The Mughal Era in India

Locked
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

Is Jalaluddin Khwarizm same as Jalaluddin Khilji
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Lalmohan wrote:mongols and rajputs fought together against alauddin at ranthambore if i remember correctly
Yes they did. Perhaps the Mongols wanted to repay the Rajput help.
Alauddin had sent a threatening letter to the Mongol chief who was stationed in defense of Ranthambore.
The chief sent back an equally daring response that he will defend his allies at the cost of his life.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

habal wrote:Is Jalaluddin Khwarizm same as Jalaluddin Khilji
No. Khwarizm is the last great Turkish emperor of Iran-central Asia. But running from Mongols, he ended up dead in dire conditions like Aurangzeb's brothers and nephews did.
Khilji is a bit late from this Khwarizm and he was proper 'India based' Turkish ruler.
Khwarizm never got to enter India. To avoid a situation with Mongols, his India based distant brotherhood (Delhi Sultanate) ensured that he couldn't enter here. So much for the ummah.

This reminds me, Bangladeshi troops were blamed for shelling on the Rohingyas boats when the latter were trying to enter via river ruotes.

Regards,
Virendra
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

thanks, but this khwarizm did briefly enter Punjab after crossing Ravi, being chased by the Khan, didn't he ? Thus the pooch.

thanks again.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Lalmohan »

ofcourse jehangir chose martyrdom over capture by the infidel, so clad in armour and still mounted he rode over the cliffs into the icy torrents of the indus - but ATM came down with angels and carried him aloft to the other bank so he could continue to wage jehad against the other infidels
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by member_20317 »

:rotfl:

http://archive.org/stream/historyofthew ... p_djvu.txt
Like the lightning he struck upon the water and like
the wind he departed.

When the Mongols saw him cast himself in the river they
were about to plunge in after him. But Chingiz-Khan pre-
vented them. From excess of astonishment he put his hand to
his mouth and kept saying to his sons, * Such a son must a
father have
Brave fellow. May all the Jihadis be like him only.
Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Gus »

Mongols were campaigning against Chinese (Jin, Tanguts and later the Song), CAR and Khwarizm, Russia and then Middle East under Hulegu etc. They never mounted a proper campaign of full force into India proper. At pivotal points when the armies would have reorganized and marched to new campaigns, mercifully for us, fate intervened..like the great khan falling ill. Succession problems like his eldest son Jochi, rumored to be not his and conceived while his wife was in enemy's captivity, dying before the khan died. There are allegations that the khan himself poisoned Jochi so that people will accept his third son Ogedei. Ogedei chose to go after Song and CAR and mercifully for us, he too died soon. The succession issues magnified and the mongol military machine stalled and they were able to do campaigns only in the middle east and wipe out China and by this time other factors took over and mongols were too fragmented to mount new campaigns.
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 »

moreover they lacked a domestic tech base and depended to a great extent for arms and crafts from the cities of northern china. they never did develop industry or large scale agriculture unlike the settled civilians on their periphery.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Lalmohan »

they were so disgusted by farmers that they routinely slaughtered the han rice cultivators where and when they found them
not to mention reverse the gains from the persian irrigation system back several hundred years
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

habal wrote:thanks, but this khwarizm did briefly enter Punjab after crossing Ravi, being chased by the Khan, didn't he ? Thus the pooch.
thanks again.
Yes a brief entry seems to have happened. It was Bela, a general of Chingiz, who led the chase.
Jelaluddin asked for help from Delhi Sultanate, but was turned down.
Themselves limited to the safety of their forts and towns, the Delhi Turks wanted to avoid a Mongol mess in their Indian pie. They ensured that the wandering prince doesn't find any refuge here.
Same ethnicity, same religion yet the Delhi Turks didn't let the Khwarizm Turks anywhere near, for the fear of raising the Mongol fury.
But the chasing Mongols retreated to Chingiz due to heat and exhaustion, or the prince would've died a bit earlier.

Regards,
Virendra
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by harbans »

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 »

in dysfunction and cruelty, the nehru-ghandy clan is a true successor of the 'great' mughals

here, one sister of aurangzeb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roshanara_Begum
Fearing that Dara Shikoh would kill her for her role in the war of succession if he ever returned to power, Roshanara insisted that Aurangazeb order Dara's execution. Legend has it that Dara was bound in chains, paraded around Chandni Chowk and beheaded. Roshanara then had his bloody head wrapped in a golden turban, packaged neatly and sent to her father as a gift from Aurangazeb and her. Shah Jahan, who opened the package just as he was sitting down to dinner, was so distressed by the sight of his favorite son's head that he fell unconscious to the floor. He remained in a stupor for many days after the incident.
..............
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Lalmohan »

the mughal wars of succession come about due to an edict of genghiz that the 'first amongst equals' amongst his sons should be the next great khan. this meant that any brother could be great khan - but would have to be elected by the kuriltai (grand council of all khans)

this custom was adopted by all mongol derivative kingdoms/emirates and eventually the mughal one. the practice lasted 2 generations with the mongols and then erupted into open civil war between the brothers of any emir/khan at succession time

the mughals practiced this on a grand scale, but were by no means the only mongol-derivative power structure to do so
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Lalmohan there was a Turkish Sultan Bayzid who didnt kill his brother who was lame and he rose to be a great general.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

We are not the only ones to make the connection to Nehru and Mughal Durbar.

Mahavir Tyagi, the late MP also made the plea to JL Nehru:

....
Dehradun MP Mahavir Tyagi writes to prime minister Nehru just before Indira Gandhi's election and just after the Nagpur congress when her name was first proposed. He urges Nehru, in eloquent Hindi, to be wary of "charan chumbaks" or courtiers. "Just as in the days of the Mughals, ministers would play with the Nawab's children, today you are being worshipped, your worshippers have put up bholi-bhali Indu's name for the post of the Congress president. And perhaps you have accepted it without blinking an eye." Quoting "critical Congressmen" he has met, he adds, "Please don't be under the misapprehension that this lining up of supporters for the proposal to put up Indu's name is entirely due to the force of her personality. It is being done hundred per cent to please you."

Tyagi writes that with most eminent Congressmen elected MLAs and MPs, only "four-anna ordinary members are left in the Congress cadres... how is poor Indu going to hold up this weakened frame?" He expresses fears that with the Congress having decided to adopt socialist ideas in the Nagpur congress, it would have to take on many vested interests and face challenges Indira would not be able to take on.

"You should stop the election of Indu as president of the Congress. Or you should give up the post of PM and through Indu strengthen the Congress organisation," he suggests. He adds the "Congress parliamentary party, which is suppressed due to your weighty presence to discuss any issue independently, will get energised by your going out".

He ends by saying he has spent a sleepless fortnight for not having written this letter, and will sleep now. "May God bless you with long life. I for one cannot last long in this atmosphere."

Nehru replies almost immediately, also in Hindi. "It is obvious that it would be difficult to express any sensible opinion about myself. Nobody can be objective about oneself... It is possible I get taken in by people and they often don't speak to me openly. But it may not be right for you to say that I am surrounded by courtiers. I have never had a court and nor do I like such ways."

Nehru describes how he first heard of Indira's name being proposed for the presidency "on the last day of the Nagpur congress... It was put to me that evening, not to me personally, but it was said in a committee, where leaders from various states were present. I kept quiet initially and listened to others. Then I expressed my views and outlined all the aspects. I even said that this will be neither good for Indu nor fair to me for her name to be proposed." Nehru discloses how he saw "some advantages in her being elected, especially after the decision taken at the Nagpur congress when a breath of fresh air is needed. I did not feel that I should interfere... I knew that would upset Indira." He sees benefits to her being elected with the "dangers being obvious too".

Nehru describes how Indira, after an hour of the proposal being put to her, went and told the leaders she couldn't accept, and how, on being pressured, "ultimately, she agreed". :mrgreen:

On Tyagi's suggestion that Nehru's leaving would allow the Congress parliamentary party to discuss things freely, he writes, "What can I say about that? I want them to speak openly and I want to express my views. I want everyone to speak freely about the issues before us at the moment. I have often tried to elicit the opinions of our comrades and members. Do I not have the right to express my views openly too?"

The last paragraph addresses the despondency in Tyagi's letter. "We are faced with difficult challenges. But in my opinion, the future of India looks good. I am not scared."

The day after this letter, on February 2, 1959, Indira was declared elected, after S Nijlingappa withdrew from the race and Kumbha Ram Arya's nomination was found invalid. :mrgreen:
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Singha wrote:in dysfunction and cruelty, the nehru-ghandy clan is a true successor of the 'great' mughals

here, one sister of aurangzeb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roshanara_Begum
Fearing that Dara Shikoh would kill her for her role in the war of succession if he ever returned to power, Roshanara insisted that Aurangazeb order Dara's execution. Legend has it that Dara was bound in chains, paraded around Chandni Chowk and beheaded. Roshanara then had his bloody head wrapped in a golden turban, packaged neatly and sent to her father as a gift from Aurangazeb and her. Shah Jahan, who opened the package just as he was sitting down to dinner, was so distressed by the sight of his favorite son's head that he fell unconscious to the floor. He remained in a stupor for many days after the incident.
..............
Trust pashtoon infested hindi cinema to turn all these characters into avtaars of compassion:
Jahan Ara


Even Aurangzeb is shown to be such a soft hearted and compassionate man towards his sister. :rotfl:
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 »

roshan ara and aurangzeb were the serpents. jahan ara and dara shikoh were the good siblings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahanara_Begum
later on even aurangzeb reconciled with her father shah jahan died in captivity

another brother shah shuja was chased all the way into myanmar where he vanished from manipur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Shuja_(Mughal)
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 »

Akbar's secularism
However, Akbar's policy of matrimonial alliances marked a departure in India from previous practice in that the marriage itself marked the beginning of a new order of relations, wherein the Hindu Rajputs who married their daughters or sisters to him would be treated on par with his Muslim fathers-in-law and brothers in-law in all respects except being able to dine and pray with him or take Muslim wives.
But somehow for our leftist historians, Akbar became Akbar the great, but some castes following the same thing is a Hindu casteist phenomenon.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by vishvak »

Like Alexander the great, but great in what. Beheading Dara for example.
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 »

the sikular thing to do would have been allow the female siblings of each mughal generation to take rajput husbands whether from those families who married their daughters to mughals or outside families.

but then again, that would be communal :mrgreen:
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 »

Singha wrote:the sikular thing to do would have been allow the female siblings of each mughal generation to take rajput husbands whether from those families who married their daughters to mughals or outside families.

but then again, that would be communal :mrgreen:
Saar.. the female siblings are part of haram... didnt you read past few pages? Perhaps they are the proverbial 72.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Singha wrote:the sikular thing to do would have been allow the female siblings of each mughal generation to take rajput husbands whether from those families who married their daughters to mughals or outside families.

but then again, that would be communal :mrgreen:
On a serious note :
a) Mughals obviously had an upper hand in the alliance. They were stronger and they set the rules.
b) Mughals had religion as a good excuse to avoid reciprocation for those marriages.
c) It is not hard to understand that back then the Rajputs themselves would have known a lot more than us, about what goes on inside those Mughal Mahals and Harams. What little and yet baffling leakages exist about Shahjahan for example. Hence no interest in taking second hand products of a perverse domain.
d) Having Mughals wives may also have been seen as a potentially dangerous trojan threat and thus avoided.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
Virendra
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Kakkaji »

Rajputs could not take Mughal wives because none were offered.

In any country under Islamic rule, a non-muslim man cannot marry a muslim woman unless he converts to Islam first.

Islam is a one-way street, and its imposes its dominance and its laws on the conquered or the subservient.

One of the points Guru Gobind Singhji made when raising his Khalsa army was that the Dharmic population could not depend upon protection of Dharma by Rajputs anymore because the Rajputs were competing with each other to offer their daughters to Mughal Harems. That is why he raised awarenes in every caste to become saint soldiers in Khalsa.

Just look at the names of wives of Mughals from Akbar onwards, even after Aurangzeb, when every Mughal prince has one or more Rajput wives.

It is the Khalsa and the Marathas who put an end to this shameful practice.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Virendra wrote:
Singha wrote:the sikular thing to do would have been allow the female siblings of each mughal generation to take rajput husbands whether from those families who married their daughters to mughals or outside families.

but then again, that would be communal :mrgreen:
On a serious note :
a) Mughals obviously had an upper hand in the alliance. They were stronger and they set the rules.
b) Mughals had religion as a good excuse to avoid reciprocation for those marriages.
c) It is not hard to understand that back then the Rajputs themselves would have known a lot more than us, about what goes on inside those Mughal Mahals and Harams. What little and yet baffling leakages exist about Shahjahan for example. Hence no interest in taking second hand products of a perverse domain.
d) Having Mughals wives may also have been seen as a potentially dangerous trojan threat and thus avoided.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
Virendra
Apparently some princesslets did get out of Mughal screwing onlee fate. But this is distasteful discussion. For me, it is also demeaning and inconsiderate for the women we discuss.

During the Sultanate, Muslim women were "taken" by non-Muslims when opportunity arose. Moreover, Atri ji can confirm if the tales of Marathas taking over jenana of extended mughal families and having their pick have a realistic basis or not. Not married perhaps. Hindus indeed exercised elaborate checking up of descent and consanguinity stuff - so they might have culturally and traditionally abhorred the products and possible genetic aberrations in such indiscriminate mating on Muslim sides.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

Maharana Pratap's forefather Rana Hamir and Bappa Rawal etc had many mughal wives in their harem. Hamir had just one IIRC, and Bappa Rawal had quite a few. Pathans of Nowshera were children of Bappa Rawal and his arab/tatar/tajik consorts. Turks who lived in Afghanistan also were descended from Rajputs on one side and tatar/tajik on another. I am reading this book on Maharana Pratap where the author talks about Rana Hamir Dev's muslim wife.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

brihaspati wrote:Apparently some princesslets did get out of Mughal screwing onlee fate. But this is distasteful discussion. For me, it is also demeaning and inconsiderate for the women we discuss. Moreover, Atri ji can confirm if the tales of Marathas taking over jenana of extended mughal families and having their pick have a realistic basis or not. Not married perhaps. Hindus indeed exercised elaborate checking up of descent and consanguinity stuff - so they might have culturally and traditionally abhorred the products and possible genetic aberrations in such indiscriminate mating on Muslim sides.
Maratha, the region they arose from, the demography was in Hindu favor. They did not need to take yaavanis to propagate Hindus. Apart from Bajirao-1 and his second wife "Mastani", not many marathasa have married to yaavanis. Mistresses and keeps, yes but not married wives. Bajirao was denied permission to conduct upanayanam on his son from Mastani and the son was forced to live and die by the name Samsher Bahadur (his line still lives in Banda as muslims sadly).

Sikhs have perfected this missing link in hindu armor. Sikhs generously took muslim wives, produced children and raised them as Sikhs. Reconversions were done by Marathas but not this marrying business. They should have married en masse and produce Hindu santati from through them. This is dharmik only, better than keeping a woman as mistress. But then that means more property disputes eventually and infighting. The earlier Marathas like Ranoji Shinde etc did not even take muslim mistresses. Even their mistresses were Hindus.

But there is no tale or record of Mughal Jananas being taken over. Even Mastani was daughter of Chhatrasaal Bundela and his Persian Mistress which was given to Bajirao by her father whom he eventually married and converted to Dharma.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

habal wrote:Maharana Pratap's forefather Rana Hamir and Bappa Rawal etc had many mughal wives in their harem. Hamir had just one IIRC, and Bappa Rawal had quite a few. Pathans of Nowshera were children of Bappa Rawal and his arab/tatar/tajik consorts. Turks who lived in Afghanistan also were descended from Rajputs on one side and tatar/tajik on another. I am reading this book on Maharana Pratap where the author talks about Rana Hamir Dev's muslim wife.
They are different kind of Rajputs. The pre prithviraja gurjara pratihara rajputs. Those sere the finest rajputs as institutions who save India from arabs and Gazni (Battle of Bahraich).

Around and post Prithviraja 3 of chauhana dynasty and his capture by Ghori, somehow rajputs became confined to Rajputana. They ruled entire North India when they defeated Arabs. Furthermore they were in strong alliance with Rashtrakutas and later Chalukyas of Deccan. It was Rashtrakuta army which defeated arabs at Navsari and sent them beyond Makran coast of Baluchistan.

Post chauhana rajputs lost this touch. The zealous reconversion drives of Deval Rishi and Bappa Rawal is not seen in any Hindus thereafter (with exception of earlier Arya samajis who interestingly use same Deval-smriti for reconversions. I think VHP has made it a standard operating protocol for Hindu ghar-wapsi programs).

There were Giant peaks like Rana Pratap, padmini, bhimdev, Sanga, udaysingh and manu others. But this was no Rajput Movement leading team Hindu. It was like individual SRT making glorious centuries in Sharjah helping India qualify to finals in spite of loosing the match. The sustained team movement came from vijaynagar and Marathas. Sikhs too sadly burnt out in one generation. What they achieved in thatone generation is nothing but genius and miraculous. Sadly that too was undone after Partition.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by harbans »

Excerpts from Guatiers forthcoming book: (Worth a read)

http://francoisgautier.me/2013/09/07/ch ... s-part-ii/
subhamoy.das
BRFite
Posts: 1027
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by subhamoy.das »

How long did muslim rule lasted in India? NAMO was claiing 1200 years of total foreign rule out of which 200 years of British. How long did Mughlas ruled India ( 400 years? )?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

^^Officially 332 years for Mughals. The total 1200 years is perhaps not a straightforward or accurate perception. Formal implantation of a Muslim principality in "Indian" territory will be a matter of definition. If we take the maximum extension of Bharat-identifying powers then various parts of lower Persian and Afghan territories possible fell in stage between 634 and 713.

First successful principality would be the remnant of Qasims raid's two small citadels based in SW Sindh and Multan. But this would be a tiny tiny fraction of the total political extent of Bharat. When people say that no unified Bharat existed at that time in political sense - then by that logic it would be illogical to claim that entire Bharat fell under Muslims because a small coastal stronghold in the Mansera area and Multan town fell under Muslim control.

Significant gains of territory and population was only under the Ghurids and early Sultanate. Even as late as 1320's or so large parts of Bengal and east and Daakshinatya were free of Muslim rule. So even the most enthusiastic claimant should not claim significant extension of Muslim rule to say roughly 40% of Bharatyia territory before 1230's. We can officially claim loss of central "Muslim" rule by 1858. so I would reasonably put this "occupation" of "Bharat" at not more than 600-650 years. Even then it was never total.
Last edited by brihaspati on 07 Sep 2013 19:43, edited 1 time in total.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

subhamoy.das wrote:How long did muslim rule lasted in India? NAMO was claiing 1200 years of total foreign rule out of which 200 years of British. How long did Mughlas ruled India ( 400 years? )?
Depends which part of India.. If you talk about western Sindh and baluchistan, the muslim rule has lasted from 711AD until today. that is 1302 years.. So namo is right. That is India and Hindu's unfinished business to bring back all those lost areas.

Gaandhar region was gone in late 980s-990s - about 1000 years.

Punjab has been under Muslim rule from 1192 to 1758 - 566 years.

Upper Ganga valley for about 500 years. Bengal from 1300 till today - 700 years.

Assam - Never

Krishna godavari basin - from 1300 to 1645 (345 years)

Kaveri basin - spuriously - Madurai sultanate of few decades and then Tipu for a decade or so. Madurai sultanate was overthrown by vijaynagar..

Rajputana and Gujarat - Never (officially, although they became vassals after Khilji conquest - with exception of Udaypur Rajputs)

If you ask specifically Mughal rule from Delhi then it is simple ; 1526-1707 = 181 years. I do not consider Mughals which lingered from 1707 to 1858 as Mughal empire. As the famous Hindustani saying goes about emperor Shah alam - Badshah Shah Aalam, dilli te paalam - Rule of mughal emperor runs from Dilli to Paalam. Post 1737, I am not sure if mughal emperor could buy a free goat on bakree eid from chandani chowk region of purani dilli. They were pensioners (indirect until 1788, then direct) of Hindus and then British (1804 onwards)..

But if you count these then 332 years as B-ji said.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SBajwa »

711-12 A.D. Mohammad bin Qasim attacked Sindh and southern Punjab(Multan) and established the rule of Ummayad Khalifat (Hajjaj Bin Yousaf) in the area which is current day pakistan. This was the only attack by the Arabians.
The other areas of India were not affected by this attack. Till

997 A.D - 1008 A.D when Abul-Qāṣim Maḥmūd Ibn Sebüktegīn (Afghani Khorasani of Slave Subuktegin dynasty) also known as Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked India (northern route) and defeated Jaypala the King of Punjab. He then attacked 17 more times and each time going deeper into India but only to loot and plunder. He went all the way to Ujjain, Gwalior.

1190s A.D. Muizz-ud-dīn Muhammad Bin Sām also known as Mohammad Ghauri was defeated in several battles with Prithviraj Chauhan (1191 A.D.) but in another battle in 1192 A.D. he defeated Chauhan and made Qutubudeen Aibak (his slave ) emperor of India ruling from Delhi and Ajmer. Thus the first slave dynasty was formed that ruled some parts of North India (1200 A.D). Ghauri was killed by Ghakkar/Khokhar Hindu Rajputs.

Between 1200 A.D. - 1526 A.D. there was struggle fights between Dharmic and Adharmic forces all over North India.

1526 - Babar Attacked and started Mughal rule. but he had to run away and then Humayun had to run away India again.,he though consolidated by 1550s and the real Mughal rule started in 1550 A.D.

157 years later!

1707 - Aurungzeb died. and by 1726 (Nadir Shah attacked and later Abdali, Jats, Sikhs, ) and Mughals only had writ from Delhi to Palam rest were all independent.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Agreed - from the "recovery" viewpoint that NAMO is accurate. But that should be 1350 years then roughly from 650 to present.

SBajwa and Atri ji : the fact that both the Marathas and EIC - even if pensioning the padishah off - were still officially accepting the titular suzerainty of the Mughals for their own legal and legitimacy purposes, still shows the presence and importance the concept of Mughal overlordship until 1858.

It not to my liking - but people have said that it is about realpolitik, and my stricter idealist criteria don't matter. I have never visited sites or families descended from the Rajputs who gave their daughters in marriage to sultanate and Mughals. I dont hold their "independence" or raja-giri with any respect whatsoever. They formally gubo'd and accepted authority of the Islamic : they were subjects of Islamics, and it was Islamic sovereignty.
member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by member_27444 »

We never had this kind of foresight and thanks to JLN leaning Marxist side and propaganda profit is a sin even when earned under law..
In 1776 when USA was gaining freedom we were losing it gora after being looted by Islamic savages.

The English East India Company was formally established when Queen Elizabeth signed their charter in December 31, 1600, assigning a monopoly to the Company.[iv] The Company started off as a group of 218 merchants whose purpose was purely to trade in the East Indies, Asia and Africa. It would grow into a large corporation that possessed an army, ruled over seventy million acres of land and be responsible, directly and indirectly, for one fifth of the world’s population.[v] The Company eventually ceased to be a trading enterprise but became a powerful imperial agency, one of revenue greater than that of Britain and owned by businessmen and shareholders.[vi] The Company contributed to the state even though the company was not a state-controlled enterprise and its actions were purely motivated by profit. From 1750 to 1776, the significance of the English East India Company is that in pursuit of its own commercial interests, it greatly served the national interest of the state because its commercial interest coincided with the national interest of the state. Most importantly, this concurrence of interests led to the successful progress for both the company and the state. The success of the Company was a result of the concurrence of commercial and national interests as this assured support from the state in commercial ventures. Similarly the other way around, the state greatly benefited from the concurrence of commercial and national interest, as its imperial interests could only be met through a chartered company, the English East India Company. In other words, a crown sponsored imperialistic enterprise would not have been able to serve the national interest at the same level of success as the Company.
Here company is British East India company

Wish there was a time line from 800 AD events happening in Europe vs events in Indis
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

brihaspati wrote:It not to my liking - but people have said that it is about realpolitik, and my stricter idealist criteria don't matter. I have never visited sites or families descended from the Rajputs who gave their daughters in marriage to sultanate and Mughals. I dont hold their "independence" or raja-giri with any respect whatsoever. They formally gubo'd and accepted authority of the Islamic : they were subjects of Islamics, and it was Islamic sovereignty.
:(

+1
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by devesh »

^^^
the above is one aspect which differs in Andhra region. the local Hindu elites who bowed to the Islamics never engaged in the daughter exchanges, but it seems their gubo'ing was motivated more by the visceral contempt for the "lower" masses. even today, almost 3 generations after Op-Polo, and more than 2 generations since the beginning of the Communist rebellion against the feudals, the general contempt for the "lowly upstart" masses is still there.

it will be interesting to see which way the next gen swings. the next gen is going through the "modernist" phase. my feeling is that the "distractions" of "modernism" will keep this generation from gravitating so strongly towards that contempt/disdain politics toward the masses.
the seed of such behavior will be sowed, but simply owing to the lack of focus on political-power-grabbing (as much as it existed until the previous generation), the next gen might not do anything irrevocably disastrous in the coming important years and decades.

or at least, that's my hope.
subhamoy.das
BRFite
Posts: 1027
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by subhamoy.das »

So rule from Delhi will be about 400 years ( 200 by Mughals and 200 by Goras ). From akhand bharat perspective it will be around 1200 years.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Sanku »

Atri wrote:
brihaspati wrote:It not to my liking - but people have said that it is about realpolitik, and my stricter idealist criteria don't matter. I have never visited sites or families descended from the Rajputs who gave their daughters in marriage to sultanate and Mughals. I dont hold their "independence" or raja-giri with any respect whatsoever. They formally gubo'd and accepted authority of the Islamic : they were subjects of Islamics, and it was Islamic sovereignty.
:(

+1
I some what disagree, for example, Jai Singh II of Amber did a lot to clean the stains which were put by Bharmal et al. When we consider the full picture, we should certainly see the aspects of the same body which are not all "black".

I prefer to see them in shades of grey. The current behaviour is what matters most to me, how much of the previous compromises have been rejected, and how deep the current loyalty is (or do strains of compromising behaviour continue)
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

habal wrote:Maharana Pratap's forefather Rana Hamir and Bappa Rawal etc had many mughal wives in their harem. Hamir had just one IIRC, and Bappa Rawal had quite a few. Pathans of Nowshera were children of Bappa Rawal and his arab/tatar/tajik consorts. Turks who lived in Afghanistan also were descended from Rajputs on one side and tatar/tajik on another. I am reading this book on Maharana Pratap where the author talks about Rana Hamir Dev's muslim wife.
I'd like to know your sources on all this. Please enlighten.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Atri wrote:Around and post Prithviraja 3 of chauhana dynasty and his capture by Ghori, somehow rajputs became confined to Rajputana.
Would put it a bit differently - Rajputs of regions except Rajputana had lost their Kingdoms or sovereignty.
Atri wrote:They ruled entire North India when they defeated Arabs.
They ruled till 1206 A.D. What happened after that was an important table turner. The Turks breaching the Indo-Gangetic plains, spreading from Punjab to Bengal.
Whoever controls these plains, has an upper hand in north India.
Atri wrote:Furthermore they were in strong alliance with Rashtrakutas and later Chalukyas of Deccan. It was Rashtrakuta army which defeated arabs at Navsari and sent them beyond Makran coast of Baluchistan.
I thought it was the Chalukyan army under Pulakesin. Your source?
Atri wrote:There were Giant peaks like Rana Pratap, padmini, bhimdev, Sanga, udaysingh and many others. But this was no Rajput Movement leading team Hindu. It was like individual SRT making glorious centuries in Sharjah helping India qualify to finals in spite of loosing the match. The sustained team movement came from vijaynagar and Marathas.
As valiant and powerful they were Vijaynagar was again a centralized Kingdom like Dahir's .. like Shahi's. Thus their furious resistance didn't span across centuries.
OTOH, Rajputs and Marathas also to some extent were decentralized clan based hierachies .. where new clans kept popping up from the old ones and there wasn't a nucleus that could be destroyed to end the resistance once and for all.
I agree that the de-centralization had its limitations where Rajputs couldn't raise an empire, an Imperial power. Two sides of a coin I'd say.
Atri wrote:Sikhs too sadly burnt out in one generation. What they achieved in thatone generation is nothing but genius and miraculous. Sadly that too was undone after Partition.
As regional political powers of the 18th century - Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs and Marathas did enough to desist each other from allying. When we have plenty examples of narrow regionalism even today in this independent democratic country .. what to say of the wild medieval times.

Regards,
Virendra
Locked