The Mughal Era in India

[Sushupti]

THE MYTH OF AKBAR

It is curious but true that the very historians who refuse to see the pre-Akbar period of Muslim rule as a nightmare for Hindus, hail Akbar as the harbinger of a dazzling dawn for the same Hindus. They point out as to how Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax and the jizyah, how he appointed Hindus to high positions, and how he extended to them this or that concession which they had not enjoyed earlier. One may very well ask these worthies that if these discriminatory taxes and disabilities did not exist earlier, how come you find Akbar freeing the Hindus from them? All that one is bound to get by way of an answer will be another bundle of casuistry.

There is no dearth of Hindu historians who heap Akbar with the choicest encomiums. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava is a typical example. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru goes much further and proclaims Akbar as the father of Indian nationalism. A Hindu who takes all these high-sounding stories with a pinch of salt, is rather rare nowadays.

On the other hand, most Muslim historians and theologians frown upon Akbar as a villain in the history of Islam in India. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi who believes that Hindus were far more happy under Muslim rule than under that of their own princes, accuses Akbar of jeopardising Pax Moslemaica by tempering with the established tenets of Muslim polity. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written that if Ahmad Sirhindi had not come to the rescue, Akbar had almost finished Islam in India. It is only in post-Independence India that some Muslim historians have come forward to present Akbar as the pioneer of Secularism in this country. But we know what Secularism means in Muslim mouths, particularly if the Muslim happens to be a Marxist as well. For them, Akbar is no more than a Muslim hero for Hindu consumption.

One has, therefore, to go to the original sources in order to find the truth about Akbar. The story which these sources tell can be summed up as follows:

1. There was nothing Indian about Akbar except that he lived his life in India, fought his wars in India, built his empire in India, and dragged many Indian women into his harem. He knew nothing about India’s spiritual traditions, or India’s history, or India’s culture except for what he heard from some native sycophants who visited his court for very mundane reasons. No Hindu saint or scholar worth his salt cared to meet or educate him about things Indian. It was only some Jain munis who came close to him. But then Jain munis have always been in search of royal patronage like the Christian missionaries. Moreover, Akbar used these munis for influencing some Rajput princes who would have otherwise remained recalcitrant.

2. Akbar was every inch an Islamic bandit from abroad who conquered a large part of India mainly on the strength of Muslim swordsmen imported from Central Asia and Persia. He took great pride in proclaiming that he was a descendant of Taimur and Babur, and longed to recover the homelands of his forefathers in Transoxiana. He continued to decorate his name with the Islamic honorific ghãzî which he had acquired at the commencement of his reign by beheading the half-dead Himu. The wars he waged against the only resistant Hindu kingdoms - Mewar and Gondwana - had all the characteristics of classic jihãd. Whenever he wanted to celebrate some happy event or seek blessing for some great undertaking - which was quite often - he went on a pilgrimage to the dargah of Muinuddin Chishti, the foremost symbol of Islam’s ceaseless war on Hindus and Hinduism. He sent rich gifts to many centres of Muslim pilgrimage including Mecca and Medina, and carried on negotiations with the Portuguese so that voyages by Muslim pilgrims could be facilitated. In his letters to the Sharifs of Mecca and the Uzbek king of Bukhara, he protested that he was not only a good Muslim but also a champion of Islam, and that the orthodox Ulama who harboured doubts about him did not understand his game of consolidating a strong and durable Islamic empire in India.

3. The concessions which Akbar made to Hindus were not motivated by any benevolence towards Hindus or Hinduism on his part. He was out to win Hindu support in his fight with two inveterate foes of every Muslim empire-builder - the Muslim chieftains and the die-hard Ulama. Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq had faced the same foes earlier, but failed to overcome them because they could not break out of the closed circle of the foreign Muslim fraternity in India. Akbar succeeded in fixing both the foes because he tried a new method, and discovered very soon that it worked. He fixed the Muslim chieftains with the help of Rajput princes and their retinues. He fixed the Ulama partly by making them fall foul of each other in the Ibadat Khana, and partly by flirting with jogis and Jains munis and Christian missionaries in order to frighten them. They had nothing except royal patronage to fatten upon. There is no evidence that Akbar’s association with some spokesmen of rival religions was inspired by any sincere seeking on his part, or that the association improved his mind in any way. He remained a prisoner of Islamic thought-categories to the end of his days.

4. Nor did he have to pay a heavy price for Hindu support. Fortunately for him, he started functioning at a time when Hindu resistance to Islamic imperialism stood at a low ebb except in small pockets like Mewar and Gondwana. Hindu resistance had been led so far by the Rajput princes. But numerous wars fought by them with Muslim marauders for several centuries had exhausted their manpower as well as material resources. Akbar discovered it very soon that he could buy Rajput help in exchange for a few gestures which might have sounded ominous to orthodox Islam at that time but which proved only superficial in the long run. In fact, when one comes to think of it all, Hindus had to pay a very heavy price for those gestures from Akbar. He demanded Hindu princesses for his harem, which meant surrender of Hindu honour. He employed Hindu warriors not only against Muslim rebels but also against Hindu freedom fighters, which meant prostitution of Hindu heroism. For all practical purposes, he made the Hindus wield the sword of Islam not only in his own lifetime but right upto our own times. The pecuniary loss suffered by the Islamic state due to abolition of the pilgrim tax and the jizyah was compensated more than many times by the consolidation of an Islamic empire with a streamlined revenue system such as extracted from the Hindu masses, particularly the peasantry, the heavy cost of extending that empire by means of numerous wars, maintaining Mughal pomp and pageantry, and building monuments like the Taj. By the end of the Mughal empire, Hindu masses stood reduced to the subsistence level.

5. It was during the reign of Akbar that Muslim adventurers from many Islamic countries abroad started flocking towards India on an unprecedented scale, and made the Islamic establishment in the country stronger than ever before. They occupied all the top positions in the army as well as the administration of the Mughal empire. Statistics may be marshalled in order to show that Hindu share in government posts went on increasing till the time of Aurangzeb. But there is no gainsaying the fact that Hindu say in the policies of the Mughal empire went on decreasing from the days of Akbar’s immediate successor onwards. Even during the reign of Akbar, Muslim functionaries at the lower levels did not stop molesting Hindus in various ways normal to Islam. Many instances can be cited. Many a magnate in Akbar’s court were in close contact with the orthodox Ulama and Sufis led by Shykh Ahmad Sirhindi who went about saying publicly that Hindu should either be made to embrace Islam or treated like dogs. They came out into the open as soon as Akbar was dead, and their progeny continued to progress towards renewed power and prestige from the reign of Jahangir onwards till they again rose to the top under Aurangzeb.

It is true that the main fault lay with the Hindus for not being able to see through Akbar’s camouflage, and for helping him in consolidating an imperial power which Islam had never known in India in the pre-Akbar period of Muslim rule. But the fact remains that but for Akbar laying the firm foundations, there would have been no sadist scoundrel like Jahangir, no abominable criminal like Shah Jahan, and no Islamic monster like Aurangzeb for heaping endless torments and humiliations on Hindus. Let there be no doubt that far from being a dazzling dawn, the reign of Akbar was only the beginning of a darker night which continues till today in the form of Nehruvian Secularism.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch10.htm

[Sushupti]

MUGHAL EMPIRE: A JOINT VENTURE

Babur won some renowned victories but hardly established an empire. Humayun lost to Sher Shah Sur, and failed to win back most of what Babur had won. Sher Shah added Ranthambhor and Ajmer to his empire in north India. But the fierce fight he faced in Marwar made him confess that he had almost lost an empire for a handful of millet. His rule lasted only for a brief span of five years (1540-1545 AD). The Sur “empire” became a shambles soon after, so much so that the Hindu general Himu was able to crown himself as Hemachandra Vikramaditya at Delhi in 1556 AD.

The Mughal empire founded by Akbar in 1556 AD proved more stable, and endured for 150 years. It also expanded in all directions till by the end of the 17th century it covered almost the whole of India except the extreme south. But the credit for Mughal success must go largely to Akbar’s recognition of power realities, and reconciliation with the Rajputs by suspension of several tenets of a typically Islamic state. It was the Rajput generals and soldiers who won many of the victories for which the Mughals took credit. The Rajput states in Rajasthan and Bundelkhand were vassals of the Mughal emperor only in name. For all practical purposes, they were allies of the Mughals who had to keep them in good humour. And Mewar kept aloft the flag of Hindu defiance throughout the period of effective Mughal rule.

The Mughal empire started breaking up very fast when Aurangzeb reversed Akbar’s policy of accommodating the Hindus, and tried to re-establish a truly Islamic state based on terror, and oppression of the “non-believers”. Rajasthan and Bundelkhand reasserted their independence during his life-time. So did the Jats around Bharatpur and Mathura. The Marathas dug Aurangzeb’s grave when they made imperial seats such as Ahmadnagar and Aurangabad unsafe in spite of large Mughal garrisons, and invaded imperial territory as far as Khandesh and Gujarat. This Hindu resurgence shattered the Mughal empire within two decades of Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 AD.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch8.htm

[RamaY]

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...

+1. Not only that, the Hindu cultural monuments (temples, Khajuraho, Mahabalipuram etc) are not at all recognized by the world. This is a careful image building to NOT TO recognize Bharatiya Hindu culture but to portray India as some Islamic empire.

[Sushupti]

THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE

Reviewed as a whole, the period between the last decade of the 12th century and the first quarter of the 18th - the period which is supposed to be the period of Muslim empire in India - is nothing more than a period of long-drawn-out war between Hindu freedom fighters and the Muslim invaders. The Hindus lost many battles, and retreated again and again. But they recovered every time, and resumed the struggle so that eventually the enemy was worn out, defeated, and dispersed in the final round which started with the rise of Shivaji.

As we read the history of medieval India we find that only a few Hindu princes made an abject surrender before the proved superiority of Muslim arms. Muslim historians cite innumerable instances of how Hindus burnt or killed their womenfolk, and then died fighting to the last man. There were many instances of Muslims being defeated decisively by Hindu heroism. Many of the so-called Muslim conquests were mere raids which succeeded initially but the impact of which did not last for long. The account which Assam, Rajasthan, Bundelkhand, Orissa, Telingana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and the Punjab gave of themselves in successive waves of resistance and recovery, has not many parallels in human history.

It is, therefore, a travesty of truth to say that Islam enjoyed an empire in India for six centuries. What happened really was that Islam struggled for six centuries to conquer India for good, but failed in the final round in the face of stiff and continued Hindu resistance. Hali was not at all wrong when he mourned that the invincible armada of Hijaz which had swept over so many seas and rivers met its watery grave in the Ganges. Iqbal also wrote his Shikwah in sorrowful remembrance of the same failure. In fact, there is no dearth of Muslim poets and politicians who weep over the defeat of Islam in India in the past, and who look forward to a reconquest of India in the future. Hindus have survived as a majority in their motherland not because Islam spared any effort to conquer and convert them but because Islamic brutality met more than its equal in Hindu tenacity for freedom.

Nor is it anywhere near the truth to say that the British empire in India replaced an earlier Muslim empire. The effective political power in India had already passed into the hands of the Marathas, the Jats, and the Sikhs when the British started playing their imperialist game. The Muslim principalities in Bengal, Avadh, South India, Sindh, and the Punjab were no match for the Hindu might that had resurged. The Mughal emperor at Delhi by that time presented a pitiful picture of utter helplessness. The custodians of Islam in India were repeatedly inviting Ahmad Shah Abdali from across the border to come and rescue Islam from the abyss into which it had fallen.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch8.htm

[SaiK]

RamaY, can you build a list of organization, people, etc, and create an entity list? you have a big data here I guess.

>>

careful image building to NOT TO recognize

<<

my objective is not to subdue the thought, but bring it forward.

[Yayavar]

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?

There is a board there which mentions it.
(btw, Mandore Gardens in Jodhpur have beautiful chattris from the same period but seems ot be fully neglected. There are certainly other monuments, than the well known, that could do with some additional 'love and care').

My question to all is - were there any institutions of learning in science/technology, medicine, mathematics, language (quite likely), philosophy etc. setup during Mughal or Sultanat era? Or, is it mostly dark ages from that perspective? I find it curious that Sawai Jaisingh built the Jantar Mantar and worked on other instruments, but there no reference to any other such effort (or I'm unaware of it).

[ramana]

Satish Chandra, the secular historian, says the only learning places setup during the Islamic period are madrassas. Akbar allowed Hindus to attend them to learn Persian which was the court language. n a couple of generations the Hindus took over the civil administration.

[Singha]

>> Not only that, the Hindu cultural monuments (temples, Khajuraho, Mahabalipuram etc) are not at all recognized by the world.

how popular a place is in terms of footfalls is dependent on its location. mysore which is near blr attracts N times the tourists of hampi which is far away.
khajuraho and mamallapuram are both unesco world heritage sites. khajuraho has a small airport and now a number of luxury hotels which attract well heeled folks.

the "golden triangle" of delhi-agra-jaipur (plus sikri) has a good lock on the pkg tourists, but so does goa, so does mysore/coorg/kabini

I think people should stop seeing conspiracies under every rock...

eastern india had no good stone quarries so you dont have the long lasting and big stone structures of Rajasthan, MP, karnataka.....in west bengal that is why terracota temples came up. assam has hardly a few stone structures in sibasagar and a few temples made of stone that survive from few 100 yrs ago. every colony in delhi has something thats atleast 500 yrs old if not more.

in TN, the main sites of madurai, thanjavur, chidambaram,gangaikondacholapuram are quite a hike from airhead of Chennai without EXPRESSWAYS or BULLET TRAINS to speed the world citizenry there. when that happens you will see a FLOOD of people.

that way mysore, belur, halebidu, sravanabelagola being within driving distance gets loads of visitors.

[Singha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wo ... s_in_India

[SaiK]

key.. connectivity is key to establish tourist spots. road infrastructure and airports are vital to project our history, plus earn the desired tourist income.

list out all places of importance.. just connect them with 3+3 lane highways., and provide good airports connectivity. then we shall see the difference. when one comes to TN, there is no other landmark other than temples that peek out of nothing [compared with western ghat eco system].

same case is for KA.

[ramana]

Why are we discussing tourism in this thread? Its a serious subject to understnad modern India.

[Singha]

Ramana this thread has drifted from its initial goal of understanding the Mughals into
- a general expression of displeasure about the way mughals are held up as the local alaksindr (I concede having taken part in that mob)
- general rants against mughals and muslim rulers
- complaint that hindu sites are not given importance (to which I responded with the data).

I suggest we avoid all this and tighen the rope back to its original tension.

[SaiK]

bulls eye ramana, as always you are.
--

found some compilation here:
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birod ... nrule.html

http://www.indianchild.com/mughal_era_india.htm

http://indiansaga.com/history/mughal_nadir.html
http://indiansaga.com/history/mughal.html

http://www.gatewayforindia.com/history/ ... istory.htm


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... re_1.shtml

http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/200 ... rance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Pillar_Temple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_tribe

http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/m/mughal-empire/

http://www.indianetzone.com/37/mughal_i ... uisine.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53237486/3/MU ... THEIR-RULE

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch8.htm

http://www.indianetzone.com/37/indian_a ... l_rule.htm

interesting: http://panhwar.com/Article152.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=tIXynR ... &q&f=false
Watson Collection of Indian Miniatures at the Elvehjem Museum of Art

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40230463/Mughal-Empire

[Murugan]

The thread's title may be converted to Rajput Mughal Era (in India should be optional).

There was no mugal era as such on Pan India Basis. E.g., Mewar was not part of Mugal empire, nor Odisha, Nor Maharashtra, Not whole of Malwa, Large area of Cooch Behar, Assam and Beyond. Not even Kutch.

How Mugal's time can be called Era in India. Which India?

What Akbar could not gained, Jahangir Gained, What jahangir gained Shahjahan lost. What mugal gained Auranzeb lost. What Aurangzeb lost was lost forever.

[SaiK]

http://www.publishyourarticles.net/know ... nasty.html
The Causes That Leads To Decline And Fall of Mighty Mughal Dynasty

[Murugan]

It is very easy to find out what was the spread of Rajput-Mughal empire.

These mugals had habit of minting coins with Mint Names, with sheer purpose of stamping borders, marking administrative authority and Political power.

Like AIT this myth of pan India image is created by secular forces

At the height of their power in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, they controlled most of the subcontinent—extending from Bengal in the east to Balochistan in the west, Kashmir in the north to the Kaveri basin in the south. Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 150 million, over a territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometres (1.2 million square miles).[2]

This statement is taken as - sweeping power of mugals across India and this is a big lie. even if it is true, Rajputs contribution to conquests of Mugal-Rajput empire is totally ignored.

[Murugan]

The largest numbers of Mugal mints were in the time of Aurangzeb but by the time he took over the reigns, kabul, peshawar etc had minimal or no control of Mugals.

It happened like this. Akbar, like Sultanates, wanted to control the riches of south india. Tried hard to get control over Ahmednagar to get a opening to South India

Chand Bibi (1550–1599 CE), also known as Chand Khatun or Chand Sultana, was an Indian Muslim woman warrior. She acted as the Regent of Bijapur (1580–90) and Regent of Ahmednagar (1596–99).[1] Chand Bibi is best known for defending Ahmednagar against the Mughal forces of Emperor Akbar.

In 1591, the Mughal emperor Akbar had asked all the four Deccan sultanates to acknowledge his supremacy. All the sultanates evaded compliance, and Akbar's ambassadors returned in 1593.

Akbar could mint coins from Ahmednagar only during his last five or so years of reign.

But Akbar could spread his rule in east west axis and had gained little control over Kabul. East Axis was limited upto Dhaka except large part of Cooch Bihar. But had minted coins from Patna. No control further south of today's Poshchim Bangla nor above Dhaka - Assam and other areas. No Odisha. Forget AP, TN, Karnatak areas etc. Only For some period in Shrinagar.

***

Jahangir resorted to half kg mutton and half kg sharaab and gave freedom to his rajput in-laws. These rajputs made further inroads in western part and got under them Qandahar, Kabul, Panjnagar etc, went beyond Ahmednagar in south but not too far.

***

What was gained during Jahangir's reign in west was lost by Shahjahan but he gained more in south and went upto Devgiri minted coins from Daulatabad.

***

Aurangzeb almost lost control over northwester part of India but tried to make inroads in southern India and for sometime minted coins from masulipatanam. For couple of years from Katak, While his rajput led forces lost war with Lachit Barphukan in Assam. To Shivaji in Deccan. Though Aurngzeb's forces gained in Marwar.

In no point of time this rajput-mugal empire had total control over the land mass of India, influential or otherwise. Small sultanates of south India did not pay heed to Akbar the Gazi Samrat's instructions or whatever. Nor this Aurangzeb's forces could win a decisive victory over Shivaji's Forces. Forget Kaveri.

How can it even be called Mugal Rajput Era (in some part of India?)

[RamaY]

self-deleted

[ramana]

I would like to collect and post the maps which show the extent of the Mughals Empire under each of the six rulers: Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jehan, Aurangazeb and then the latter Mughals.

[Murugan]

How many instances are there when this pervert drug addict Emperors led their forces and really challenged an opponent.

Compare mugal leadership with even small time sultanates, kingdoms etc and their rulers who have challenged these gutless emperors head on and leading from the front.

[Murugan]

Ramana-ji

Latter mugal empire after Aurangzeb is of Marathas only. You will find little influence of Mohammad Shah but he was on pansion.

[SaiK]

http://www.mapsofindia.com/history/mugh ... re-map.jpg
@copyright comes with disclaimer on authenticity.

[Murugan]

When we search maps of mugal empire, the only picture we get is from Kabul Qandahar to Northern Tip of Kerala and Souther tip of AP. Person seeking information will thing that this was the total are ruled by all the mugals... This is a bigger scam than AIT

How humbug it is...

[Murugan]

Babur




-

Akbar and Aurangzeb with Babur

http://www.mapsofindia.com/history/mughal-empire.html

[SaiK]

nice map - dynamic with timeline

[RamaY]

[RamaY]

[Murugan]

Shahjahan

[RamaY]

[Murugan]

RamaY-ji

The expansion under shahjahan shown in your post deliberately(?) omits territorial loss under shahjahan

[Murugan]

Added by Aurangzeb shows the whole of Maratha part as Aurangzeb's territory.

[Murugan]

Raja Mansingh (1594–1605) was the next governor of Bengal. He shifted the capital from Tanda to a new town of Akbarnagar. There were again revolts headed by Isha Khan and Raghudeva, cousin of Lakshminarayana, ruler of Coochbehar. Mughals suffered heavy losses, but the revolt was suppressed. In 1598, Mansingh took temporary retirement, and his eldest son Jagatsingh took over. When he died, the younger Mahasingh took over. Because of revolts, Mansingh had to return to Bengal and defeat them in February, 1601; though revolts continued till next year. He also defeated the Mags of Arakan. The mughal empire passed on to nur-ud-din Muhammad jahângîr (1605–1627) who replaced Mansingh by Qutb-ud-din Khan Koka (1605–1607). He and Sher Afghan Istalaju, a Turk Jaigirdar in Bengal, quarreled and both died in 1607. Sher Afghan's wife finally married Jehangir and was called Nur Jahan.

[Virupaksha]

http://www.mapsofindia.com/history/mugh ... re-map.jpg
@copyright comes with disclaimer on authenticity.

remember these are the maximum extents of overlordship control of their era. At any single point of time, they might not have control over all of it.

[ramana]

Some thing to chew on Mughal-e-Azam.
The basis of the film is a thwarted love between Salim future Jahangir and Anarkali a servant girl or really slave girl. This movie made the image of Mughal Empire in Indian mind. Akbar has the girl bricked while away as punishment.

I always thought it was too harsh. One version of the film with Bina Rai has the brick wall leading to a tunnel and suggested freedom.

Here is another take on the whole issue:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/200004 ... /main5.htm

Riddle of Anarkali & her tomb

Many historians doubt the authenticity of the popular version of the romance of Prince Salim and Anarkali. They consider the royal love story a mere fabrication as the name of Anarkali is not even mentioned in the historical details of the period of Akbar or in the memoirs of Jahangir, says Subhash Parihar

NO incident in the history of Mughal India enjoys so much popularity as the royal romance of Prince Salim (later Jahangir) and Anarkali. It is believed that the original name of Anarkali was Nadira or Sharfunnisa and that she received the name or the title of Anarkali (literally meaning pomegranate bud) for her beauty.

The popular version of the story runs thus. Anarkali was a dancer at the court of Emperor Akbar. The emperor’s eldest son and heir apparent, Salim, fell in love with her. Akbar did not approve of the relation as the dancer was of lowly birth and hence considered not fit to be the queen of the would-be emperor of Hindustan. But the lovers did not pay heed to the emperor’s disapproval. At last, Anarkali was sentenced to death — she was bricked alive in a wall. This basic story-line is variously told with minor variations in detail. However, one may be surprised to note that the name of Anarkali is not even mentioned in the historical details of the period of Akbar or in the memoirs of Jahangir.
Today many historians doubt the authenticity of the story and consider it a mere fabrication.

The believers in the story mention a tomb in Lahore which is popularly considered to be that of Anarkali. It is situated on the premises of the Punjab Civil Secretariat and now houses the Punjab Records Office. It is an octagonal building covered with a dome. At each corner of the building is an octagonal turret surmounted with a kiosk. In olden times, this building was surrounded by a garden that had at its entrance a double-storeyed gateway. But no trace of the garden survives now. The building still enshrines a beautifully inscribed monolithic sarcophagus.

On the sarcophagus are inscribed 99 names of Allah and the Persian couplet:

Ta qayamat shukr goyam kard gar khwish ra
Ah! gar man baz beenam rui yar khwish ra
(Ah ! could I behold
the face of my beloved once more;
I would give thanks unto my God
Unto the day of resurrection).

On the northern side of the sarcophagus are inscribed the words Majnun Salim Akbar i.e. "The profoundly enamoured Salim (son of ) Akbar".

The sarcophagus bears two dates also. The date given in letters as well as in numerals is 1008 hijri(1599-1600 AD). On the western side of the sarcophagus is another date 1024 hijri (1615-16 AD).

Scholar Ahsan Quraishi mentions one more inscription in the tomb which is said to have been destroyed by General Ventura, the French mercenary fighting for the Sikhs, who used the monument as his residence. The contents of this extinct Persian inscription can be translated as follows: "The innocent who is murdered mercilessly and who dies after enduring much pain, is a martyr. God considers him/her a martyr".

Although the name of Anarkali is not mentioned in any of these inscriptions but on the basis of the contents of these inscriptions, a group of scholars construe that the person buried in the memorial is no other than Anarkali. Of the two dates, the first is believed to be that of the execution of Anarkali and the second one as the date of the erection of the tomb. But this supposition cannot be correct because Akbar was not at Lahore in 1008 hijri. He had already left it for Agra in 1007 (hijri ) (in November 1598). So the story about Anarkali being buried alive by the orders of Akbar cannot be correct.

{Real Lahori logic!}

The earliest writers to report the love affair of Salim were two British travellers — William Finch and Edward Terry. William Finch reached Lahore in February 1611 (only eleven years after the supposed death of Anarkali), to sell the indigo he had purchased at Bayana on behalf of the East India Company. His account, written in early seventeenth century English, gives the following information: In the suburbs of the town, a fair monument for Prince Daniyal and his mother, one of the Akbar’s wives, with whom it is said Prince Salim had a liaison. Upon the notice of the affair, King Akbar caused the lady to be enclosed within a wall of his palace, where she died. The King Jahangir, in token of his love, ordered a magnificent tomb of stone to be built in the midst of a walled four-square garden provided with a gate. The body of the tomb, the emperor willed to be wrought in work of gold....

Edward Terry who visited a few years after William Finch writes that Akbar had threatened to disinherit Jahangir, for his liaison with Anarkali, the emperor’s most beloved wife. But on his death-bed, Akbar repealed it.

Basing his analysis on the above two Britishers’ accounts, Abraham Eraly, the author of The Last Spring: The Lives and Times of the Great Mughals, suspects that there "seems to have been an oedipal conflict between Akbar and Salim." He also considers it probable that the legendary Anarkali was nobody other than the mother of Prince Daniyal.

Eraly supports his hypothesis by quoting an incident recorded by Abul Fazl, the court-historian of Akbar. According to the historian, Salim was beaten up one evening by guards of the royal harem of Akbar. The story is that a mad man had wandered into Akbar’s harem because of the carelessness of the guards. Abul Fazl writes that Salim caught the man but was himself mistaken for the intruder. The emperor arrived upon the scene and was about to strike with his sword when he recognised Salim. Most probably, the intruder was no other than Prince Salim and the story of the mad man was concocted to put a veil on the indecency of the Prince.

But the accounts of the British travellers and consequently the presumption of Eraly is falsified when one comes to know that the mother of prince Daniyal had died in 1596 which does not match the dates inscribed on the sarcophagus.

{1596 is close enough to 1598!}

Another scholar, Muhammad Baqir, the author of Lahore Past and Present opines that Anarkali was originally the name of the garden in which the tomb was situated, but with the passage of time, the tomb itself came to be named as that of Anarkali’s. This garden is mentioned by Dara Shikoh, the grandson of Jahangir, in his work Sakinat al-Auliya, as one of the places where the Saint Hazrat Mian Mir used to sit. Dara also mentions the existence of a tomb in the garden but he does not give it any name.

Muhammad Baqir believes that the so-called tomb of Anarkali actually belongs to the lady named or entitled Sahib-i Jamal, another wife of Salim and the mother of the Prince’s second son Sultan Parvez, and a daughter of the noble Zain Khan Koka. This conclusion is also partially faulty. The mother of Sultan Parviz was not a daughter of Zain Khan Koka but the daughter of Khawaja Hasan, the paternal uncle of Zain Khan. Of course, subsequently, the daughter of Zain Khan was also married to Salim, on June 18, 1596.

It is recorded in Akbar Nama that Jahangir "became violently enamoured of the daughter of Zain Khan Koka. H.M. (Akbar) was displeased at the impropriety, but he saw that his heart was immoderately affected, he, of necessity, gave his consent." The translator of Akbar Nama, H. Beveridge, opines that Akbar objected to the marriage, because the Prince was already married "to Zain Khan’s niece" (actually the daughter of paternal uncle of Zain Khan, and hence his sister). Akbar objected to marriages between near relations. But we do not know the date of death of the either of these two wives of Jahangir.

Noted art-historian R. Nath argues that there is no wife of Jahangir on record bearing the name or title of Anarkali to whom the emperor could have built a tomb and dedicated a couplet with a suffix Majnun. He considers it "absolutely improbable that the grand Mughal emperor would address his married wife as yar designate himself as majnun and aspire to see her face once again. Had he not seen her enough? Obviously she was not his married wife but only his beloved, to whom he would take the liberty to be romantic and a little poetic too, and it appears to be a case of an unsuccessful romance of a disappointed lover.... The prince could not save her, though it is on record that he was so unhappy with his father in this year 1599 that he defied his orders and revolted. It may be recalled that Mehrunissa (later Nurjahan Begum) was also married to Sher Afgan the same year and the young Prince was so dejected and disturbed on the failure of his two romances and annihilation of his tender feelings of love that he went as far as to defy Akbar."

Also note Turkish princes did not respect the sanctity of the father's harem!

[Murugan]

Gist of Rajput Mugal Empire in Some Parts of India

THE MUGHAL DYNASTY

(1526 AD - 1707 AD and As maratha Pensioners till 1761 AD, Later British Pensioners)

The Mughal Dynasty was founded by Babur in 1526 as the result of his victory over the last Lodi Sultan, Ibrahim, in the first battle of Panipat in 1526. This victory enabled Babur to occupy Delhi and Agra. Then in 1527 Babur defeated Rana Sanga of Mewar at the battle of Khanua and thus broke Rajput resistance. Lastly, in 1528 Babur inflicted a second defeat on the Afghans in the battle of the Ghagra and thus extended his rule over Bihar and Bengal (for how many days?). These three victories made Babur the Emperor of northern India and enabled him to found the Mughal dynasty which ruled in India from 1526 to 1858.
The dynasty composed nineteen sovereigns of whom the first six, namely
Babur (1526-30),
Humayun (1530-56, with a break from 1540 to 1555),
Akbar (1556-1605),
Jahangir (1605-27),
Shah Jahan (1627-58) and
Aurangzeb (1658-1707)

Akbar brought the whole of north India (only) as well as Khandesh and Berar (only) in the Deccan under his rule. The process of extension was continued by the next three rulers until at last in the reign of Aurangzeb the Mughal Empire came to comprise of the whole of India from the foot of the Himalayas on the north to Cape Comorin on the south. (but lost territories in west and defeated in east) But events soon showed that the Mughal Emperor had devoured more than he could digest. Further, Aurangzeb deliberately gave up the policy of religious toleration on which Akbar had based his imperialism, and desired to turn India into an empire for the benefit of Islam. This radical change in policy led to Hindu revolts initiated, first, in Maharashtra by Shivaji and then spreading among the Sikhs in the Punjab, the Jats in Bundelkhand and in Rajputana amongst the Rajputs who had been since the time of Akbar loyal supporters of the Mughal empire. Further complications were created by the presence in India of European traders from Portugal, Holland, England, and France who had aspirations beyond trade, and who had better military equipment and organisation and completely outstripped the Mughals in naval power.

Lastly, wars of succession became a feature of Mughal dynastic rule from the end of Jahangir's reign and greatly weakened the Crown. As a result, the last thirteen rulers of the Mughal dynasty, generally called the Later Mughal Emperors, were weak sovereigns whose dominions progressively declined throughout the eighteenth century - a process which was hastened by the invasions of Nadir Shah in 1739 and of Ahmad Shah Abdali from 1751 to 1767.

The later Mughal soveriegns were
Bahadur Shah I, or Shah Alam Bahadur (1707-12),
Jahandar Shah (1712-13),
Farrukhsiyar (1713-19),
Rafi-ud-Darjat (1719),
Rafi-ud-Daulat (1719),
Nikusiyar (1719),
Ibrahim (1719),
Muhammad Shah (1719-48),
Ahmad Shah (1748-54),
Alamgir II (1754-59),
Shah Alam II (1759-1806),
Akbar II (1806-37), and
Bahadur Shah II (1837-58).

The Mughal dynasty which had been founded by Babur's victory at the first battle of Panipat in 1526 and confirmed by Akbar's victory at the second battle of Panipat in 1556, received its death blow at the third battle of Panipat in 1761 when Ahmad Shah Abdali helped by Shuja-ud-daula, the Nawab of Awadh, defeated the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II, and his Maratha allies and protectors. Thereafter it dragged on a miserable existence not on account of any strength of its own but on account of rivalries amongst its possible successors, namely the seceding Muslim states, the rebellious Hindus, and the clever and steady English merchants, the last of whom defeated all their Muhammadan and Hindu competitors by exploiting their mutual, undying, suspicious jealousies and hostilities and succeeded in placing their soverignty in place of that of the Mughal dynasty. The last nominal Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, who had been a virtual pensioner of the English since his accession, was formally deposed in 1858 for his alleged conspiracy in the Sepoy Mutiny and exiled to Rangoon in Burma where he died in 1862.

[Murugan]

Mugals and Mugal Rajputs In Details

Name - From : AH Date - English Date
Zahiru-d-din Babur - 932 - 937 1526 - 1530
Nasiru-d-din Humayun 937 - 963 1530 - 1556 Eldest son of Babur, ruled intermittently for 10 years.

Kamran Mirza 947 - 952 Second son of Babur. Rebelled against Humayun while he was governor of Kabul and Qandahar. Captured, blinded, and imprisoned.

Jalalu-d-din Akbar - 963 - 1014 1556 - 1605 Eldest son of Humayun

Nur ud Din Muhammed Jahangir, in his pre-accession name Salim -
Nuru-d-din Jahangir 1014 - 1037 1605 - 1627 Eldest son of Akbar
Nurjahan

Dawar Bakhsh 1037 1627 Son of Khusru, elder son of Jahangir, was proclaimed Badshah, as a stop gap measure. He abdicated in favor of Shah Jahan on his reaching Agra from the Deccan, and retired to Persia. Ruled for 3 months.

Shihabu-d-din Shah Jahan - 1037 - 1068 1628 - 1657/8 Third son of Jahangir, enthroned at Agra

Murad Bakhsh (in Gujarat) - 1068 1657/8 Fourth son of Shah Jahan, rebelled and proclaimed himself Badshah at Ahmedabad while he was the governor of Gujarat, Khandesh, and Malwa. Betrayed, imprisoned, and executed by Aurangzeb. Ruled for some months.

Shah Shuja (in Bengal) - 1068 - 1070 1657 - 1660 Second son of Shah Jahan, rebelled and proclaimed himself Badshah at Rajmahal (Akbarnagar) while he was governor of Bengal. Defeated at Bahadurpur by Aurangzeb and Murad. Ruled some months.

Muhayyiu-d-din (Muhiu-d-din) Aurangzeb Alamgir 1068 - 1118/19 1658 - 1707 Third son of Shah Jahan. Rebelled against, deposed and imprisoned Shah Jahan, executed elder brother Darah Sukoh, proclaimed himself Badshah, and thereafter defeated and killed brothers Shah Shuja and Murad Bakhsh.

(The real greatness of mugal fratricide starts, know about one day mughal emperors, the idols of seculars. And Murder Spree)

Azam Shah - 1118 - 1119 1707 Second son of Aurangzeb. Proclaimed himself Badshah while he was the governor of Gujarat, Khandesh, and Malwa on Aurangzeb's death. Defeated and killed by Shah Alam I Bahadur. Ruled some months.

Kam Bakhsh - 1119 - 1120 1707 - 1708 On the death of Aurangzeb, his fifth son and governor of Deccan proclaimed himself Badshah. Defeated and killed by Shah Alam I Bahadur. Ruled some months.

Shah Alam I Bahadur - 1119 - 1124 1707 - 1712 Third son of Aurangzeb, enthroned at Lahore.

Azimu-sh-Shan 1124 1712 Eldest son of Shah Alam I, governor of Bengal. Proclaimed himself Badshah. Defeated and killed by his brothers.

Jahandar Shah- 1124 1712 Third son of Shah Alam I. Defeated all his brothers and proclaimed himself Badshah. Defeated and killed by Farrukhsiyar, son of Azimu-sh-Shan.

Farrukhsiyar 1124 - 1131 1713 - 1719 Son of Azimu-sh-Shan, deposed and killed by the Sayyid brothers.

Nikusiyar - 1719 Son of Akbar II (Shah Alam's brother), proclaims himself Badshah.

Rafiu-d-Darjat - 1131 - few mths 1719 Son of Rafiu-Shan (Azimu-sh-Shan's brother). Proclaimed Badshah by the Sayyid brothers. Subsequently deposed and killed by them.

Rafiu-d-Daula, Shah Jahan II - 1131 1719 Brother of Rafiu-d-Darjat. Proclaimed Badshah by the Sayyid brothers. Subsequently deposed and killed by them.

Muhammad Ibrahim - 1131 - few mths 1719 Brother of Rafiu-d-Darjat and Shah Jahan II, rebelled against the Sayyid brothers and proclaimed himself Badshah.

Muhammad Shah - 1131 - 1161 1719 - 1748 Son of Khujista Akhtar, grandson of Shah Alam I. Placed on the throne by the Sayyid brothers. Killed the Sayyid brothers.

Ahmad Shah Bahadur - 1161 - 1167 1748 - 1754 Son of Muhammad Shah. Deposed and blinded by Wazir Ghazi-ud-Din

Azizu-d-din Alamgir II - 1167 - 1173 1754 - 1759/60 Son of Jahandar Shah. Placed on the throne by Wazir Ghazi-ud-Din. Subsequently murdered by Ghazi-ud-Din.

Shah Jahan III 1173 - 1174 1759 - 1760 Grandson of Kam Bakhsh. Placed on the throne and subsequently deposed by Wazir Ghazi-ud-Din.

Shah Alam II - 173 - 1221 1759 - 1806 Son of Alamgir II. Blinded and deposed by Ghulam Qadir. Regained throne with Maratha support.

Bedar Bakht 1202/03 1788 Son of Ahmad Shah, placed on the throne by Ghulam Qadir in rebellion against Shah Alam II. Rebellion overpowered by Shah Alam II.

Muhammad Akbar II - 1221 - 1253 1806 - 1837 Son of Shah Alam II

Bahadur Shah II Zafar - 1253 - 1274 1837 - 1858 Son of Muhammad Akbar II. Deposed by the British Government.

Ya Allah!

[Murugan]

After Shahjahan

19 rulers and 12 of them werer murdered, mostly by their brothers... great mugals

[Vikas]

Farrukhsiyar (1713-19),
Rafi-ud-Darjat (1719),
Rafi-ud-Daulat (1719),
Nikusiyar (1719),
Ibrahim (1719),
Muhammad Shah (1719-48),

So in 1719, The throne exchanged hands (or bums) atleast 5 times and all of them murdered. That must be a record for Mughal Empire.

[habal]

the famous actor Feroz Khan was supposed to be a tanoli, now tanawalis (tanolis) claim to descend from a barlas mughal ancestor named Amir Khan. The barlas were originally mongol progeny of chagatai but then came under persian influence and intermarried with persians so much so that they gradually replaced their identity with a persian identity and almost all of them were converted to the shia school of Islam in the subcontinent. IIRC even Feroz Khan's mother was an Iranian. So the same trend was carried over right from Babar's times to modern days. The hazara province of FATA were the ethnic hazarajan and tanawali people are found is majority shia and it is possibly the only remaining 'mughal' enclave in the subcontinent.

In the Northern Caucasus a similar experiment was taking place where the mongol expedition into slavic lands left behind a mixed-breed brood called the Khazars, who were originally called 'turk' but later converted themselves to Judaism. In the medieval times people with power and rulers of vast lands could rewrite their history and could erase aspects of themselves which they found displeasing with what was the flavor of the day. In effect the creation of the 'turk' was the first ever instance of mass-scale social engineering which first started with the rulers and later filtered down to the subjects. In effect any mongol who could take a persian or slavic wife and who would father a large brood became progenitor of a 'turk' clan.

[Murugan]

'Great Mughals' is british term

I wonder How can one call a person or emperor great if they indulge in drugs, incest, killing and blinding brothers, killing father, never even lead a battle; forget war, keep losing territories, become intolerant.

What is exact meaning of word 'great' in British dictionary.