The Mughal Era in India

Locked
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

i would like to collect and discuss the Mughal Era in India as modern India is built on a lot of facts and myths of that era.

I would like to explore the history of the six Mughal rulers:Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurangazeb and the latter Mughals.

http://www.royalark.net/India4/delhi.htm
The Timurid Dynasty
BRIEF HISTORY
The Mughals (or Timurid dynasty) traced their descent from Timur the Great, Amir of Transoxania and better known to history as Tamerlane. A minor Khan of the great horde, he carved out an Empire stretching including all the lands between and including Egypt, in the East, to India, in the West. His capital was established at Samarkand, in present day Uzbekistan, (which see). His vast empire disintegrated into warring states almost immediately after his death. His sons and successors ruled independent and semi-independent kingdoms; the most important of which were Khorassan in Persia, and Samarkand. They lost Samarkand to the Uzbeks under Shaibani in 1496, briefly regained it, but lost it again in 1500.

Babur, Amir of the minor principality of Farghana, and a descendant of Timur, attempted to regain the kingdom of his fathers several times. He conquered and lost Samarkand on three occasions. After enduring a wanderer's life for several years, he succeeded in conquering Afghanistan in 1506. Making Kabul his capital, he assumed the title of Padshah (Supreme King) in 1507 and gradually expanded his empire into the surrounding territories. Invading India in 1525, his armies defeated the Sultan of Delhi at the battle of Panipat in 1526. However, the dynasty was not secure. Babur's son, Humayun II, lost his throne and empire to Sher Shah Suri in two decisive battles at Chain in 1539 and at Kanauj, the following year. Thereafter he retreated into Persia, where the Safawi's gave him succour. Fifteen years later he launched a new invasion, taking Afghanistan and the Punjab, before soundly defeating Sikandar Shah, in June 1555.

Humayun's successors gradually extended their control over India by defeating and annexing the remaining Muslim sultanates of the continent. Akbar, Humayun's son and successor skilfully secured the allegiance of powerful Hindu rulers by strategically allying himself and his family in marriage. Jahangir, Akbar's son, further consolidated the dynasty in India, ensuring that thereafter the focus of their attention would be in the sub-continent, rather than, hankering after Samarkand and their ancestral lands in Central Asia.

Shah Jahan succeeded his father in 1627. His reign is rightly famed as a period when the arts flourished. The Emperor, himself, being responsible for the construction of a number of architectural marvels, not least of which is the Taj Mahal at Agra. Built as the mausoleum of his favourite wife, it stands as a timeless testament to love. However, his own end was far from romantic. Deposed and imprisoned, after a bitter and bloodthirsty war of succession between his sons, he ended his days without fulfilling his ambition, his own mausoleum, and a black marble mirror of the Taj.

The victor of the succession war, Aurangzeb, augured a reign of evil and terror. His example instigating a serious of succession disputes and civil wars this gradually sapped the dynasty of its power and authority. Machiavellian ministers, tribal leaders, regional governors and military leaders, all vied with each other to play the role of Kingmaker. Northern India became prey to Afghans, Marathas, Nepalese, Rohillas, and other tribal freebooters. Prince after prince became pawns in a vast game of chess, played out over two and half centuries. The Blinding, castration, and poisoning of princes became commonplace. In time, the kingmakers carved out their own principalities or proclaimed their independence. The European powers, particularly the British and French saw rich pickings for themselves, and increasingly joined in the fray. By the end of the eighteenth century the Emperor was little more than a prisoner of the Marathas, commanding little more than the environs of his own palace.

The last of the regional kingmakers, Daulat Scindia of Gwalior, was defeated and expelled from Delhi by Lord Lake on 14th September 1803. Thereafter Emperor Shah-i-'Alam II and his family became British pensioners. The permanent provision of 23rd May 1805 established a pension of Rs 90, 000 per mensum (raised to 100, 000 in 1809 and 125,000 in 1833), and extended British civil and judicial control over Delhi and its environs. The Emperor retaining exclusive civil and criminal jurisdiction, but not military, within the walls of the Red Fort only.

Shah Alam's two successors ceased to be recognised as Emperors, being styled and addressed as "Kings of Delhi" only in any dealings with Europeans. His grandson, Bahadur Shah II, was destined to be the last of his line. Aged eighty-two when Delhi fell to the sepoys during the Indian Mutiny of 1857, he had little choice but to accept the position allotted to him. Nvertheless, he issued proclamations for the expulsion of Europeans, appointed his sons to military commands, encouraged other rulers to revolt, sanctioned further mutiny and condoned murder, repression and extortion by the rebels. When Delhi eventually fell to the conquering British forces, several of his sons were shot and killed at the Mausoleum of Emperor Humayun. The Emperor was deposed and exiled to Rangoon in Burma, where he expired at the ripe old age of eighty-seven.

I would concentrate on the facts as we can find them and contrast to the image developed in Bollywood under the syncretic patronage of the INC.
Thanks, ramana
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Babur from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur

Image
Spouses:
Mubarika Yousefzai
Aisha Sultan Begum
Dildar Begum
Gulnar Aghacha
Gulrukh Begum
Maham Begum
Aasia Rizvi
Sayyida Afaq
Zaynab Sultān Begum

Issue/Children:
Humayun, son
Kamran Mirza, son
Askarī Mirzā, son
Hindal Mirzā, son
Gulbadan Begum, daughter
Fakhru 'n-Nīsā, daughter
Altun Bishik, alleged son
Babur was born on February 23 [O.S. February 14] 1483[9] in the town of Andijan, in the Fergana Valley in contemporary Uzbekistan. He was the eldest son of Omar Sheykh Mirzā,[10] ruler of the Fergana Valley, the son of Abū Saʿīd Mirza (and grandson of Miran Shah, who was himself son of Timur) and his wife Qutlugh Nigar Khanum, daughter of Yunus Khan, the ruler of Moghulistan (and great-great grandson of Tughlugh Timur, the son of Esen Buqa I, who was the great-great-great grandson of Chaghatai Khan, the second born son of Genghis Khan)[6][11][page needed][12][full citation needed]


Although Babur hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, his tribe had embraced Turkic[13] and Persian culture,[14][15] converted to Islam and resided in Turkestan and Khorasan. His mother tongue was the Chaghatai language (known to Babur as Turkī, "Turkic") and he was equally at home in Persian, the lingua franca of the Timurid elite.[16]

Hence Babur, though nominally a Mongol (or Moghul in Persian language), drew much of his support from the local Turkic and Iranian peoples of Central Asia, and his army was diverse in its ethnic makeup, including Tajiks (Sarts as called by Babur),[6] Pashtuns, Arabs, as well as Barlas and Chaghatayid Turco-Mongols from Central Asia.[17] Babur's army also included Qizilbāsh fighters, a militant religious order of Shi'a Sufis from Safavid Persia who later became one of the most influential groups in the Mughal court.

Babur is said to have been extremely strong and physically fit. He could allegedly carry two men, one on each of his shoulders, and then climb slopes on the run, just for exercise. Legend holds that Babur swam across every major river he encountered, including twice across the Ganges River in North India.[18] His passions could be equally strong. In his first marriage he was "bashful" towards ʿĀʾisha Ṣultān Begum, later losing his affection for her.[19] Babur also had a great passion to kill people, cut heads of people and create pillars out of cut head. He claimed to have created several such pillars in his autobiography.[20]

Though religion had a central place in his life, Babur also approvingly quoted a line of poetry by one of his contemporaries: "I am drunk, officer. Punish me when I am sober". He quit drinking alcohol before the Battle of Khanwa, only two years before his death for health reasons, and demanded that his court do the same. But he did not stop chewing narcotic preparations, and did not lose his sense of irony. He wrote, "Everyone regrets drinking and swears an oath (of abstinence); I swore the oath and regret that."[21]

Babur's early relations with the Ottomans were very troubling because the Ottoman Sultan Selim I provided his arch rival Ubaydullah Khan with powerful Matchlocks and Cannons.[22] In the year 1507, when ordered to accept Selim I as his rightful suzerain Babur refused, and gathered Qizilbash servicemen in order to counter the forces of Ubaydullah Khan during the Battle of Ghazdewan. In the year 1513, Ottoman Sultan Selim I reconciled with Babur (probably fearing that he would join the Safavids), dispatched Ustad Ali Quli the artilleryman and Mustafa Rumi the Matchlock marksman and many other Ottoman Turks, in order to assist Babur in his conquests. Thenceforth this particular assistance proved to be the basis of future Mughal-Ottoman relations.[23]

Family tree of Babur:

Image
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 were they called Mughals ? Do we have Mughal lineage in central Asia from where Babur came ?
Why did Muslims of India approach all the way to a small time local ruler in central Asia to help them against Lodhi's ?
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 »

there were 350 yrs of sultanate rule in delhi area before Babur arrived on the scene.these "empire" were not huge but one facet of the glorification of mughals is that prior rulers of the mamluk, khilji, tughlaq, sayyid, lodhi kind receive no press let alone +ve press. and among the mughals, its akbar, shah jahan and aurangzeb who get the bulk of airtime.
the khaljis managed to defeat mongol attacks as well.

sher shah suri who chased out humayun is mentioned in passing.

this I believe is likely because anything turkic or god forbid mongol lineage is not welcome in the INC's Hall of pre-medidated history. the martial qualities of the Afghan(pathan) and northern pakis are the only ones allowed to be propagated.

out of the whole lot of mughals, my studies indicate only akbar inherited chengis khan's mix of military and political acumen and work ethic...some kind of gene that jumped generations...anyone can be warlord at the head of 100,000 horsemen lusting for loot (eg nadir shah) , but it takes special qualities to weld together various factions and build a durable and successful administration.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

VikasRaina wrote:Why were they called Mughals ? Do we have Mughal lineage in central Asia from where Babur came ?
Why did Muslims of India approach all the way to a small time local ruler in central Asia to help them against Lodhi's ?
Good question. The wiki article says on this subject:
Babur claimed to be the true and rightful Monarch of the lands of the Lodi dynasty. He believed himself the rightful heir to the throne of Timur, and it was Timur who had originally left Khizr Khan in charge of his vassal in the Punjab, who became the leader, or Sultan, of the Delhi Sultanate, founding the Sayyid dynasty.[35] The Sayyid dynasty, however, had been ousted by Ibrahim Lodi, a Ghilzai Afghan, and Babur wanted it returned to the Timurids. Indeed, while actively building up the troop numbers for an invasion of the Punjab he sent a request to Ibrahim; "I sent him a goshawk and asked for the countries which from old had depended on the Turk," the 'countries' referred to were the lands of the Delhi Sultanate.

Following the unsurprising reluctance of Ibrahim to accept the terms of this "offer," and though in no hurry to launch an actual invasion, Babur made several preliminary incursions and also seized Kandahar — a strategic city if he was to fight off attacks on Kabul from the west while he was occupied in India – from the Arghunids. The siege of Kandahar, however, lasted far longer than anticipated, and it was only almost three years later that Kandahar and its Citadel (backed by enormous natural features) were taken, and that minor assaults in India recommenced. During this series of skirmishes and battles an opportunity for a more extended expedition presented itself.

Upon entering the Punjab plains, Babur's chief allies, namely Langar Khan Niazi advised Babur to engage the powerful and famous Muslim, Janjua Rajputs to join his conquest. The tribe's rebellious stance to the throne of Delhi was well known. Upon meeting their chiefs, Asad Malik Hast and Raja Sanghar Ali Khan, Babur made mention of the Janjua's popularity as traditional rulers of their kingdom and their ancestral support for his patriarch Timur during his conquest of the Tughluq dynasty. Babur aided them in defeating their enemies, the Gakhars in 1521, thus gaining their alliance. Babur then won their support and service during the Battle of Panipat and later on during the Battle of Khanwa.

The section of Babur's memoirs covering the period between 1508 and 1519 is missing. During these years Shah Ismail I suffered a large defeat when his large cavalry-based army was obliterated at the Battle of Chaldiran by the Ottoman Empire's new weapon, the matchlock musket. Both Shah Ismail and Babur, it appears, were swift in acquiring this new technology for themselves. Somewhere during these years Babur introduced matchlocks into his army, and allowed an Ottoman, Ustad Ali, to train his troops, who were then known as Matchlockmen, in their use. Babur's memoirs give accounts of battles where the opposition forces mocked his troops, never having seen a gun before, because of the noise they made and the way no arrows, spears, etc. appeared to come from the weapon when fired.

These guns allowed small armies to make large gains on enemy territory. Small parties of skirmishers who had been dispatched simply to test enemy positions and tactics, were making inroads into India. Babur, however, had survived two revolts, one in Kandahar and another in Kabul, and was careful to pacify the local population after victories, following local traditions and aiding widows and orphans.

First battle of Panipat


However, while the Timurids were united, the Lodi armies were far from unified. Ibrahim was widely detested, even amongst his nobles, and it was several of his Afghan nobles who were to invite Babur's intervention. Babur assembled a 12,000-man army, and advanced into India. This number actually increased as Babur advanced, as members of the local population joined the invading army.

The first major clash between the two sides was fought in late February 1526. Babur's son, Humayun (then aged 17), led the Timurid army into battle against the first of Ibrahim's advance parties. Humayun's victory was harder fought than the previous skirmishes, but it was still a decisive victory. Over one hundred prisoners of war were captured along with around eight war elephants. However, unlike after previous battles, these prisoners were not bonded or freed; by decree from Humayun, they were shot. In his memoirs, Babur recorded that "Ustad Ali-quli and the matchlockmen were ordered to shoot all the prisoners, by way of example; this had been Humayun's first affair, his first experience of battle; it was an excellent omen!" This is perhaps the earliest example of execution by firing squad.
{i]{Note the captured POWs were also Muslims. So pious Humayun starts his innings with murder.}[/i]

Ibrahim Lodi advanced against him with 100,000 soldiers and 100 elephants; and though Babur's army had grown, it was still less than half the size of his opponents, possibly as few as 25,000 men. This was to be their main engagement, the First battle of Panipat, and was fought on 21 April 1526. Ibrahim Lodi was slain and his army was routed;

Babur quickly took possession of both Delhi and Agra. That very day Babur ordered Humayun to ride to Agra (Ibrahim's former capital) and secure its national treasures and resources from looting. Humayun found the family of the Raja of Gwalior there — the Raja himself having died at Panipat — sheltering from the invaders, fearing the dreadful nature of the 'Mongols' from the stories that preceded their arrival. After their safety was guaranteed they gave Humayun their family's most valuable jewel, a very large diamond, which some believe to be the diamond which came to be called the Koh-i-Noor or "Mountain of Light'. It is thought that they did this to retain their Kingdom. Whether it was because of the gift or not, the family remained the rulers of Gwalior, though now under their new rulers the Timurids.

Babur, meanwhile, marched onward to Delhi reaching it three days after the battle. He celebrated his arrival with a festival on the river Jumna, and remained there at least until Friday (Jum'ah), when Muslim congregational prayers were said and he heard the Khutba, (sermon), read in his name in the Jama Masjid, a sign of the assumption of sovereignty. He then marched to Agra to join Humayun. Upon arrival Babur was presented with the fabulous diamond, and Babur reports that "I just gave it back to him", adding, "an expert in jewels said its value would provide two and a half days food for the whole world."
That is how the Koh-i-Noor was acquired by the Mughals. Later we will find out how the Brits got it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

A detailed history of the first Mughal Sultan:

http://www.royalark.net/India4/delhi2.ht
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Singha wrote:there were 350 yrs of sultanate rule in delhi area before Babur arrived on the scene.these "empire" were not huge but one facet of the glorification of mughals is that prior rulers of the mamluk, khilji, tughlaq, sayyid, lodhi kind receive no press let alone +ve press. and among the mughals, its akbar, shah jahan and aurangzeb who get the bulk of airtime.
the khaljis managed to defeat mongol attacks as well.

sher shah suri who chased out humayun is mentioned in passing.

this I believe is likely because anything turkic or god forbid mongol lineage is not welcome in the INC's Hall of pre-medidated history. the martial qualities of the Afghan(pathan) and northern pakis are the only ones allowed to be propagated.

out of the whole lot of mughals, my studies indicate only akbar inherited chengis khan's mix of military and political acumen and work ethic...some kind of gene that jumped generations...anyone can be warlord at the head of 100,000 horsemen lusting for loot (eg nadir shah) , but it takes special qualities to weld together various factions and build a durable and successful administration.

Mughal legitimacy was important for the Brits. Because their base of power in India, and Brit legitimacy itself in Indian rule - was based on the proper transfer of power through initially sanads from the padshahi, and then by "right of conquest" followed by official treaties confirming the victory and associated transfers of domain.

From this it becomes important for INC, as without Brit legitimacy, the entire "peaceful transfer of power" won by two divine humans onlee, would be illegitimate too. Its like a thief transferring another's property to a second buyer. Even in Brit ideas of "rule of law" and "legal principles" that is a crime and invalid.
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 »

Mughal legitimacy was important for the Brits. Because their base of power in India, and Brit legitimacy itself in Indian rule
Was the myth of "The great Mughal" empire created by Brits to derive legitimacy as Acharya has mentioned ? In the pre-Mcaulay days, were the Mughals considered as big,benevolent all pervading empire as they have been made out to be or the counter question be - Were they as incompetent and debauch towards the end as they were made out to be ?
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by abhishek_sharma »

I think we should create a reading list on this topic.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Sure and post the links to the reading list
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

I was watching some old movies and it struck me that social engineering projecting the Mughals as some great and grand people to be emulated was going on. Especially the Rajput submission. Same BS is going on in Bollywood of Hindu other artists submitting to the great Khans.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by abhishek_sharma »

I have read that some people welcomed the British because they were better than the Mughals.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

out of the whole lot of mughals, my studies indicate only akbar inherited chengis khan's mix of military and political acumen and work ethic...some kind of gene that jumped generations...anyone can be warlord at the head of 100,000 horsemen lusting for loot (eg nadir shah) , but it takes special qualities to weld together various factions and build a durable and successful administration.
Akbar, the gazi's rajput brother-in-laws, i.e., jahangir's mamas and his relatives ran the show through out akbar's reign. Naam kisi ka kaam kisi ka...
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

earlier in some thread there was a discussion about akbar's secular credentials.

Akbar was an official gazi and this was acknowledged in his general coins in public circulation, known as kalma type coins of akbar. Though, later he stopped minting kalma type coins and started minting ilahi type coins.

Image

Image
Last edited by Murugan on 08 Jul 2012 23:35, edited 1 time in total.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Oops, I am not able to resize the image.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Contrary to myth propelled by Bhad*as of India, Akbar could only control territory in south upto Mulher. Desperately tried to get stronghold beyond south of ahmednagar. In east, Could not rule cooch bihar (but went upto dhaka) and no other eastern part of India including Odisha and further down. Akbar had ruled only some part that too with the help and thru his rajput brother in laws
Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ardeshir »

Gents, any information pertaining to Din-i-illahi?
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Yayavar »

Good thread. Incidentally I was reading on Nalanda and got to thinking of other Indian universities or places of learning. In the 350 years of Mughal rule (or even earlier Sultanat times) were there any places of learning setup or maintained?
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Lalmohan »

the reference to mughal or mongol remained quite important for many centuries, since nominally any kingdom in central asia (and beyond) had to swear allegiance to the great khan in karakorum. in the times of genghiz to kubiliai, this was literally true, but as time went on, the central power diminished. even timur nominally had to send his token of submission to the great khan's court (by then beijing). for long after, kings would refer to the blessings of the great khan regardless of his actual power to justify themselves. much of this flowed through northern india too. in the indian-mughal times, many kings ruled with the blessings of the emperor in delhi, using the same model
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

VikasRaina wrote:
Mughal legitimacy was important for the Brits. Because their base of power in India, and Brit legitimacy itself in Indian rule
Was the myth of "The great Mughal" empire created by Brits to derive legitimacy as Acharya has mentioned ? In the pre-Mcaulay days, were the Mughals considered as big,benevolent all pervading empire as they have been made out to be or the counter question be - Were they as incompetent and debauch towards the end as they were made out to be ?
The glorification of the Mughal "period" is actively maintained by the Cambridge lobby.

Initially, it was an alliance between Persianized and hybrid Mongols with a section of local Rajputs and other Hindu princes against the remaining Turko-Afghans who in turn were allied with other Hindus.

Within the Hindu spectrum, there was always this tendency for clan jealousies - internal contests for power and the minutest of ego hassles - that led sibling-branches to collaborate with a powerful invader to teach a lesson to the previously powerful clan-bro, as well as get the lands of the now-ousted clan-bro and continue in privileges.

Initially, the Babarite adventure took off in a dual disaster setting. From Ala-goats times, the 1300's, the Indian economy had been on a downward spiral because of a mega drought [the late medieval cold-dry period] and as well as Maulana Barani credit-claimed policy of systematic destitution of non-Muslims. Ultimately this weakened the sultanate and produced both Muslim as well as Hindu centrifugal forces. In the outlying reaches - like in Jaunpur or Bengal, the Turko-Afghans allied with local Hindu chiefs as a tactic to balance out the Delhi aspirations.

It was in that backdrop that the Mongols could succeed. [By the way, take Ala-goats reputed repulsion of Mongol forces from Punjab with lots of pinches of salt. There is peculiar part of the standard narratives which never puts Ala on the battle field against the Mongols, and an allusion to a possible sacking of Delhi when Al-goat was "away" in campaign. Most likely he flew away and hid himself at a safe distance. The Mongols lost their momentum apparently from not having ideal "steppe-horde" friendly conditions in Sindh and Punjab. My own surmise is that they found the zone destitute and left.]

So this does not speak of great valour or tactical genius of Babarites. [In fact take every so-called big-mouths about historical conquerors - from western drooling over Alex and Jules, to ME drooling over the founder, his caliphs, and the later islamic invaders of India - with big pinches of salt. Most of the time, its luck, and boasting - supported by solid acts of treachery, betrayal, deception and bribery.]

Babar and Akbar, took the very same opportunities that that Brits took - of a devastated and recovering country and people, exhausted in fighting a completely deceptive and ethics less ideologically motivated genocidal imperialist force with its hands tied behind its back by its own philosophical and ideological restraints. Also the restraints that are consistently and cleverly used by section of Indians themselves to cover for collaboration with such forces for their own greed for power.

The reality of Mughal economy and society is far different from what it is portrayed as. The absolute major portion of revenues were used to maintain a small elite class of Mughals and their dependents. Right from the beginning, taxation was problematic - and hence right from the beginning, the state had to go on increasing its coercive forces. This meant a drain on the coffers. More extraction meant defaults from producers - which were increasingly compensated for - from Jehangir's times, by enslaving the defaulter and his entire family and selling them off to domestic Muslim buyers [decree of Sha Jehan] or exported to CA.

This led to abandonment of arable lands and entire groups turning to brigandry, and desolation of once fertile lands. It was downward continuously from Akbar's times. Yes debauchery was a part and parcel of Mughal life and it increased as the real military tasks decreased. After Alamgir, even princes were kept away from admin experience by their father - so the sinking was quicker. Just note that Alamgir conked in 1707 - Delhi raped in 30 years, and Palashi happened in just 50 years, with dewani of Bangla subah handed over within 58-59 years.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Having posted the info about Babur time to post about Humayun who succeeded him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humayun
Nasir ud-din Muhammad Humayun (Persian: نصیر الدین محمد همایون‎; full title: Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Jam-i-Sultanat-i-haqiqi wa Majazi, Sayyid al-Salatin, Abu'l Muzaffar Nasir ud-din Muhammad Humayun Padshah Ghazi, Zillu'llah; OS 7 March 1508 – OS 17 January 1556) was the second Mughal Emperor who ruled present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of northern India from 1530–1540 and again from 1555–1556. Like his father, Babur, he lost his kingdom early, but with Persian aid, he eventually regained an even larger one. On the eve of his death in 1556, the Mughal empire spanned almost one million square kilometers.

He succeeded his father in India in 1530, while his half-brother Kamran Mirza, who was to become a rather bitter rival, obtained the sovereignty of Kabul and Lahore, the more northern parts of their father's empire. He originally ascended the throne at the age of 22 and was somewhat inexperienced when he came to power.

Humayun lost Mughal territories to the Pashtun noble, Sher Shah Suri, and, with Persian aid, regained them 15 years later. Humayun's return from Persia, accompanied by a large retinue of Persian noblemen, signaled an important change in Mughal court culture, as the Central Asian origins of the dynasty were largely overshadowed by the influences of Persian art, architecture, language and literature and also there are many stone carved and Persian language In India from the time of Humayun also thousands of Persian manuscript in India.

Subsequently, in a very short time, Humayun was able to expand the Empire further, leaving a substantial legacy for his son, Akbar. His peaceful personality, patience and non-provocative methods of speech earned him the title ’Insān-i-Kamil (‘Perfect Man’), among the Mughals.[1][full citation needed]
So he was responsible or Persianization of the Central Asian Mughals.
Upon his succession to the throne, Humayun had two major rivals interested in acquiring his lands — Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat to the south west and Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan) currently settled along the river Ganges in Bihar to the east. Humayun’s first campaign was to confront Sher Khan Suri. Halfway through the counter offensive Humayun had to abandon it and concentrate on Gujarat, where a threat from Ahmed Shah had to be squelched. In this he succeeded and annexed Gujarat and Malwa. Champaner and the great fort of Mandu followed next.

During the first five years of Humayun's reign, these two rulers were quietly extending their rule, although Sultan Bahadur faced pressure in the east from sporadic conflicts with the Portuguese. While the Mughals had acquired firearms via the Ottoman Empire, Bahadur's Gujurat had acquired them through a series of contracts drawn up with the Portuguese, allowing the Portuguese to establish a strategic foothold in north western India.[5]

Humayun was made aware that the Sultan of Gujarat was planning an assault on the Mughal territories with Portuguese aid. Showing an unusual resolve, Humayun gathered an army and marched on Bahadur. His assault was spectacular and within a month he had captured the forts of Mandu and Champaner. However, instead of pressing his attack and going after the enemy, Humayun ceased the campaign and began to enjoy life in his new forts. Bahadur, meanwhile escaped and took up refuge with the Portuguese.[6]
First instance of Europeans in this case Portuguese interfering in India.

how did Sher Shah gain the upper hand?
Sher Shah met Humayun in battle on the banks of the Ganges, near Benares, in Chausa. This was to become an entrenched battle in which both sides spent a lot of time digging themselves into positions. The major part of the Mughal army, the artillery, was now immobile, and Humayun decided to engage in some diplomacy using Muhammad Aziz as ambassador. Humayun agreed to allow Sher Shah to rule over Bengal and Bihar, but only as provinces granted to him by his Emperor, Humayun, falling short of outright sovereignty. The two rulers also struck a bargain in order to save face: Humayun's troops would charge those of Sher Shah whose forces then retreat in feigned fear. Thus honour would, supposedly, be satisfied.[9]

Once the Army of Humayun had made its charge and Sher Shah's troops made their agreed-upon retreat, the Mughal troops relaxed their defensive preparations and returned to their entrenchments without posting a proper guard. Observing the Mughals' vulnerability, Sher Shah reneged on his earlier agreement. That very night, his army approached the Mughal camp and finding the Mughal troops unprepared with a majority asleep, they advanced and killed most of them. The Emperor survived by swimming the Ganges using an air filled "water skin," and quietly returned to Agra
.[5][8]
Humayun meets the Persian Shah
The Shah urged that Humayun convert from Sunni to Shia Islam, and Humayun eventually and reluctantly accepted, in order to keep himself and several hundred followers alive.[12] Although the Mughals initially disagreed to their conversion they knew that with this outward acceptance of Shi'ism, Shah Tahmasp was eventually prepared to offer Humayun more substantial support.[12] When Humayun's brother, Kamran Mirza, offered to cede Kandahar to the Persians in exchange for Humayun, dead or alive, Shah Tahmasp refused. Instead the Shah threw a party for Humayun, with 300 tents, an imperial Persian carpet, 12 musical bands and "meat of all kinds". Here the Shah announced that all this, and 12,000 choice cavalry were his to lead an attack on his brother Kamran. All that Shah Tahmasp asked for was that, if Humayun's forces were victorious, Kandahar would be his.
In the Af-Pak thread I kept saying Qandahar is the key to the Ganga Valley.

Abhishek, One original source here

Humayun Nama by Gulbadan Begum from archive.org
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SaiK »

Should tippu qualify as mughal:
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tipu/ch04.htm
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 »

So Babur, Humayun and Akbar became sovereign kings at a very young age while later day scions of Mughal empire had the keys to throne handed over to them post mid-life and that too after indulging in bitter struggle for ascendency. This may tell us why campaigns to secure Kandhar and other hostile terrains started failing later along with increase in interest in arts,dance and culture. The latter age generations had it easy and were more "aish-parast".
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 »

well from akbar downwards most handovers resulted in all the losing brothers getting killed. unlike the original great khan who divided his kingdom among his 4 sons. even bayram khan who was akbar's mentor was not spared...I read somewhere he was packed off to mecca and killed by hired assassins on the way in gujarat. shah jahan was imprisoned for years before his death in agra fort. so the relations even between biraders was dog-eat-dog, zero sum game.....each man for himself and not even much alliances between close brothers like the Sudairi Seven in saudia.

there was something definitely missing in their upbringing or wrong in the court culture if this happened generation after generation.

I wonder if the relationship between the main allied rajput clans and mughals was like that between the INC and say Mamata/Mulayam today :)
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

babur was a complete failure in his hometown of fergana ala yuvraj. He tried many times to overthrow the shah of fergana but was badly whipped and took a lot of time to recover. Repeated failures at central asia forced him to look southwards across himalayas. It seems the non-expansionist and dual leadership (afghan & NI elite) nature of the delhi rulers of those times often led to dual-loyalties of the troops and made them vulnerable to intrigues and always being on defensive.
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 »

yep - given half a chance babur would have preferred to rule over cooler climes of kabul or kandahar, but had to make a meal of delhi because of getting slapped around by stronger players in his original place.

seems to have been a huge number of warlords and well armed 'hordes' and 'rootless tribes' moving around in the region between caspian sea and punjab in that era, looking for resources and kingdoms to bootstrap. maybe it was because at a certain stage any kingdom becomes too small to meet the aspirations of pyramid of descendents of original founder.

the mughals solved that one by periodic "culling" of the losing brothers!

it would be wrong to view the Mughals as some "special" people - they were part of the same turko-persian-afghan rootless chaos and movement that was seen for 350 yrs previously and the 5 pre-mughal sultanates I had named. I would imagine there was no uzbekistan then but those -stans were divided between persia and afghan rulers.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

The loser babur in his BaburNama wrote that indian cities are dull (as if he had roamed around India) and worthless. There are no gardens, grand palaces etc. Bloody opium addict.

Humayun was also an opium addict. Barring Akbar, every other mughal was a pervert or drug addict.

Jahangir spent half of his reign's time indulging in maas, madira and maithun, his wife Noorjahan ran the administration for sometime (may be 4-6 years). Shahjahan only seems to have enjoyed peaceful time of total mughal time. In the end he was prisoned and blinded by Aurangzeb.
Last edited by Murugan on 09 Jul 2012 10:29, edited 1 time in total.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

maybe he heard that some Indians used words like b*****d to describe him.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Ehsaan faramosh Humayun and Akbar never thanked the family who saved their A**. Akbar was born in a horse stable of a Rajput family. Humayun was given shelter somewhere in Rajasthan when he was chased by Sher Shah's soldiers and baying for his blood.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

I believe the fleeing mughal Babur and his descendants were protected by Rajputs. How can a loser be called a conqueror of world? Mughals somehow survived by playing double dholki - followers of islam, the then powerful emperor of ME's religion and marrying with Rajputs. Incidentally they accumulated lot of wealth and clout.

Bruts, GoI and faaltu seculars overhyped their achievements only (never mentioned their failures and short comings !!). A makabara built by a pervert mughal became brand image of India... vis-a-vis another dull useless monument Kutub Minar.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

The only effect of Mughals in India is how foreigners looked at India.

The land where life is celebrated, tombs and makabaras became the brand imaged. Invaders monuments commemorating 'victory' over Indians became national monuments.

People visit India with Tajmahal as a must see in their itinerary. Obama went further and visited tomb of Humayun.

India became a place for tomb tourism!

This is mughal era effect in short... Otherwise there is no worthwhile contribution in any field by mughals, imvvho.

Though, we got Maharana Prataps, Shivaji Maharajs, Peshwas, Marathas and Lachit Barphukans because of mughals but who remembers them anyways...
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 »

But one thing Mughals certainly did - They established a rigid central authority in Delhi and a pattern for future generations to follow which is being followed till now. All power flowed via Delhi/Agra with King at the top and warlords,local rulers ruling on his behalf and sending tax.
ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ArmenT »

ramana wrote:Babur from Wiki:
Family tree of Babur:

Image
Couple of small details here. Timur was never a descendant of Genghis Khan and didn't claim it either. In 1370 he installed a puppet to rule the Chagatai tribe, in recognition of the Mongol laws that only a blood descendant of Genghis Khan was allowed to rule. He did marry one of Genghis Khan's descendants later in life though, but this lady wasn't the one who bore Babur's grandfather. The link on his mother's side to Genghis Khan is also highly doubtful as Yunus Khan was not a Genghis Khan descendant and neither was his father, Awais Khan. Babur claimed he was Mongol for H&D purposes only (and many like thinking individuals across the border from India claim central asian descent for the same reasons),
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

Central asia with it's hotchpotch racial combinations primarily persian-mongol or if further north caucasian-mongol mixtures. Are these ethnically mixed groups addressed as generic 'turk'. And if yes, then the word 'turk' itself is an artificial construct. What are the main racial groups in asia ? Indic, mongolian, persian, arab, caucasian. There is no original 'turk' group here.

If we consider kyrgyz, uighur peoples to be the original 'turks' then in that case majority of the population carries r1a1 marker that is primarily an Iranian marker. Same goes in varying degree with all turkic peoples. Guess it's better to called a 'turk' than be called a 'mutt'. This could be the earliest case of social engineering.
rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 853
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by rkirankr »

Murugan wrote:The only effect of Mughals in India is how foreigners looked at India.

The land where life is celebrated, tombs and makabaras became the brand imaged. Invaders monuments commemorating 'victory' over Indians became national monuments.

People visit India with Tajmahal as a must see in their itinerary. Obama went further and visited tomb of Humayun.

India became a place for tomb tourism!

This is mughal era effect in short... Otherwise there is no worthwhile contribution in any field by mughals, imvvho.

Though, we got Maharana Prataps, Shivaji Maharajs, Peshwas, Marathas and Lachit Barphukans because of mughals but who remembers them anyways...
When I told a friend that one must bath after visiting the Taj because it is a tomb where it is believed a dead person or persons have been buried. As per Hindu customs , we should take bath after visiting it. I was labelled as a communal person :).
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by vishvak »

Murugan wrote:another dull useless monument Kutub Minar.
From Qutb Minar wiki
Qutb-ud-din Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu and Jain temples and reused the building materials for construction of Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque and the Qutub Minar according to a Persian inscription still on the inner eastern gateway [4] [5] .[6]
Hardly dull.
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 »

to be fair to ASI they have not glossed over this fact in the info boards there and only a clueless gora would not be able to id the hindu and jain pillars there. I believe the word ASI used is 'reused' rather than more truthfully demolished.
must have been a brave officer to slip that one in, if one of the komissars of indian history had seen it, he would be keeper of antiquities in narcondam island now.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SaiK »

rkirankr wrote:
Murugan wrote:The only effect of Mughals in India is how foreigners looked at India.

The land where life is celebrated, tombs and makabaras became the brand imaged. Invaders monuments commemorating 'victory' over Indians became national monuments.

People visit India with Tajmahal as a must see in their itinerary. Obama went further and visited tomb of Humayun.

India became a place for tomb tourism!

This is mughal era effect in short... Otherwise there is no worthwhile contribution in any field by mughals, imvvho.

Though, we got Maharana Prataps, Shivaji Maharajs, Peshwas, Marathas and Lachit Barphukans because of mughals but who remembers them anyways...
When I told a friend that one must bath after visiting the Taj because it is a tomb where it is believed a dead person or persons have been buried. As per Hindu customs , we should take bath after visiting it. I was labelled as a communal person :).
mmm.. I think (JMT) you just gave the answers why we don't remember the right history.

lesson 1: be objective from now onwards.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Oh, i erred... Mughal gave something very valuable. Mughals 'gave' a big beating stick to seculars to...

Mughal Prashansha and Akbar Pooja == Showing Love to Muslims of India and may be to muslims of neighbour hood == Showing Hate to Non Muslims to earn Muslim votes == Pure Paak Secularism and William Darlymple

Text books filled with Akbar the gazi Pooja and real value to Indian secularism.

Provided Opportunities to hindus to unite in the name of fallen, desecrated temples of Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya.

Muslims of India got a devout die hard Muslim Islamist idol Aurangzeb

Mugal gardens in Rashtrapati Bhavan where Lotus are not kept for observing apolitical nature of Rashtrapati but keeping mugal name to the garden is secular.

I can type on and on...damn...
Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ardeshir »

Singha wrote:to be fair to ASI they have not glossed over this fact in the info boards there and only a clueless gora would not be able to id the hindu and jain pillars there. I believe the word ASI used is 'reused' rather than more truthfully demolished.
must have been a brave officer to slip that one in, if one of the komissars of indian history had seen it, he would be keeper of antiquities in narcondam island now.
Is there a photograph of such an inscription? :eek:
Locked