Reassessing the Mughals

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,938
Likes
6,880
Country flag
Reassessing the Mughals



Every society has a collective memory of its past, but each generation interprets it according to their present perspective. Sometimes, the past may be rejected as an obstacle to future progress, but at other times it is used as an inspiration for a struggle against present weaknesses.

History shows that when a country is colonised, its people and resources are used to further strengthen colonial power. After acquiring political power in India, the East India Company was surprised at the widespread popularity of the Mughal Empire. Although, the Mughal Empire was in the process of decline and the emperor had lost his authority, the people of India were still loyal and respectful to him.

Nadir Shah, who occupied Delhi after defeating the Mughals in 1737, failed to replicate the glory of the Mughal rule. He left India with the looted treasury of the Mughals while the dynasty remained intact. Likewise, Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded the subcontinent several times, but had no aspirations to rule it. He looted and plundered, forcibly married a Mughal princess and left for Afghanistan along with the acquired wealth and the family of his newly-wed wife. This gave the Marathas an opportunity to oust the Mughal emperor and to plant their candidate on the throne, but they still preferred to rule in the name of the Mughal emperor.

History has shining examples of religious bigotry being shunned in order to accommodate marginalised communities into the mainstream
Following the same tradition, the East India Company recognised the emperor as the legitimate ruler of India and paid homage to him. Even though the company had political power, the Mughal emperor remained popular among his subjects. Therefore, in the first phase, the company ruled in the name of the Mughal emperor, posing as the inheritors of the Mughal Empire and retaining nearly all its institutions and etiquettes.

However, the policy and the attitude of the company changed when it gained power and decided to create its own administrative set-up to get recognition as the legitimate rulers of India. At this stage, the Mughal past was denied and portrayed as despotic and oppressive. The idea behind the motive was to convey a message to the people of the subcontinent that the company had liberated them from a tyrannical rule and established a benevolent and enlightened government.

The company further propagated their campaign through history writing. The British historians published a series of books on the Sultanate and Mughal history, distorting it in order to prove that the Muslim rule was tyrannical and biased against the Hindus. Elliot's History of India: as told by its own historians I(1848) is one of the series of history books which condemned the Mughal past but justified the British rule.

The Mughal past was again interpreted differently during the freedom movement against the British Raj. The historians of the subcontinent, under the influence of nationalism, glorified the Mughals whose rule culturally integrated the Hindus and the Muslims as one community. Their argument was that the Mughal rule created a pluralistic society in which there was no religious discrimination. It was the basis of their popularity which had strengthened their empire.

In the 1920s, history was communalised and historians on both sides condemned as well as admired the Mughal past. There was also a conflict in history writing between secularist and religious minded historians. To the secularists, Akbar was a ruler who 'Indianised' the Mughal Empire and laid down the foundations of religious tolerance and communal harmony. During his reign both the Hindus and the Muslims shared administration and contributed in the expansion of the empire.

But according to the Islamist historians, Akbar was the cause of the Mughal decline as he appointed the Hindus on high posts, depriving the Muslims of their high status. They admired Aurangzeb who deviated from the policy of Akbar and introduced religious practices, which alienated the non-Muslim subjects. In Pakistani history writing, Akbar has no place while Aurangzeb is regarded as a pious ruler, admired and projected as the best emperor.

There is a need to reassess the Mughal past in view of our present situation. We must try to understand why their rule flourished for such a long period (1526-1857). The reason for its continuity and popularity was its policy of religious tolerance and providing opportunities to talented people to play their role in administration, irrespective of their creed, caste and ethnicity. It respected the local traditions and preserved their values and institutions. Marginalised communities can only be assimilated into the society as long as there is religious tolerance.

Reassessing the Mughals - Newspaper - DAWN.COM


Mughals are not popular in the masses contrary to the authors view. Mughal empire is non existent in 1857 only the name remained. By the end of 17 century Mugals have declined.

Only thing good about Mugals is, they never tried to transfer the wealth of India to other countries.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,720
The are various views, depending on the historian's perspective.

The medieval mindset overpowered any societal good for the general mass that the Mughals may have done.

In the field of arts and culinary skill, they added their distinct form that added to the Indian vista.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,696
Likes
3,005
There is a need to reassess the Mughal past in view of our present situation. We must try to understand why their rule flourished for such a long period (1526-1857).
Putting aside the sickular grapevine, DAWN is off (by 150 yrs) about the figures too. Mughals ceased to flourish by 1707 A.D. as a fact and in my opinion much before that.
 

Jailor

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
221
Likes
771
Country flag
Nope mugal were mix of Mongol and Persian . Mongol directly attacked in 1200 and failed.
Yeah, no persians?
Babur was a uzbek, secondly they were horseback archers, not persian warriors, they might have picked up a few persians, afghans here and there but they were majorly mongols.
Persia itself got overrun by mongols so much so that they themselves say around 40% of their population was wiped out and their Dna was altered by the wrath of mongols.

Rest you can imagine whatever you want.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,738
Likes
23,018
Country flag
Yeah, no persians?
Babur was a uzbek, secondly they were horseback archers, not persian warriors, they might have picked up a few persians, afghans here and there but they were majorly mongols.
Persia itself got overrun by mongols so much so that they themselves say around 40% of their population was wiped out and their Dna was altered by the wrath of mongols.

Rest you can imagine whatever you want.
They were all mix races. Yet mugal themselves were proud about their Persian origin and wrote about it extensively. Anyway point still stands that direct Mongol attacks of 1200 were failed .
Let's agree to disagree on the rest .
 

Jailor

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
221
Likes
771
Country flag
They were all mix races. Yet mugal themselves were proud about their Persian origin and wrote about it extensively. Anyway point still stands that direct Mongol attacks of 1200 were failed .
Let's agree to disagree on the rest .
Yes, everyone was mixed race, even changez khan started mixing the defeated tribes into his tribes, but the fact that makes them mongol is mongol way of fighting i.e. horseback archery and quick hit and run tactics not the persian way of fighting.
Secondly he was uzbek the area under mongol khanate, of course mongols must have intermixed with local defeated uzbeks too so mixing doesn't change their mongolness.

Thirdly persia got slaughtered by mongols and babur first conquered kabul and then launched attacks on Delhi, so even if the persians got picked up which i doubt still doesn't change the fact it was a mongol horseback army.

In 1200 they lost but to whom? Delhi itself was under islamic invaders and depends what you call India at that time because much of pakistan was majority hindu and under mongol occupation that too was Indian territory, you can check the mongol empire.

Pakistan of today was under mongols so they did won Indian territory and northern India was under islamic occupation so, there's no WE STOPPED MONGOLS.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,738
Likes
23,018
Country flag
Yes, everyone was mixed race, even changez khan started mixing the defeated tribes into his tribes, but the fact that makes them mongol is mongol way of fighting i.e. horseback archery and quick hit and run tactics not the persian way of fighting.
Secondly he was uzbek the area under mongol khanate, of course mongols must have intermixed with local defeated uzbeks too so mixing doesn't change their mongolness.

Thirdly persia got slaughtered by mongols and babur first conquered kabul and then launched attacks on Delhi, so even if the persians got picked up which i doubt still doesn't change the fact it was a mongol horseback army.

In 1200 they lost but to whom? Delhi itself was under islamic invaders and depends what you call India at that time because much of pakistan was majority hindu and under mongol occupation that too was Indian territory, you can check the mongol empire.

Pakistan of today was under mongols so they did won Indian territory and northern India was under islamic occupation so, there's no WE STOPPED MONGOLS.
Delhi sultanate has armies made up of Turks afgans and indians too. Ruler may be Islamic but they were using army and resources provided by US majorally.

Much in the same way the so called great mugal empire was a compromise between Mughal and rajputs . And British empire was a compromise between hundreds of Indian states who remained autonomous.

Horseback Archery was adopted by afagans and turks too. And Mughal won because of barood not horse back riding.

So question is where did the barood came from? Also Mughal adopted persian way of rule including Farsi as state language. All point to Persian heritage.
 

Jailor

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
221
Likes
771
Country flag
Delhi sultanate has armies made up of Turks afgans and indians too. Ruler may be Islamic but they were using army and resources provided by US majorally.

Much in the same way the so called great mugal empire was a compromise between Mughal and rajputs . And British empire was a compromise between hundreds of Indian states who remained autonomous.

Horseback Archery was adopted by afagans and turks too. And Mughal won because of barood not horse back riding.

So question is where did the barood came from? Also Mughal adopted persian way of rule including Farsi as state language. All point to Persian heritage.
wishful thinking, resources were their's because they won them after defeating the Indian or rather delhi king(many kingdoms then no India) and India doesn't start at IB of today it started at wherever there were hindus so, they conquered the area called Pakistan today so they did conquer Indian territory hence the original argument that we stopped them is false.
secondly Delhi sultanate did contain hindus in their ranks but just a few, still it was a combined effort by majorly outsider warriors plus a few hindus still doesn't qualify for WE stopped the mongols, the credit goes to Delhi sultunate.

Rest your post is fanboyism rajputs were reduced to deserts of rajasthan (They were found in Delhi,UP,Pakistan etc too) and barring a few all of them ACCEPTED MUGHAL SUPERMACY, just like maratha empire forced mughals to accept their supermacy and Delhi was indirectly under maratha empire.

Horse back riders is not same as horse back archery, turks are cousins of mongols, so yes they were horseback archers themselves.
If it were so easy to learn how come Indian kings couldn't learn it?

Mughals ADOPTED ,yes they adopted it, just like Pakistan adopted a UP language called urdu which is nothing but khadi boli with persion arabic words added heavily to it. In mughal times poets,scholars etc were persians.

Your British point doesn't even require a rebuttal.
British ruled entire India and 75% of world at that time. By occupying or ruling it doesn't mean every fucking territory needs to have a english king it means they accept English supermacy which all of them did to save their "autonomous" kingdom.

Its like Pakistanis claiming victory in all 4 wars.

Barood was also present with some Indian kingdoms of that time but they couldn't win still.
Also by your logic Indians won against outsiders due to elephants in medieval India, question is would they have without elephants?
Would british have won without guns?
Would Indians have survived the invasions if not for huge numerically superior armies?
Would US be strongest military without it's advanced weapons?

It doesn't matter what they used they WON that matters.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,738
Likes
23,018
Country flag
wishful thinking, resources were their's because they won them after defeating the Indian or rather delhi king(many kingdoms then no India) and India doesn't start at IB of today it started at wherever there were hindus so, they conquered the area called Pakistan today so they did conquer Indian territory hence the original argument that we stopped them is false.
secondly Delhi sultanate did contain hindus in their ranks but just a few, still it was a combined effort by majorly outsider warriors plus a few hindus still doesn't qualify for WE stopped the mongols, the credit goes to Delhi sultunate.

Rest your post is fanboyism rajputs were reduced to deserts of rajasthan (They were found in Delhi,UP,Pakistan etc too) and barring a few all of them ACCEPTED MUGHAL SUPERMACY, just like maratha empire forced mughals to accept their supermacy and Delhi was indirectly under maratha empire.

Horse back riders is not same as horse back archery, turks are cousins of mongols, so yes they were horseback archers themselves.
If it were so easy to learn how come Indian kings couldn't learn it?

Mughals ADOPTED ,yes they adopted it, just like Pakistan adopted a UP language called urdu which is nothing but khadi boli with persion arabic words added heavily to it. In mughal times poets,scholars etc were persians.

Your British point doesn't even require a rebuttal.
British ruled entire India and 75% of world at that time. By occupying or ruling it doesn't mean every fucking territory needs to have a english king it means they accept English supermacy which all of them did to save their "autonomous" kingdom.

Its like Pakistanis claiming victory in all 4 wars.

Barood was also present with some Indian kingdoms of that time but they couldn't win still.
Also by your logic Indians won against outsiders due to elephants in medieval India, question is would they have without elephants?
Would british have won without guns?
Would Indians have survived the invasions if not for huge numerically superior armies?
Would US be strongest military without it's advanced weapons?

It doesn't matter what they used they WON that matters.
You seem hurt by something . Mughal themselves claim Persian heritage. Not my fault..

Regarding history of empires .things were far more complex then you want to see in your black and white view.

Tell me why India is still majorly Hindu despite all these turk Mughal rule if rajput failed?? Why didn't we end up like Iran completely islamized??

Because rajputs forced mughals and before turks to share power and back off from conversion in their kingdoms.

But this nounce is too much for you to accept .
 

Jailor

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
221
Likes
771
Country flag
You seem hurt by something . Mughal themselves claim Persian heritage. Not my fault..

Regarding history of empires .things were far more complex then you want to see in your black and white view.

Tell me why India is still majorly Hindu despite all these turk Mughal rule if rajput failed?? Why didn't we end up like Iran completely islamized??

Because rajputs forced mughals and before turks to share power and back off from conversion in their kingdoms.

But this nounce is too much for you to accept .
yeah, you are that guy anonymous right? aka khsitij b etc etc
Forget babur, Check the map of "India" during mongol empire and navigate the territory under mongol empire and do not forget Pakistan was also part of "India" then and under mongols.

You said "WE" stopped mongols "WE" were not Indians but Delhi sultanate and India didn't start at Delhi but boundaries of Afghanistan-pakistan border and also there was no India but a bunch of kingdoms with fluid and ever changing boundaries.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,738
Likes
23,018
Country flag
yeah, you are that guy anonymous right? aka khsitij b etc etc
Forget babur, Check the map of "India" during mongol empire and navigate the territory under mongol empire and do not forget Pakistan was also part of "India" then and under mongols.

You said "WE" stopped mongols "WE" were not Indians but Delhi sultanate and India didn't start at Delhi but boundaries of Afghanistan-pakistan border and also there was no India but a bunch of kingdoms with fluid and ever changing boundaries.
Sigh ! Go to strategic forum and you may find my posts debating anonymous.

Have a nice day.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top