have called people non Indians just because of ancestry or alleged hatred for Hindus. Funny logic.

 

[Galaxy]

His place of birth was not important enough to be bolded by you?
He is born within the confines of the sub continent. His parents can be born anywhere.

Don't get crazy logic as per your convenience.

Tomorrow, an American couples comes to India and give birth to a boy. Will that person would be Indian ? No, He will be american.

Yes, If that american settles in India by permanent citizenship. Then next generation would be Indian (by nationality) but not by ethnicity.

My sister and brother in law are born in India. Their son in Australia. Which country's citizen is my nephew?

He will be Australian as per citizenship but he will remain Indian as ethnicity in future too. Have you wondered why Indians in US are Indo-Americans and not Americans ?

You are mixing Invasion with Citizenship. It's totally different topic and totally different thing.

 

[The Messiah]

Agreed, but Persian the language of the elite was foreign, so the ruling class thought of themselves as a different (superior?) cultural entity. It was only later that attempts were made to translate Indian philosophy into Persian, but these attempts were cut short.




True

Persian has been replaced by english.

So according to that none of us are Indians.

 

[The Messiah]

I bolded which was important. He was born in Rajput fortess in Sindh, But that is irrelevant as it's only place. His Father/Mother were not Indian. It goes to Uzbek/Persian.

Hamida Banu Begum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ancestors were not Indian either.

How long should i go back ?

 

[Yusuf]

Tomorrow, an American couples comes to India and give birth to a boy. Will that person would be Indian ? No, He will be american.

Yes, If that american settles in India by permanent citizenship. Then next generation would be Indian (by nationality) but not by ethnicity.



He will be Australian as per citizenship but he will remain Indian as ethnicity. Have you wondered why Indians in US are Indo-Americans and not Americans ?

You are mixing Invasion with Citizenship. It's totally different topic and totally different thing.

If he is born in India, he will be indian. What contradictory statements are you passing just to prove that Akbar is not an Indian. That fella was born in the subcontinent. How hard is that to accept? His parents can be from Mars. It does not matter. My nephew is of Indian origin. Does not matter. He is an Aussie citizen. Why are you mixing ethnicity and nationality?

 

[The Messiah]

If he is born in India, he will be indian. What contradictory statements are you passing just to prove that Akbar is not an Indian. That fella was born in the subcontinent. How hard is that to accept? His parents can be from Mars. It does not matter. My nephew is of Indian origin. Does not matter. He is an Aussie citizen. Why are you mixing ethnicity and nationality?

arre yusuf mian if akbar converted to hinduism he would be Indian.

 

[Galaxy]

Your ancestors were not Indian either.

How long should i go back ?

As much you want. :thumb:

Start with 2,500-3,000 years ago. 8)

 

[civfanatic]

As much you want. :thumb:

Start with 2,500-3,000 years ago. 8)

I'll start with 50,000 years ago. You're an African, deal with it.

 

[Yusuf]

Your ancestors were not Indian either.

How long should i go back ?

Duh!!! Ethiopians if we go back to the Neanderthals!!!

 

[pmaitra]

Both are fine



Born in the Subcontinent, east of the Indus

That is the criteria I would apply (something like that)

That is not logical. Look at the map below. You are suggesting that those born in Harappa are Indians and those born in Mohenjo-Daro are foreigners.

 

[warriorextreme]

I do not understand this...why are we trying to attribute nationality to any of these kings..they had their own kingdoms....some where locals some invaded us and did horrific stuff to local people...India as a country came into existence in 1947...long before this there were many kingdoms fighting with each other,even long long before this they all were part country named aryavart which is not the reality now....everything is changed and so lets call those people indians who were born here after 1947.

[COLOR=#fafafa !important]

[/COLOR]​

 

[Galaxy]

If he is born in India, he will be indian. What contradictory statements are you passing just to prove that Akbar is not an Indian. That fella was born in the subcontinent. How hard is that to accept? His parents can be from Mars. It does not matter. My nephew is of Indian origin. Does not matter. He is an Aussie citizen. Why are you mixing ethnicity and nationality?

Well, That's different perception.

There is difference between Aussie citizen as government gave him citizenship but Invaders were forcefully entered India by Killing Millions. If your logic, Then most of the Invaders were Indian except few. They lived in India and so become Indian ?

Tomorrow, 1 Million Chinese invades India and settles in India, they will be also Indians. Isn't it ?