The Mughal Era in India

Locked
Ashok Sarraff
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 00:44

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ashok Sarraff »

Met one Islamic-Dravid guy yesterday who seemed doubly brainwashed. First level brainwashing is the Dravidian natives-Aryan invaders type thoughts prevalent in TN. The second was the usual Islamic thoughts (Allah exists, everything in Quran is 100% scientific, Mughals built India, ME conflict and terrorism is happening not because of Islam but due to the West, Arabia contributed everything to science, Islam is the most peaceful and non-violent religion etc.). Sheesh. I spent two hours educating him about the truth, but to no avail. And to think that this person is a VP level guy in an engineering co. There is really no cure to some diseases.
SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SagarAg »

Saar he is affected with the disease with the following symptoms. We should give it a name.

Symptoms: "Islam is RoP. ISIS etc, etc, do not represent true meaning of Islam. Its all American conspiracy"
Ashok Sarraff
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 00:44

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ashok Sarraff »

^At least he was honest enough to say that I am going to hell as a non-Muslim and that while Allah is the only true God, Shiva, Ganesha, and other Indian Gods were fake. Also, evolution is false and Adam and Eve undoubtedly existed according to Islamic science. :-)
SandeepA
BRFite
Posts: 720
Joined: 22 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SandeepA »

As long as the dominant narrative does not change you will find these kind of brainwashed faithfools everywhere.
Ashok Sarraff
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 00:44

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ashok Sarraff »

Double
Last edited by Ashok Sarraff on 17 Oct 2014 22:19, edited 1 time in total.
Ashok Sarraff
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 00:44

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ashok Sarraff »

^My only hope is that for betterment and development of India, someone deep in PMO is working on eradication of the virus afflicting some Indians (and Sooth Asians).
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

^ Removal of this virus will take atleast a generation if not more.
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SanjayC »

Singha wrote:Wow...
That writeup is by Sita Ram Goel.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

harbans wrote:Virendra ji, many thanks for your effort. From your link i get this:
The fate of Hindu women captured alive by Muslims was worse than death. Even as their fathers, husbands and children lay killed they had to dance and sing before Muslims and would then be given in slavery to the Muslim kings, generals, soldiers and of course Maulvis. Here is a gleeful Muslim recording of this inhuman barbaric events:

"First of all daughters of Hindu kings captured during the course of the year come and sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important foreigners. After this daughters of other Hindus dance and sing...Sultan gives them to brothers, sons of high officials etc. The third dasy also Sultan distributes girls to generals and his relatives."
[Source:Ibn Battuta (A.A.Rizvi in Tughlaq Kalin Bharath)]
Need to get an academic edu kind of link on the net to this than an archived geocities one. :)
Do keep me posted here if you get anything else of interest. Need to compile authentic links and references to the mass murder and rape that took place.
Harbans ji,
You mean you're looking for Tughlaq Kālēn Bhārat?
Why do you want to go for secondary links that only give citations, they're all the same whether geocities or any other - they have citations.
You want to verify? Check the primary source itself, that has been cited.
You want the primary sources? Get them all from Digital Library of India.
Can't get better than reading the original quote in the contemporary/primary source itself right?
Why do we believe a historian on academic edu kind of link, citing a primary source?
Because we believe in his ability and professional ethic, that yes he had accessed the source and has rendered the quote accurately.
What if you could access the source on your own and verify each and every bit? Is there anything more authentic?

Regards,
Virendra
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Anand K »

The decentralised and democratic character of the Hindu state, and the paucity of central revenue under the Hindu system of public finance, prevented Hindu princes from maintaining standing armies on a permanent war-footing.
Huh? Decentralized all right, but it was overwhelmingly feudalistic..... or oligarchic at best. The absence of cash economy and entrenched caste structures also prohibited large scale recruitment, formation of standing armies and even weakened activities like training/basing/rostering. All major empires maintained standing armies and paid in cash or other easily convertibles. Sometimes on loot like Pindaris and Mewatis. Retiring officers could also look forward to titles in some far-flung but still doable area.

And the "single arrow" thing isn't an Indian phenomenon, it's just that armies called up due to magnetism or strength of a single individual - or more importantly the leaders of individual bands owing allegiance to a certain central figure, have nothing to fight for if that single figure is gone. Especially if they have an open path to "rout" and save their skins. In Panipat-2, Hemu led an overwhelmingly Afghan army who had thrown their lot with the capable infidel instead of the popinjays back in Bengal. When he fell, the rest fled promptly. Now who was in 2nd CIC there? Or the 3rd? In Mughal side there is explicit mention of Bairam Khan and a dozen other chota-Khans, all professionals with years of warfare experience. Even if Bairam ji copped it, it might not have been like that Agra rout. Maybe. In a professional army things are usually different, cohesion may be retained even if the single figure is gone and there's a continuity of command in place. This was seen time and again in Islamic armies in their global conquests. For example in Tarain-1, junior Khalji officers rustled up forces to carry away a seriously wounded Ghauri and the senior echelons mounted a cohesive retreat. Aibek and Iltumish both distinguished themselves in these actions IIRC.
The thing is even the professional element in Indian armies, you know the hardcore old-Kshatriya noblemen types, cannot hold if the levied masses begin to fold. Too much momentum. The Roman Marian reforms had the veterans in the second and third rows to calm the younger ones [and to relieve them in intervals] in front. Their provincial spearmen/slinger/light cavalry auxiliaries were either skirmishers or harassers or mein-bhi-Madonnas in the wake of professional officers. And even here if this mass was too "green" and large to control, there goes the whole famed army! Like in Pharsalus or Munda or later in Yarmuk against the Rashidun armies. And in the Indian case there's the caste thing and "expendables from someone else's levy" thing in play.
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Rahul Mehta »

ManavBH wrote:THE DETERMINANTS OF HINDU DEFEATS

.....

THE FOREMOST FAILURE: SPIRITUAL

......

THE SECOND FAILURE: CULTURAL

.....

THE THIRD FAILURE: MENTAL

....

THE POLICIES WHICH WERE NOT PURSUED

....

ISLAM IS STILL SELF-RIGHTEOUS

.... .
Mostly disagree

The reason why islamists won several battles and also won several low level riots were

1. Mosques are community owned , while temples were almost all family owned, or owned by families. So mosques did more community work such giving weapon education , giving pensions to families of those who died for community etc. Temples just hoarded gold and plots, which eventually invaders took away anyway.

2. The interest in islam was banned and instead partnerships were promoted. This enabled islamist karigars to make better tools and better weapons. The hindu karigars collapsed due to unlimited interest rates in hindus. So hindu karigars could not make better tools and better weapons.

The ban on interest backfired when in 1100 AD Europe came with a different "court/legislature will regulate interest rates" . The european system enabled more trade and industry and so Europeans made better weapons deteafing islamists. Also, European converted whole govt into community affair, where govt itself started all sorts of community works which made their societies more cohesives. So after 1100 AD Europeans have been marching ahead defeating islamists, hindus everyone.

In India, except Sikhs, no one have fixed (1) and (2) till 1948 and so none except sikhs gave decisive defeats to islamists. The defeat given by Hemachandra was with support of Afghans i.e. Hindus under Hemachandra defeated Moguls with support of Afghans, not by themselves. And Maratha too depended on Shia for cannons. Without Shia helping Maratha , Maratha could have never defeated so many muslim rulers. And even after decades of rule, MAratha could never enable hindu karigars to make cannons, and depended on shia and later french. I measure ability of rulers NOT by area they bring under their command and taxes they collect, but the extent to which they improve weapon making ability of their subjects. And here, except sikhs, all score a huge zero. And the reason is --- none fixed the two basic drawbacks in Hindu society back then --- management of temples and interest rates.
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Rahul Mehta »

Virendra wrote:I will make a novice attempt :-

1. why didnt arrow hit Akbar?

Bairam Khan and other Chiefs had kept the teenaged Akbar miles away in the Mughal camp at - Saudhapur.

===

2. why didnt Hemachandra decide to use back seat driving strategy that Akbar used?

He was a brave warrior who had won 22 consecutive battles before Panipat 2 and commanded an army twice the Mughals. Perhaps this type is always a bit reckless in personal safety, specially when their battle record is such.

=====

3. why did Hemachandra led so many battles from front.

He had been a Military General, before he declared himself Samrat in Delhi. Leading by front was no surprise then, more so for one who is not a royal.

======

4. if afghans could defeat all Hindu Raja before Hemchandra, then why didnt Afghans defeated Hemachandra.

Hemachandra began and raised his career within Aghans only. He had good relations with Afghan soldiers and chiefs alike. Till the time he won Delhi, all was done as a military officer of Afghan administration. Why would he or Afghans go against each other, when both belonged to the same camp. Technically, he was one of them.
Even after he (a Hindu) anointed himself at the throne of Delhi (that he formally came to win as Adil Shah's Commander), his mixed origin army didn't cut him to pieces calling it a betrayal. Why?


a) His spotless military records spoke for him. A soldier always likes a leader who almost always ends up on the wining side. Universal rule of sorts.

b) He has a liberal hand. He used to distribute war booty among his soldiers very generously and was famous for that. Which soldier wouldn't like such a leader.

=====

5. why did Afghans supported Hemachandra to begin with

Given above. To add to that, Adil Shah was perceived by most as an uninterested royal who wanted Hemu to do all the sweat and blood business in fields. Moreover, Hemu always kept a mix of Hindu-Afghan soldiers to balance things up. The mix worked well because of the 2 reasons mentioned above. This in a way is what Mughals under Akbar repeated, employing Rajputs etc. Many good aspects of Sher Shah's and Hemu's administration were adopted as is, by Mughals under Akbar. Akbar seems to be a smart politcian and quick learner, one could say.

=====

6. Mughal administration didnt collapse after death of Humayun, then why did Hemachandra's administration collapsed after his death"?

Because the Army was not only routed, but chased and slaughtered, Chiefs, Officers hunted down one by one.
Besides, he hardly had a month in Delhi before Panipat II. Where was the time and opportunity to do these things that stable Kingdoms indulge in? On the other hand, Mughals had a backup in (Kabul) Afghanistan to fall back on, where nobody from India went after them.

Regards,
Virendra
We can agree and disagree. But let me give a bonus question. Why didnt Hemchandra create an all Hindu Army? Afghans were notorious for their jihad and ghazi-giri anyway. They were not no better than mughals.

If Hemu had led 22 battles (some say 34) from front, then Panipat-2 was different. Because this time, Mughals had assembled all their might. So attack from Mughals was going to be far more fierce and Hemachandra knew that. Hemachandra also didnt have a backup accepted successor in case Hemachandra were to die in battle. Despite this he led from front. IOW, he must have seen that if he doesnt lead from front, perhaps, there was no one else to lead. IOW, Hemchandra's army lacked a hierarchy with discipline and command structure. And everything was tall-leader centric.

Lets not call Hemachandra as "one of them" so soon. Many see Hemchandra as "Hindu Samrat" , someone who would have eneded Islamist rule in India , if that random stray arrow hadnt hit him.

Afghans had defeated Hindu kings were doing all sorts of ghazigiri. The "afghans are Indian , Mughals are videshi, and Afghan Hindu bhai bhai" love fest started only when Mughals came, and Afghans were unable to beat Mughals. So Afghans recruited a large number of Hindus and even started giving them promotions to apex positions like Generals because they needed Hindus to defeat Mughals. This is all documented history.

Now my original contribution to history, take it or leave it , comes. :mrgreen: . The Afghans saw that they need a huge huge manpower to defeat cannons of Mughals (and some say that Mughals and Uzbeks had better dhanush = bows and better arrows too) . Basically Afghans needed lakhs of bodies. Now lakhs of Hindus will not agree to die under an Afghan emperor. But lakhs of Hindu may rally behind a Hindu face. So they let a Hindu become emperor. But Afghans always kept much of artillery with them. And Hemachandra despite becoming emperor could NOT make an all Hindu artillery. Hemachandra defeated many Afghan rebels. But that was because he had more Afghans with him then rebels. The Afghans had taken the strategy "lets use Hemachandra and Hindus to wipe out Moghuls, and the we will defeat Hindus" !!

Whether history is repeating or not is OST\OSF and anybody's guess.

But what is WST is ---

1. The arrow wasnt all that random. There were structural weaknesses in Hemachandra and his army which forced Hemachandra to go all the way in front and there were some structural plus points in Mughuls which enabled Akbar and Bairam Khan from lead from backseat

2. The random arrow was because Moghuls had created a strategy of using cannons to kill / disperse soldiers and bodygaurds in front, and then throw 100s of arrows on soldiers. And Moghuls and uzbecks had better bows which threw arrows at a longer distance. So Hindu soldiers' arrows wont reach uzbeck hitmen while uzbeck hitmen's arrows would reach Hindu soldiers.

3. Even if Moghuls were defeated, then immidiately after that, Aghans would have resorted to ghazigiri and would have tried to dethorne Hemchandra. So even if Hemachandra had won Panipat-2 and expelled Moghuls, the fact that artillery was almost all Afghan meant that chances were high that Hindus would have lost second round between Afghans and Hindus. So claim that "if arrow hadnt come, then history would have been different" is like butterfly effect claim.

=======

Added later

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemu
Rewari was an important stopover in medieval times for traders from Iran and Iraq on the way to Delhi. Hemu started his career as a supplier of cereals to Sher Shah Suri's army, moving on to more critical supplies like saltpetre (for gunpowder) later.[8]:6 He also developed a cannon foundry in Rewari, laying the foundation of an industry in brass, copper sheets and utensils manufacture.[citation needed] Hemu obtained technical assistance for casting cannons, and for producing saltpetre, from the Portuguese in Goa, :shock: who were also helping the Vijayanagara Empire against the Deccan Sultanates in South India, by supplying cannons, gunpowder and Arabian horses.[citation needed]
OMG .... I didnt know Europeans had impact on India as back as Hemachandra !!
Last edited by Rahul Mehta on 20 Oct 2014 21:57, edited 1 time in total.
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Yayavar »

It might be worthwhile to see what this book says 'Saga of Indian Cannons' - I've not read it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Saga-Indian-C ... 8173053391
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

Why is Samrat Hemachandra called derisively as Hemu even in Independent India as if he was some school boy ?
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SBajwa »

by Rahul Mehta
Raja Hemachandra could not never enable Hindus to manufacture cannons. So his artillery was mostly runs by Afghans.
Ever Since Babar invaded India with guns (artillery)., most of the Indian Muslims were in charge of artillery (both Hindu and Islamic rajas/nawabs/etc) till India's independence.

For example Maharaja Ranjit singh (even 300 years after Babar) still had his artillery under Mian Ghaus Khan., though over all the khalsa army was in charge of Diwan Mukham Chand. Not sure about Marathas or Rajputs (probably same)

I think we the Indians even till 20th Century had a habit of making communities (Jati) based on their work.
So when Mughals showed up in India with artillery we promptly make another Jati of "Muslim artillery handlers"., which was not fixed until India became Independent.

Only now we are beginning to show up in the innovation part of the defense. Still we need to focus more on the offensive warfare (which historically we have never done). I will rather have Indian armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and in various parts of Africa trying to contain China., than just sitting at borders plugging the holes.
Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2426
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Brad Goodman »

Is there some analysis on how all dharmic empires from Delhi to South crumbled so quickly. I mean once they breached panipat it does not seem like there was much resistance across malwa plateau till they reached the vindyas and reverse happened with Maratha empire too they were also able to quickly reach Gwalior once they had crossed vindhyachal? Can some one please shed light
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Anand K »

The Portuguese sold horses and weaponry to Vijayanagar and the Bahmanis too while they were not fighting them. Hey, even SRK/Mysore/Maratha kingdoms had "it's complicated" relationships with them.


Anyway, where in the world is Airavat Singh? He had contributed two gems for dear departed BRM/SRR:

Was late medieval India ready for a Revolution in Military Affairs? : Part-I

Was late medieval India ready for a Revolution in Military Affairs?: Part-II
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Yagnasri »

Yes. I miss his blog posting very much.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Singha »

did the mughal dynasty ever allow any of their daughters to marry from babur down to bahadur shah zafar ?

was this rule also followed by the pre mughal sultanates ?
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Anand K »

In the beginning they did, but it largely changed due to certain reasons. Here's a source that seems legit.

I believe there are posts here on Jahanara's possibly incestuous relationship with Shah Jahan, including a tale of one of her lovers boiled alive by Dad of the Year.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Singha »

Charming:
Shah Jahan’s both daughters could never marry, not because someone banned Mughal princess marriage but because Shah Jahan had killed all his male relatives. He killed all his brothers their sons and all of Jehangir’s brother’s- Daniyal and Murad’s son’s and their sons and all of Akabr’s step brother’s sons and grandsons. So no male relative was actually left to marry Jahanara and Roshanara in that generation.

--
perhaps this intermarriage among close relatives over generations was why a idiot like aurangzeb finally came on the scene.
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

Funny like Lion taking over a pride, Mughals would kill all the male progeny and then conveniently marry the widows.
How old were Jahanara and Roshanara, when daddy dear ascended the throne since Shahjahan himself was pretty middle aged guy by then.
manju
BRFite
Posts: 705
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: CA, USA

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by manju »

Sorry for the repeat if already posted.

Re-examining history: Was the Taj Mahal really built to be a tomb?

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... ttarget=no

can't believe that ToI let is running this article
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SBajwa »

perhaps this intermarriage among close relatives over generations was why a idiot like aurangzeb finally came on the scene.
It is indeed because of inbreeding that we have Sunni Fanatics in ever increasing number across the world.
shravanp
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by shravanp »

During Shivaji's imprisonment in Agra, it was said that one of the sisters (either Jahanara or Roshanara) had developed a secret crush on Shivaji Maharaj, as she was impressed that it was only one person who could speak up against Aurangzeb.
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

Who was running Mughal kingdom while Aurangzeb was in Deccan running his campaigns. As I understand, Aurangzeb spent major part of his years as emperor in South.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by vishvak »

Not major part as emperor. He first dealt with Nizam and then attacked Maratha. There was a war that spanned 30 years that bankrupted mughals, killed off a lot of their army and eventually the mughal emperor died too. He didn't go anymore south either. After defeat of moghuls by Maratha, the peshwas quickly went way up north. Unfortunately the very same time European brigands landed too. Rest is divide-&-rule history.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Singha wrote:Charming:
Shah Jahan’s both daughters could never marry, not because someone banned Mughal princess marriage but because Shah Jahan had killed all his male relatives. He killed all his brothers their sons and all of Jehangir’s brother’s- Daniyal and Murad’s son’s and their sons and all of Akabr’s step brother’s sons and grandsons. So no male relative was actually left to marry Jahanara and Roshanara in that generation.

--
perhaps this intermarriage among close relatives over generations was why a idiot like aurangzeb finally came on the scene.

This killing of potential rival claimants to the throne is a Turkish custom. Only ones spared were ones who had physical disability like lame leg. Mothers hoped their son got some deformity so he could live. Exception was Taimur!

Intermarriage with cousins on father's side was Egyptian custom to not contaminate the royal blood line.
shravanp
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by shravanp »

Iran's Safavids have had several cases of killing rival claimants. Even pregnant royal ladies as well as concubines were not spared.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Safavids are a Turkish tribe.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Rahul Mehta wrote:We can agree and disagree. But let me give a bonus question. Why didn't Hemchandra create an all Hindu Army? Afghans were notorious for their jihad and ghazi-giri anyway. They were not no better than mughals.
Hemachandra started from within the Afghan Sultanate, with their resources and manpower. How can he, a military commander of Afghans, carve out a Hindu Kingdom out of the blue? And if he cannot have a Hindu Kingdom (sans Greens foot in it), how can he create an all Hindu army ?
Rahul Mehta wrote:If Hemu had led 22 battles (some say 34) from front, then Panipat-2 was different. Because this time, Mughals had assembled all their might.
Yes but psychologically the Mughals were on back foot. Many of Chieftains had even advised Akbar to fall back to Kabul instead. One always puts there all in desperate 'last stand'.
Rahul Mehta wrote:So attack from Mughals was going to be far more fierce and Hemachandra knew that.
Hemachandra also didn't have a backup accepted successor in case Hemachandra were to die in battle. Despite this he led from front.
Hemachandra was a successful Military General turned Emperor - barely a month ago. Akbar was a boy hardly in his teenage. The former's life's track record goes against any possibility of hiding in a tent miles behind the battle.
The latter's age can be read out and nothing else needs to be said on this point.
Rahul Mehta wrote:IOW, he must have seen that if he doesnt lead from front, perhaps, there was no one else to lead. IOW, Hemchandra's army lacked a hierarchy with discipline and command structure. And everything was tall-leader centric.
Rahul Mehta wrote:Lets not call Hemachandra as "one of them" so soon. Many see Hemchandra as "Hindu Samrat" , someone who would have eneded Islamist rule in India , if that random stray arrow hadnt hit him.
Both are speculations, so I can't say much. In my view, the man had just proclaimed himself an Emperor, had no time to properly organize and establish a decent administration that could hold in long term. As for the backup, he had just bypassed the Adil Shahi royals by his own coronation, so a majority of candidates (easily gulpable by his soldiers) were out of the picture.
Rahul Mehta wrote:Afghans had defeated Hindu kings were doing all sorts of ghazigiri. The "afghans are Indian , Mughals are videshi, and Afghan Hindu bhai bhai" love fest started only when Mughals came, and Afghans were unable to beat Mughals. So Afghans recruited a large number of Hindus and even started giving them promotions to apex positions like Generals because they needed Hindus to defeat Mughals. This is all documented history.
Don't under-estimate Hindu power, even in fragmented. When Mewar had organized a federation under Sanga, they repeatedly defeated and humiliated Sultanates on all three sides. You can read HarBilas Sarda's book on Sanga.
When Babur knocked in, Sanga was already breathing down the neck of Delhi Lodis. Border in north was stretched as far as
Peelakhal near Agra. That is when Sanga only had Rajputana's co-operation. And if he had more from outside? .. ;)
That's my theory :D
Rahul Mehta wrote:Now my original contribution to history, take it or leave it , comes. :mrgreen: . The Afghans saw that they need a huge huge manpower to defeat cannons of Mughals (and some say that Mughals and Uzbeks had better dhanush = bows and better arrows too) . Basically Afghans needed lakhs of bodies. Now lakhs of Hindus will not agree to die under an Afghan emperor. But lakhs of Hindu may rally behind a Hindu face. So they let a Hindu become emperor. But Afghans always kept much of artillery with them. And Hemachandra despite becoming emperor could NOT make an all Hindu artillery. Hemachandra defeated many Afghan rebels. But that was because he had more Afghans with him then rebels. The Afghans had taken the strategy "lets use Hemachandra and Hindus to wipe out Moghuls, and the we will defeat Hindus" !!
Afghans think it and Hindus just nod and do it?
Hindus had helped (inside and out of military) Sher Shah Suri as well. He was no Hindu.
I agree on the artillery part though. We lagged behind on that front and paid such a steep price.

There are plenty of speculative theories possible about various permutations/combinations of 16th century events, based on our hindsight today in 21st century.
"If X had happened, then Y would have taken place and had B not happened then D would have transpired."
I'm not sure if a lot of purpose is served by all these.

Since it is take or leave it, I'll bow out at this point.

Regards,
Virendra
Last edited by Virendra on 25 Oct 2014 20:36, edited 1 time in total.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

skekatpuray wrote:During Shivaji's imprisonment in Agra, it was said that one of the sisters (either Jahanara or Roshanara) had developed a secret crush on Shivaji Maharaj, as she was impressed that it was only one person who could speak up against Aurangzeb.
"What use you have of jewellery now" is what Shahjahan said to Jahanara in his last conversation. What I grab from this line is that either the sisters were deemed too old to have a crush on anyone; or they were perceived by some as Shahjahan's .. ahem ahem.
If anyone sees a third possibility, please share with us.

Regards,
Virendra
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by johneeG »

Here my version of history:
Timeline 1:
0 CE: Buddhism spread all over. Buddhism is dominant all over. Hindhuism has the most following but Buddhism is trying to digest Hindhuism and replace it using its political power. Buddhism tries to enter Rome. Pandyan King sends a mission consisting of Hindhu, Buddhist and Jain religious men while Augustus was ruling Rome. Buddhist Shramana burns himself to death in Athens and it becomes a huge news. (This seems to be the real life inspiration for stories about persecution of X-ists by Rome. One needs to keep in mind that X-ism is a mutated form of Buddhism).
180 CE: Buddhism starts to mutate and Proto-X-ianity is born in North-africa(Egypt-Alexandria) and Middle-east(Syria). Buddhists create stories of Yashas(Jesus) from Mula-Sarva-Asthi-Vadha-Vinaya(Buddhist Book). Alexandria was under the grip of Buddhism. Buddhism was trying to enter Rome via Alexandria. (The Rome may be following some form of Greek + Hindhu religion. Worship of Mithra is a clear indication of Hindhu influence. Greek influence on Rome is quite established. Greeks themselves may have had influence of Buddhism on them. The roman calendar is clearly connected to Hindu calendar and Bhaarath).
200 CE: Rise of Arabians(Semi-African or Semi-Black) pirates. Till now, Buddhism controlled the sea-lanes. From now on, Buddhism slowly yielded to these Arabian pirates. Roman Empire was at the height of its glory. Roman Empire was a combination of African and Greeks. Germanics and other such tribes were seen as barbarians by the Romans.
250 CE: Goths and other ‘Barbarians’ attack Roman Empire. Roman Empire is severely distressed by them. But, Rome manages to push them back by some Soldier-Emperors. Notice that during this time, there are not many records about Asia(including north-africa and middle-east) because Buddhism stifles the information flow by control. The same was repeated later in dark-ages in Europe(because X-ism is mutilated-Buddhism).
325 CE: Nicean Creed by the Constantine. Rome becomes the seat of X-ianity. In short, Buddhism finally managed to enter Rome but it had to make compromise with the Constantine and agree to several doctrinal changes. Constantine’s rule sowed the seeds for the decline of Rome. Constantine reorganized the Roman Army and weakened it completely. This gave advantage to the Goths and other ‘barbarians’.
400 CE: Spread of Huns and Germanics at the expense of Roman Empire.
450 CE: Death of Attila(perhaps, assassination by Eastern Roman Empire) and decline of Huns. Huns were on the verge of defeating the eastern roman empire. Gokturks rise from Hunnic territories. Gokturks are originally Mongolians. The western roman empire was on total decline with Germanics occupying more and more territory.
500 CE: Re-rise of Hindhuism in Bhaarath and weakening of Buddhism. Re-orientation of Buddhism towards China and Japan. Buddhists transfer knowledge and technology from Bhaarath to China via Tibet. Technology of Gun powder and rockets seem to have been transferred to China and Japan via Tibet from Bhaarath during this period. Germanics defeated the Western Roman Empire. X-ianity made peace with Germanics. And dark ages began in Europe. {There is something very interesting here: Before 500 CE, the historical records of Bhaarath are very scant. After 500 CE, the historical records of Europe are very scant(until the X-ism is weakened during renaissance period). So, in both cases it was Buddhism which was curbing the flow of information. }
550 CE: Turks and Khazarians rise from Gokturks. Arabs become more powerful. Sea-lanes are completely controlled by Arabs. Arabs start conquering north-africa and middle-east. Silk Route becomes important. Buddhism weakens in Bhaarath. Hindhuism on rapid re-rise in Bhaarath. Buddhism consolidates in China and Japan.
600 CE: Arabs defeat Turks & Persians by the power of their navy. Birth of Islam: synthesis of Buddhism, Hindhuism, proto-X-ianity, and African creeds. Buddhism loses its dominance in Bhaarath.
650 CE: Persians revolt against Arabs. Birth of Shias. Persians retain Islam but modify it to suit their tastes. So far, Arabs were led by Mohammads(i.e. chieftains). After the successful revolt of the Persians, Mohammads lost power. And a new regime of Arab & Turks came to throne. Turks managed to gain more and more control. But that meant that the navy power decline. Arabs& Turks sent raids on Sindh and Gaandhara regions. They continue to send raids via land routes. Buddhists aid these invasions by Arabs & Turks.
700 CE: Arabs & Turks jointly rule north-africa(including Spain) and middle-east. Arabs & Turks keep sending raids and succeed in conquering some territories in Gaandhara & Sindh region in Bhaarath. They continued their invasion into Rajputhana and even Ujjain. Many victories and defeats followed. But the decisive blow was given by Pulikeshin(Chalukya Ruler of South Gujarath). So, Arabs & Turks expansion in the south was stopped near Gujarath. In the north, they expanded into Punjab and went to Kashmir. In Kashmir, Lalithadithya-Mukthapida stopped them. After the whole campaign, Arabs& Turks held some territories in Sindh & Gaandhara regions. Sindh and Gaandhara were originally areas under Buddhist influence(at 500 CE). Now, these Buddhist areas became areas Turkic areas.
750 CE: Arabs & Turks are unable to expand in Bhaarath. Arabs are sidelined by Turks. Bhaarathiyas attempt to retake Sindh and Gaandhara. Turks manage to hold on to Gaandhara.
800 CE: Turks control the Arabic Empire. Turks & Persians concentrate on central Asia. Birth of color-based racism. Buddhism relegated to few Viharas in Bhaarath. Europe in Dark Ages due to X-ianity. Khazarians take control of Judaism. Turks take control of Islam and start creating bios, laws, stories, customs, …etc. Khazars do the same to Judaism. Rise of Vikings. Vikings occupy a part of Khazaria.(Later, they go on to establish Russian Empire). Khazarians are under attack from Turks. Khazars start to migrate to nearby areas.
850 CE: Central-Asian hordes are looking for loot and pillage. Turks sponsor them in return for conversions and tribute. To save themselves, Persians also sponsor the central-asian hordes. Central-Asian hordes attack Viharas as easy and rich prey. In the next phase, they attacked Temples.
900 CE: Central-Asian hordes start putting pressure on Bhaarath. Gaandhara becomes a hub of central-asian hordes. Central-Asian hordes attack Viharas as easy and rich prey. In the next phase, they attacked Temples.
950 CE: Central-Asians hordes launch raids into Bhaarath using Gaandhara as the opening. Many raids are repulsed by the Bhaarathiyas.
1000 CE: Raid of Mohammad of Ghazani succeeds on Somnaath Temple(in Gujarath/Saurasthra). Huge loot boggles the minds of the raiders all over the muslim world. All raiders become desperate to loot Bhaarath.
1050 CE: Waves of raids are repulsed by Bhaarathiyas. Bhaarathiyas form a federation of various kingdoms to deal with these raids. Islam acquires its final shape.
1100 CE: Raids continue in the hope of replicating the success of Ghazni’s somnaath raid. Khazaria kingdom is on the verge of losing to the Turks. Turks become powerful due to loots from Bhaarath. Khazarians sponsor the Europeans to start a crusade against the Turks. Khazarians provide money and weapons. Europe is supposed to bring the men(i.e. cannon fodder). This was first crusade. It was a great success. Turks seem to have been taken by surprise at this frenzied, poor and barbaric European x-ian horde. But, Turks soon recovered . But, the Europeans had tasted blood and were not going to give up so easily. Khazarian migration to nearby areas becomes immense. Khazarian kingdom becomes an empty shell.
1150 CE: Turks cleared up whatever Europeans had won in the first crusade in middle-east. Then, Turks & Persians poured money to fund central-asian hordes against Bhaarath. As Turks concentrate on Bhaarath, they lose territories in Spain to reconquista. Gaandhara is still under the control of the central-asians and it is used as doorway to raids on Bhaarath. After a gap of 50 yrs, Europeans launched another crusade against the Turks hoping to replicate the success of first crusade. This time, the success for Europeans was very less. The second crusade was largely a failure. Khazarian kingdom is done and dusted.
1200 CE: Central-asian hordes succeed. Mohammad Ghori goes on to raid and loot Dhilli and many other areas of Bhaarath and establish a kingdoms in Bhaarath. This is the beginning of Islamic kingdoms in mainland Bhaarath. So far, it was confined to Gaandhara region. Now, these Islamic kingdoms were in Multan, Dhilli, Bengal and Gaandhara. But, these were mainly in control of cities and the villages were mostly not ruled by the islamics. They used force to collect taxes and left. In short, it was as if the raiders had managed to occupy a city. It was not a full-scale governance or administration. After another 40 yrs gap, third crusade was launched by Europeans. Europeans gain no territories. But, there is loot and raid on the high seas and there is also transfer of tech through the benevolence of the Khazars. The migrating Khazars seem to have brought weapon tech and money to the Europeans. Khazars settled down as lenders. There is rise of another central-asian force: Mongols(Gengis Khan).
1250 CE: Rule of Islamics was quite bad for Bhaarath because they were not interested in governance. They were only interested in raids and loots. The people were getting impoverished due to taxes. It was also filled with palace intrigue and constant struggle for power within the rulers. Policy paralysis in governance. Rise of Southern Bhaarathiya Hindhu powers. The loot of third crusade inspired many more crusades in the next 50 yrs by the Europeans. There were 4 crusades in the next 50 yrs. Khazarians may also have been instrumental in funding these crusades to regain their Kingdom. Though there were no major territorial gains, the Europeans were principally interested in the loot and piracy rather than territory. By, the seventh crusade, the European X-ians were fighting among themselves. China came under the attack of Mongols. Control of China gave artillery to Mongols. After the Mongols won China, Mongols saw the importance of silk route and wanted to control it. Mongols marched onto Persia when Persia and Mongols quarreled for the control of Silk route. The central-asian hordes in silk-route were mongolized during this period. Persia quickly fell to the Mongol onslaught. The capital of Persia, Samarkhand was looted and ransacked. In the next 50 yrs, Mongols in the central-asia acquired Islam from Persia. Defeat of Persia also exposed Mongols to new war technologies. During this period, China was ruled by Mongol Kubalai Khan. During this period, Mongols may have wanted to take over Islam just as Turks had done before. But, Mongols could not finish that project. Yet, Mongols(central-asian hordes) had enormous influence on Islam. But, Turks were the ones who came up with most of the theology.
1300 CE: Khiljis replaced the Aibaks as the rulers of Dhilli in Bhaarath. Khilji launched raids on South Bhaarath. The southern Bhaarathiya kingdoms failed to be prepared and unite against the common enemy. Devastating defeat for the Hindhu kingdoms of south Bhaarath. Start of Islamic kingdoms in south Bhaarath. As the Islamics of Dhilli were launching raids into Southern Bhaarath, the central-asian Islamic hordes were launching raids into northern Bhaarath(i.e. the territory ruled by the Khiljis). After the defeat of the Persia, the central-asian hordes were pushing into Bhaarath. Mughals(Mongols) were raiding northern Bhaarath. Khiljis did not defend against Mughals. They were busy launching invasions and raids into South Bhaarath. Turks concentrated on consolidating their hold in the middle-east, deflecting the central-asian hordes. This was the start of Ottoman Empire(Turkish Empire controlling the entire middle-east except Persia). Persians were trying to spread their religion, language and culture to central-asians who were ruling them. It seems that the Persian elites made a deal with the Mongols, “Rule us, but convert”. Meanwhile, the Europeans concentrated to regaining the spain as Turkey was busy looking east. During the time of crusades Europeans learnt color-based racism, slave-trade, piracy, colonialism, …etc from the Turks. Persians also acquired these attitudes from Turks. Central-asian hordes acquired these attitudes from Turks and Persians. Europeans also got hold of war tech during the crusades and during regaining of Spain. Perhaps, the Khazars helped them. The tag ‘mongol’ seems to be a container for all the central-asian hordes which were united by the Genghis Khan. These central-asian hordes were devastating on the land against the settled population centres. But, they were completely useless in naval warfare. So, they could not succeed in the coastal areas, but they were very successful in land-locked areas. Persia seems to have managed to retain semi-independence from the Mongols because it was not land-locked. But, both Persia and China had very poor navy.
1350 CE: Raids of Central-asian Islamic hordes(Mughals) become more and more devastating on northern Bhaarath. Dhilli(Capital of Khiljis) is looted by Taimurlung. Tuqlaqs replace Khiljis on Dhilli throne. Hindhu rebellion in South Bhaarath against the Tuglaqs. Rise of Vijayanagara and Naiks and rise of Reddys in South Bhaarath. They all managed to revolt against the Tughlaqs. Tuqlaq tried to shift his capital to south to stay safe from the raids of central-asian hordes. But the capital shift did not happen smoothly. So, Dhilli remained the capital and remained vulnerable to raids from central-asian hordes. Bahmani kingdom also revolted against the Tuglaqs.
1400 CE: Vijayanagara ruled most of the south. Thelangana was the only southern region under Islamic rule. Tuqlaqs were replaced by another faction: Khiljis. Bahmani and Vijayanagara were locked in quarrel.
1450 CE: Bahmani breaks into 5 deccan states: Bidar, Berar, Bijapur, Ahmednagar and Golconda(Hyd). These states ally with each other and continue enmity with Vijayanagara. Dhilli sultanate is busy with raids from the central-asian hordes. This gives chance for Vijayanagara to expand. Vijayanagara becomes very powerful. Chinese build great wall to defend against the central-asian hordes. The wall does protect the China from Mongols. Bammera Pothanna was born in Warangal(Thelangana, South Bhaarath). He went on to write Thelugu translation of Bhagavatham. Annamayya was writing poems in Thirupathi on Lord Venkateshwara.
1492 CE: Columbus lands in America. He wanted to find a route to Bhaarath via America. But, he seems to have underestimated the size of America.
1515 CE: Raajpuths under Rana Sanga start revolt against Dhilli. Lodhi(ruler of Dhilli Sultanate) tried to curb them but it weakened the Dhilli Sultanate.
1520 CE: Central-Asian hordes succeed against Dhilli Sultanate. Babur defeats Lodhi. The Dhilli sultanate were so vulnerable because they did not have the support of the populace. Dhilli sultanate was also weakened due to its war against Raajpuths. If Babur had not appeared, then Lodhi would have lost to Rana Sanga. Babur established his kingdom in Dhilli and Agra. Soon, Babur died(perhaps due to injuries in battle). Humayun succeeded him to throne. There was revolt led by Sher Shah Suri against the Mughals. Rajpuths supported Sher Shah’s revolt against Humayun. Humayun ran away to Sindh and further to Gaandhara. But, he didn’t receive help there. So, he sought refuge in Persia. Persia gave support to Humayun. Humayun’s wife was pregnant at the time. Akbar was born in Sindh and seems to have spent his childhood in Persia. So, Akbar was influenced by the Persian culture in his childhood. Meanwhile, Vijayanagara was at its zenith under the rule of Shree Krushna Dheva Raya. The Gajapathi Kingdom of Odisa was conquered by the Vijayanagaras. The entire Hindhu kingdoms of South were now under the Vijayanagara. The 5 deccan states are standing between Vijayanagara and the northern Bhaarath. Purandhara Dhasa wrote poems on Lord Vishnu in Vijayanagara Empire. His influence on Carnatic and Hindhusthani music is immense.
1542 CE: Krishna Deva Raya’s son-in-law Aliya Rama Raya becomes the defacto ruler of Vijayanagara Empire. He uses one deccan state against the other true intrigues and stops them from uniting against Vijayanagara. The real king on throne was teenager.
1550 CE: Sher Shah died in battlefield. Humayun regained Dhilli and Agra with the help of Persia. But, their control was precarious. Humayun died and Akbar was declared the Successor. Hemachandra took the throne of Dhilli and won Agra. Mughals ran away to Gaandhara. After a long time, a Hindhu was again ruling Dhilli. But, it was short-lived.
1556 CE: Battle of Panipath. Mughals with the help of Persians managed to defeat Hemachandra. Mughals established their rule in Dhilli and Agra. Mughals and Rajpuths continued the war.
1557 CE: Mughals took conquered Punjab and consolidated their hold on Dhilli.
1558 CE: Ajmer(ruled by the Muslim ruler) was defeated by Mughals. This opened up entire Rajputhana to Mughal attacks.
1565 CE: Battle of Tallikota weakened Vijayanagara empire. The capital of Vijanagara was looted. It took them about 6 months to loot the great city. Then, they put it to fire. After the defeat of Hemachandra, Rajpuths came under the attack of Mughals. Akbar’s campaign against the Rajpuths was bloody and the resistance of Rajpuths was extra-ordinary. Akbar sealed alliance with some Rajputh factions by marital relationships. This alliance was decisive in giving security and edge to Akbar against internal and external threats to his throne. Akbar won the central-Bhaarath and consolidated his hold on Dhilli throne. Akbar managed to defeat Gujarath and Bengal. He then made Dhilli safe by conquering Gaandhara. Lack of hold on Gaandhara was the main reason for the successive weakness of many kingdoms. Akbar managed to plug this hole by taking control of Gaandhara. Akbar seems to have been influenced by the Persian culture. He adopted Persian culture and tradition. Persian was already quite popular among Mughal elites but Akbar seems have been more besotted with it. Originally, mother tongue of Mughals was Turkic Chagatai. Akbar wanted to conquer South Bhaarath. It remained his fond dream and he sent many invasions which were repulsed.
1572 CE: Birbal starts to rise in Akbar’s court.
1575 CE: Akbar starts to take interest in religion. Akbar’s age is 33 yrs. Islam fails to satisfy his philosophical needs. He learns about Hindhuism & is impressed by it. He softens his attitude towards Hindhus. He is still unable to reject Islam completely. He starts to learn what it means to be a good king. So far, he was just another barbarian raider. Now, he tries to become a good king. But, he is unable to eschew his previous behavior. Birbal could be the main person who influenced Akbar immensely during this period.
1582 CE: Akbar creates a new religion named Din-e-ilahi. Akbar’s age is 40 yrs. Birbal is one of the few people to become the follower of Din-e-ilahi. This religion is a mix of Hindhuism and Islam. Akbar’s idea was to go back to native polytheistic middle-east religion. Islamic clerics and sufis panic and declare it as blasphemy.
1586 CE: Birbal died in Afghanistan trying to quell a revolt against the Akbar. Perhaps, palace intrigue played its role in his death. Many Muslim courtiers of Akbar hated Birbal for the influence that he held on Akbar. Akbar was very depressed at the death of Birbal. Its also interesting that Birbal died within a few years of Akbar founding his new religion. This shows that Birbal was the main force behind Akbar’s religious views. And therefore, he seems to have been targeted. Akbar remained a tolerant king even after the death of Birbal. During later period of Akbar’s rule many religions which were a mix of Islam and Hindhuism flourished. Mainly this was a method to reconvert the muslims to Hindhuism. Hindhus who had been forcefully converted into Muslims were not accepted back into Hindhuism as it is. Those muslims were also reluctant to go back to Hindhuism. So, as a first cleaning step, they converted to a creeds which were a combination of Hindhuism and Islam. Then, the next step was to go back to traditional Hindhuism.
1605 CE: Akbar died. His son Jehangir succeeded him to throne. Akbar could not conquer South Bhaarath. Akbar was not able to place a good successor on throne. From now on, its just a story of Mughal rulers being indulgent in drugs, abuse and harem frolics paying little attention to administration. Rajputh allies created by Akbar were instrumental in the survival of Mughals. During Jehangir’s time, conquest of Rajpuths was completed. But, he lost Gaandhara to Persians. This would keep the Dhilli vulnerable to attacks from central-asia and Persia. Jehangir’s wife Nur Jehan played the key-role during Jehangir’s rule. (BTW, the stories about Shah Jahan’s love for Mumtaj seem to be inspired from the stories of Jehangir’s love for Nur Jahan). In his later years, Akbar followed a policy of tolerance towards various religions which was not liked by the Islamic fanatics. After Akbar, the Islamic fanatics supported Jehangir on the condition that he would support their agenda. Jehangir yielded to their demands to keep control on throne. This policy showed its full impact on Punjab area. Guru Arjan who was the Sikh Guru was tortured to death by Jehangir. In reaction to this, Guru Hargobind started the policy of arming the Sikhs. Jehangir imprisoned the Guru and kept him as a ransom against the threat of revolution.
1627 CE: Jehangir died. And his son Shah Jahan ascended the throne after killing many of his kins. Shah Jahan was a totally useless idiot lost in the revelries. His only qualifications seem to be ruthlessness and knowing whom to suck up to. He was able to remain on throne by giving free reign to the Islamic fanatics who had been reined by Akbar. Fanaticism of worst kind was born during his rule.(His son Aurangzeb seems to have acquired Islamism from this period). There were many revolts and rebellions in Shah Jahan’s period. The empire was constantly under one problem or the other. People were becoming more and more impoverished. In Shah Jahan’s period, confrontation between Sikhs and Mughals continued. Restriction on all non-muslims increased. They increased in Jehangir’s period. And they continued to increase in Shah Jehan’s period. Shah Jehan tried to captured Gaandhara from Persia, but could not hold on to it. In short, there were no major victories in Shah Jehan’s and Jehangir’s period. It was only increasing Islamism which culminated in the rule of Aurangzeb. The empire was rotting from within. And revolutions brewing all over.
1636 CE: Aurangzeb was sent to invade Deccan states. Aurangzeb managed to annex Ahmednagar. And he made Bijapur and Golconda accept Mughal suzerainty. After that Bijapur and Golconda were used to go defeat Vijayanagara.
1642 CE: Vijayanagara lost to Bijapur and Golconda. Vijayanagara was looted. Larger feudatories of the Vijayanagara declared independence.
1645 CE: As soon as Vijayanagara empire was destroyed. The Hindhus of entire South-Bhaarath faced a grim future. Immediately another Hindhu force rose on horizon: Shivaji . Shivaji took control of a fort of Bijapur. Shivaji’s father used to be a mercenary noble in Bijapur.
1648 CE: Shivaji’s father was imprisoned by Bijapur to control Shivaji. Later, he was released conditionally. Shivaji laid low for sometime after this preparing his forces.
1655 CE: Shivaji’s father died. Shivaji re-launched his efforts.
1656 CE: Shivaji took control of a marata chieftain’s kingdom named Javali.
1657 CE: Shivaji offered his help to Mughals in defeating the Bijapur. In return, Mughals would recognize Shivaji. But, this offer did not materialize.
1658 CE: Shah Jehan became ill. And immediately it sparked wars of succession among his sons. His eldest son Dara Shikoh was murdered by his brother Aurangzeb by declaring him as an apostate of Islam. Aurangzeb seized power in Dhilli and imprisoned Shah Jehan for next 8 yrs. Islamists again agreed to support Aurangzeb provided his rule was more islamist than the previous ones. Aurangzeb made the pact with devil to get power. Aurangzeb’s rule destroyed whatever remained of Akbar’s system. Therefore, it is no wonder that the mughal empire crumbled immediately after Aurangzeb.
1658 CE: Bijapur and Golconda revolted against Mughals.
1659 CE: Adil Shah of Bijapur sent Afzal Khan to neutralize Shivaji. Afzal Khan was killed by Shivaji and the forces of Bijapur were defeated. This weakened the Bijapur.
1660 CE: Bijapur and Golconda had defeated Vijayanagara due to help from Mughals. So, Bijapur tried to repeat the formula. So, Bijapur again sought the help of Mughals. Shivaji was going attacked from two sides by Bijapur and Mughals. Shivaji suffered losses and retreated. Aurangzeb sent Shaista Khan to defeat Shivaji.
1663 CE: Shaista Khan and his huge army were taken apart by Shivaji and his forces.
1665 CE: Aurangzeb regained the control of Vangal. Then, Rajputh Raja Jai Singh was sent to control Shivaji. Raja Jai Singh was very successful. He captured many forts and managed to sign a treaty with Shivaji. Under the terms of treaty, Shivaji would serve the Mughal court.
1666 CE: Aurangzeb invited Shivaji to Agra. Shivaji was humiliated and house-arrested. Shivaji escaped house arrest with the help of Raja Jai Singh. After this, Shivaji lied low for sometime preparing his forces.
1670 CE: Shivaji re-launched his campaign against mughals and quickly regained a lot of territory.
1672 CE: The existence of Vijayanagara was the key to tolerant nature of Qutb Shahis of Golconda. One finds the stories of imprisonment of Bhaktha Ramdhas by Tana Shah of Golconda after the destruction of Vijayanagara.
1674 CE: Shivaji is coronated as the King: Chathrapathi. This was supposed to be Vijayanagara 2.0. Immediately, Shivaji launched a campaign to regain the South-Bhaarath area. Shivaji managed to keep the Qutb Shahis neutral by asking him to ally against the Mughals.
1677 CE: Shivaji’s territories extended upto Tamilnadu. He was enroute to recreating Vijayanagara.
1678 CE: Shivaji died. His sudden death, sparked succession quarrels.
1680 CE: Eldest son of Shivaji, Sambhaji became the successor. Second son of Aurangzeb revolted against Aungranzeb and took refuge with Sambhaji.
1685 CE: Aurangzeb sent invasion party against Bijapur and Golconda along with Sambhaji. Bijapur and Golconda were seen as allying with Sambhaji.
1689 CE: Sambhaji was captured, tortured and killed by Mughals. Sambhaji’s son Shahu was taken prisoner by Aurangzeb as ransom against the revolt of Maraatas.
1690 CE: Tana Shah of Golconda and Adil Shah of Bijapur were defeated, humiliated and imprisoned. Aurangzeb got huge loot from Golconda which had mines nearby.
1707 CE: Aurangzeb died. A succession war was sparked(as is the common tradition of the Mughals). Shahuji was released during this time perhaps because he pledged his alliance to one of the factions against the other.
----
a) These legends about 'single arrow killing the enemy' seem like muslim inventions fit to be ignored.

b) Similarly, the whole idea that muslims won because of superior weapons or artillery also seem too much. Mongols won against the chinese before they had the artillery. Mongols gained knowledge of artillery after they won against the chinese.

c) Hindhus depending on Muslims and Muslims depending on Hindhus in middle-ages was common. Infact, its common even today. If Hindhus could not defeat the Muslims completely because they depended on Muslims, the same holds true for Muslims also i.e. Muslims could not defeat Hindhus completely because they depended on Hindhus.

d) Treachery by Muslims(specially supporters) is often cited as a reason for the defeat of Hindhu kingdoms or generals. It may be true that the muslims were treacherous. But, the same would be true about Hindhus supporting muslims. I think treachery is quite common in such situations. And people involved in those situations would take many precautions and alternative plans to handle such situations. So, it seems to me that treachery of muslims should not be seen as the main reason for the defeat of the Hindhu kingdoms.

So, what is the reason for the defeat of the Hindhu kingdoms?

This is really a very limited question which ignores the larger forces that are operating. What is happening is that the nomadic tribes are overwhelming the settled populations. This started around 200 CE. It became intense in 500 CE and continued upto 1500 CE. After 1500 CE, it seems to have eased out.

Mongols won against the chinese before they had the artillery. Mongols gained knowledge of artillery after they won against the chinese. Germanics and Huns were winning against the romans. Mongols(Mughals) won against the Dhilli Sultanate. So, the point is that the nomadic hordes were winning against the settled kingdoms. Why? Because,
- their entire society was organized as a sort of army.
- Most of these nomadic societies were turning towards piracy. Their continuous raids weaken the kingdoms and finally they conquer them.
- They are desperate and have nothing to lose.
- They are not bothered about ruling their own people. They only are interested in raiding the other the party and looting as much as they can. Settled kingdoms have to rule and protect their own populations. If they don't do that, then the kingdom will quickly decline.

There are two ways of handling raids from nomadic tribes:
a) Build a wall(fence). China built a wall. This is a short-term solution. (In a way, Bhaarath also has built a wall between Bakiland and Bhaarath at the border)
b) Go and conquer the areas of nomadic tribes and bring civilization to them i.e. reconquer. This is a long-term solution. This is a more long-term solution. But, this is a more difficult solution that requires commitment. Hindhus have been losing because they are shy of reconquering in the last 1000 yrs.

For example, suppose there is lot of dirt in your house, there are 2 solutions:
a) close the doors of your room, so that the bad odor will not reach your room. This is the short-term solution. It will work for some time, but eventually the dirt will reach your room also if you don't clean it.
b) clean the house. This is the long-term proper solution. But, it requires one to get dirty in the dirt. No one wants to get dirty. Thats why successive generations find it easy to postpone the reconquering on some excuse or the other.

Reconquering and civilizing the nomads is not an easy task and many empires find it much more easy to simply build walls.(Rome also built a wall in its northern border to stop the brits). However, the walls are only useful as short-term solution because the nomads are desperate and find it easy to simply raid the empire. They will keep on trying until they succeed unless they are subjugated and civilized.

In a way, Bakis are doing the same. They keep on sending infiltrators. This is a classic kabila tactic of raiding the enemy lands. And Bhaarath has built a wall(i.e. fence to stop the infiltrators). Again, this is the classic strategy used by the settled kingdoms against the nomadic raids. The problem is that this is not a complete solution specially because the Bakis are not even outside the borders. They bakiland was carved out of Bhaarath. That mean, they are already inside the borders.

From Bhaarath's perspective, Bhaarath needs to control Gaandhara because Gaandhara and eastern Persia are used as spring-boards into Bhaarath. If Gaandhara is not under Bhaarath's control, then Bhaarath will not be safe.

Look at China, china has learnt the lesson and is busy trying to build a buffer between its core areas.
Image
Image

The rest of the china is just a buffer to protect its mainland. On the other hand, Bhaarath has lost all its buffer zones and the nomads are threatening the mainland itself.
johneeG wrote:I think the Chinese try to fight in their periphery or in others' field. The one greatest deterrent for them is to take the war/battle into their heartland(where even if they win, they lose because of the various factors). They fight in India or Tibet, so that war/battle will not come to the heart of mainland China.

I view china's claim on Tawang in similar fashion. Not just Tawang, but also other territorial claims made by China which has annoyed many countries(including India). The logic, as far as I understand, is that the new claims are meant to hide the already vast territorial aggressions made by china. For example, by keeping Tawang in focus, Tibet is protected. As long as, India is kept occupied by Tawang, India will not think about Tibet. The ploy is to keep others in defensive mode, so that they so not think of going on offensive on China. The bluster and aggressive posture is meant to stop others from making any moves on China because the others are too busy in defending their own space. But, this doctrine required that the opponents must not be pushed to the wall lest they become desperate. And chinese follow this. They never push the opponents to the wall. They take what they get and declare victory, even while keeping the threat of future action/claims alive. As far as they are concerned, any gain is a bonus. The real aim is to protect the mainland(the aim is to stop anyone from even thinking of chinese mainland by keeping them embroiled in the periphery, preferably in the opponents territory). Both their diplomatic and geo-political moves can be explained by this theory, IMHO.

In essence, the chinese are trying to create buffer zone between their mainland and others through aggressive occupation and claims. So, Tibet is a buffer zone between India and China. Tawang and Nepal are buffer zones between India and Tibet. If India concedes Tawang, then a newer buffer zone between Tawang and India will have to be found... When India acknowledged Tibet as part of China, then China had to create a newer 'dispute' in Tawang so that India can be kept on defensive. The doctrine is to keep the others on defensive, so that they don't become offensive. To keep others on defensive, china has to be on offensive... When others concede to China(hoping that China will not be on offensive anymore), then they force China to become more offensive(because China has to create a newer dispute to keep others on offensive).

The strategy to handle such a doctrine is to try to dismantle/weaken the mainland. Because, when the mainland collapses, the peripheries automatically collapse(from the grip of china). The general wisdom is to first win the periphery and then go to mainland. China is trying to use this 'general wisdom' in its favor by pushing the periphery deep into others territory and by keeping periphery as large as possible to protect the mainland. So, the opponents neutralize this concept by stop trying to gain full control/victory in periphery and instead any marginal control/victory in the periphery must be used to mount attack on the mainland. The opponent will have to use China's doctrine on china by keeping china on defensive through aggressive action(diplomatically, geo-politically and militarily).

This doctrine also indicated that the chinese will give up their periphery when the mainland is threatened. So, there is ample chance for Tibet to be taken out of China's grip. China will be ready to take huge loses in periphery rather than tiny loses in thew mainland.
Link to post

One of the main teachings of Sun Tzu is to win the war without fighting(or as little fighting as possible). Because prolonged war will weaken the state. And this seems to be followed by the chinese very dutifully. They avoid fighting in their own territory. They will fight using proxies like Bakis or koreans. They will fight in the peripheries. They will fight in enemies areas. They will never fight in their core-areas. If their core areas are attacked, they will quickly surrender to save those areas.

Another aspect is that the chinese concentrate on overwhelming the enemy with numbers.
Saars,
I was thinking about something(I fancy that I have got an insight, so I gonna propose a theory):
Generally, people think of tackling geopolitics or even military campaigns as chess moves. However, in chin's case, they may be influenced by the game 'go' or wéiqí.

Wiki Link:
wiki wrote:The two players alternately place black and white playing pieces, called "stones", on the vacant intersections (called "points") of a grid of 19×19 lines (beginners often play on smaller 9×9 and 13×13 boards).[2] The object of the game is to use one's stones to surround a larger total area of the board than the opponent.[3] Once placed on the board, stones may not be moved, but stones are removed from the board if captured; this is done by surrounding an opposing stone or group of stones by occupying all orthogonally-adjacent points.[4] Players continue in this fashion until neither player wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions. When a game concludes, the controlled points (territory) are counted along with captured stones to determine who has more points.[5] Games may also be won by resignation.
wiki wrote:Image
Go is played on a grid of black lines (usually 19×19). Game pieces, called stones, are played on the line intersections.
This game is popular in China, Japan and Korea. The main objective in the game is to capture territory by surrounding the opponent's piece by your own pieces. The two things that are immediately noticable is:
a) One with largest territory occupation is the winner.
b) To occupy territory you put up your own pieces to sorround that territory and overwhelm the opponent with numbers.

It seems that the chin's policies(both geopolitical and military) follow the same principles as this game. So, maybe this game influences their thinking. While, Bhaarathiya thinking(and rest of the world's thinking) is influenced by chess. In chess, the main objective is not occupation of the territory. Infact, ceding the territory or giving up pieces to be able to give decisive blow to the opponent forms a crucial part of the chess strategy. Defeating the state(i.e. Govt or sarkaar or the king) is the main objective of the chess. Once the king falls, all the rest of the pieces are considered to be defeated(or surrendered) in chess. In chess, there are different types of pieces. Where as in 'go', there are only one type of pieces and the only way to win is by sheer numbers. The one with numberical advantage(in a give location) wins.
Link to post

This is the buffer that is required for Bhaarath:
Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

A modern cartoon on Mughals:

www.royalexestentials.com
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by RamaY »

JohneeG Garu,

Mount Kailash is center of Bharata Varsha. Draw a circle with it as center and covering tip of Historical Sri Lanka and you will get the extent of Bharat.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by vishvak »

X-posting from nukkad link: viewtopic.php?p=1759278#p1759278
ArmenT wrote:Hey guys,
There doesn't seem to be a thread to discuss Indian medieval history, so I'm posting here. Mods, please copy/move to appropriate thread if necessary:

http://www.aurangzeb.info/

presents a lot of stuff about Aurangzeb, including images of some of his original firmans (directives/edicts). The site is a gem of a resource and shows exactly how much of a bigot the man was. Maybe this ought to be on a sticky post or something.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16265
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SwamyG »

Origins of the Moghul Tyrants of India

Excerpt
The capital of India was devastated by Timur’s invasion. At that point the Delhi Sultanate was on the decline and it was only a matter of time before the resurgent Hindu forces took back most of the territory they had lost to the former. However, Timur’s invasion savaged the already beleaguered Hindu population so greatly that it nearly took a century for it to recover. Moreover, the heavy losses inflicted by Timur (for example. in the battle for the defense of the holy sites on the Ganga) paved the way for his successors, like Babur, to establish a regime that reinforced horrors of Islam on India even more disastrously than the Sultanate. In contrast, China having escaped Timur’s invasion was able prosper unhindered for a while under the Han nationalist Ming empire.

The effects are seen even today: India is plagued by the existential threat arising from the civilizational clash with Islam within and without its current boundaries. India has lost much of its territory to the Islamic states that surround it and hardly any vestiges of Hindu civilization remain in these regions. China in contrast escaped any major imposition of Islam on its population and has only expanded its territorial reach [Footnote 1].
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Prem »

johneeG wrote:Here my version of history:

This is the buffer that is required for Bhaarath:
Image
Now we can appreciate the need of Million Military Boots with 5k Operational Nuke to remove,level and clean the Malesha markers on Indian Soil.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Any link on economy during mughal period?
Locked