The Mughal Era in India

Locked
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 »

this little diatribe illustrates why the muslims could not really 'conquer' india culturally or leave a permanent imprint on anything other than oil droplets of converts and leftover ghazis.

unlike many other communities before and thereafter and many other religions (all Indic and homegrown), they believed themselves separate and superior in cultural and religious terms. there was no concept of live and let live and of acknowleding that people may choose separate and equally respectable paths in religious belief.

ie they were not inclusive, did not intermarry with non-muslims and were not secular :mrgreen:

and this persistent attitude of superiority + now paranoia at being left behind in economic/social/military terms + being under Khan's boots is what keeps the islamic world in a permanent state of boiling water.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5792
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SBajwa »

The tenth guru shri Guru Gobind singh after martyrdom of ninth guru in 1675 by Aurungzeb contemplated and created Khalsa in 1699.

1. Since hindus were not allowed to carry weapons he told Khalsa to carry sword to protect the defenseless. To practice the concept of Dharma (righteousness)

2. Since Hindus were required to shave (could not keep beards) he told Khalsa to have uncut hair., and to keep a comb in the hair all the time (to clean them).

3. Since Hindus were not allowed to wear ornaments he told khalsa to have ornaments made of steel (Kara).

4. To increase the mobility of the soldier and to protect them from lusting other women (like moghals and their soldiers) he told Khalsa to have to long drawers.

and anybody could become Khalsa, Brahmin Shudra Baniya Rajput Nai. The first khalsa was a Khatri from Lahore, the second a Nai from Bidar, third a Jhweer from Dwarka, fourth a low caste from Puri and fifth a Jat from Hastinapur. The sixth person to become Khalsa was Sri Guru Gobind Singh himself.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

From Tabaqati-i-Akbari, by Bakshi Nizamuddin Ahmad
When the Emperor marched from Gágrún, Ráná Udí Singh left seven or eight thousand men to hold Chitor, under the command of a Rájpút named Jai Mal, a valiant chief, who had fought against Mirzá. Sharafu-d dín Husain, in the fort of Mírtha, as before related. The Ráná himself, with all his relatives and dependents, took refuge in the hills and jungles.

The fort of Chitor is seated on a hill, which is about one kos in height, and has no connexion with any other hill. The length of the fortress is three kos, and the width half a kos. It contains plenty of running water. Under His Majesty's orders, the ground round the fort was portioned out among the different amírs.

The royal forces were ordered to plunder and lay waste the country, and Ásaf Khán was sent to Rámpúr,* a prosperous town of the province. He attacked and captured the fort, and ravaged all the neighbourhood. Husain Kulí Khán was sent with a detachment towards Údípúr and Kombalmír,* which is one of the chief fortresses in that country, and is the residence of the Ráná. He ravaged several towns and villages, but finding no trace of the Ráná, he returned to the Imperial camp.

When the siege of Chitor had been carried on some time, the Emperor ordered the construction of sábáts, and the digging of mines. About 5000 builders and carpenters and stonemasons were collected, and began their work of constructing sábáts on two sides of the fort. A sábát is a kind of wall which is begun at musket-shot distance (from the fort), and under the shelter of its planks strongly fastened together and covered with raw hides, a kind of way (kúcha) is conducted to the fortress. The walls are then battered from it with guns, and a breach being made, the brave assailants rush into the fort. The sábát which was conducted from the royal battery (morchal-i bádsháhí) was so extensive that ten horsemen abreast could ride along it, and it was so high that an elephant-rider with his spear in his hand could pass under it.

While the sábát was in course of construction, the garrison kept up such a fire of guns and muskets, that more than 100 of the workmen and labourers employed in it were killed daily, although they covered themselves with shields of bull-hide. Corpses were used in the walls like bricks. In a short time, the sábát was completed, and carried close to the fort.

The miners also carried their mines to the foot of the walls, and having constructed mines under two bastions which were near together, they filled them with gunpowder. A party of men of well-known bravery, fully armed and accoutred, approached the bastions, ready to rush into the fort as soon as a breach was made by the explosion of the mines. Fire was applied to both mines at the same time, but the match of one was shorter than the other, and that made the explosion first. The bastion was blown into the air, and a large breach was effected. The storming party at once rushed to the breach, and were about to enter, when the second mine exploded, and the bastion was blown up. Friends and foes, who were contending in the breach, were hurled into the air together, and those also on whom the stones fell perished. It is notorious that stones of 200 mans were carried to a distance of three or four kos from the walls, and bodies of men who had been burnt were found. Saiyid Jamalú-d dín and * * * and a great number of the Emperor's attendants, were slain, and nearly 500 picked soldiers were killed by blows from the stones. A large number also of the infidels perished.

After this disaster, the pride and solicitude of the Emperor be­came still more intent upon the reduction of the fortress. A sábát which had been laid down in the battery of Shujá'at Khán was now completed. On the night of Tuesday, 25th Sha'bán, 975 H., the Imperial forces assembled from all sides, and the wall being breached, a grand struggle began. Jai Mal, commander of the fortress, came into the breach to encourage his men. The Em­peror was seated in a gallery, which had been erected for him on the sábát, and he had a musket in his hand. The face of Jai Mal was discernible by the light which was cast upon the spot by the fire of the guns and muskets. The Emperor took aim at him, and so wounded him that he died upon the spot. The garrison was disheartened by the fall of their leader, and each man hurried to his own home. They collected their wives and children, property and effects, in one place, and burnt them. This proceeding, in the language of the infidels of Hind, is called jauhar. The royal forces were now massed, and they assaulted the breaches in several places. Many of the infidels rushed forward to defend them, and fought most valiantly. His Majesty, seated on the sábát, beheld the exertions of his men with an approving eye. 'Ádil Muhammad Kandahárí * * * * and others exhibited great valour and daring, and received great praise. All that night the fighting went on, but in the morning, which was a glorious morning, the place was subdued. The Emperor mounted on an elephant, and, attended by his devoted followers on foot, entered the fortress. An order for a general massacre was issued, and more than 8000 Rájpúts who were in the place received the reward of their deeds.* After noon the slaughter was stayed, and the Emperor returned to his camp, where he remained three days. Ásaf Khán was appointed to rule this country, and His Majesty started for the capital, on Tuesday, the 25th Sha'bán.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Tarikh-i-Rashidi by Mirza Haidar :

The origins:
I HAVE heard from trustworthy Moghul sources (and my father and my uncle used also to relate) that Isán Bughá Khán,* the father of Tughluk Timur Khán, had for his favourite wife a certain Sátilmish Khátun; while he had also another wife whose name was Manlik. Now the Khán had no children, and Sátilmish Khátun was barren. The Khán, on a certain occasion, went on an expedition with his army. According to an old Moghul custom, the favourite wife has the allotment and disposal of a man's wives, keeping back or giving him whichever of them she pleases. Sátilmish Khátun learnt that Manlik was with child by the Khán, and, being envious, gave her in marriage to Dukhtui Sharáwal, who was one of the great Amirs. When the Khán returned from his expedition he asked after Manlik. Sátilmish Khátun replied: “I have given her away to some one.” The Khán then said: “But she was with child by me,” and he was very wroth; but as this was a usual practice among the Moghuls, he said nothing.

Soon after this, Isán Bughá Khán died, and there was no Khán left of the tribe of Moghul. Every man acted for himself, and ruin and disorder began to creep in among the people. Amir Buláji Dughlát,* an ancestor of the humble narrator, determined on discovering a Khán, and restoring order to the State; so he sent a certain Tásh Timur to find Dukhtui Sharáwal, and to obtain what information he could, concerning Manlik and her child; telling Tásh Timur that if it were a boy, he was to steal the child away and bring it back with him. Tásh Timur replied: “It is a very long and tedious expedition, and fitting preparations for the journey must be made. I beg of you to supply me with six hundred goats, that we may first drink their milk and then kill and eat them, one by one.”

Amir Buláji complied with his wishes and supplied him with all that was necessary. Tásh Timur then set out. He journeyed for a long while in Moghulistan, and by the time he came upon the party of Dukhtui Sharáwal, there was but one goat remaining, and that was a brown one [kabud]. On his inquiring after Manlik* and her child, they replied that she had borne a son, and that she had a second son by Dukhtui Sharáwal:* the name of the Khán's son was Tughluk Timur, and the name of the son of Sharáwal was Inchumalik.* Finally Tásh Timur succeeded in carrying off Tughluk Timur, and returned to the Amir with him.
Conversion to Islam:
MAULÁNÁ KHWÁJA AHMAD (may God sanctify his soul) was descended from Mauláná Arshad-ud-Din. He was exceedingly pious and much esteemed and revered. He belonged to the sect of Khwájás (may God sanctify their spirits). For twenty years I was in his service, and worshipped at no other mosque than his. He led a retired life, devoting his time to religious contemplation, and he used to recite the traditions of his sect in a beautiful manner; so much so, that any stranger hearing him was sure to be much impressed.

From him I heard that it was written in the annals of his fore­fathers concerning Mauláná Shuja-ud-Din Mahmud, the brother of Háfiz-ud-Din, an elder of Bokhárá (who was the last of the Mujtahids, for after the death of Háfiz-ud-Din there was never another Mujtahid), that during his interregnum, Chingiz Khán assembled the Imáms of Bokhára, according to his custom, put Háfiz-ud-Din to death, and banished Mauláná Shuja'ud-Din Mahmud to Karákorum. [The ancestors of] Mauláná Khwája Ahmad also were sent there. At the time of a disaster in Karákorum,* their sons went to Lob Katak, which is one of the most important towns between Turfán and Khotan, and there they were held in much honour and esteem. I was told many particulars concerning all of them, but I have forgotten them for the most part. The last of the sons was called Shaikh Jamál-ud-Din, an austere man who dwelt in Katak.

On a certain Friday, after the prayers, he preached to the people and said: “I have already, on many occasions, preached to you and given you good counsel, but no one of you has listened to me. It has now been revealed to me that God has sent down a great calamity on this town. A Divine ordinance permits me to escape and save myself from this disaster. This is the last sermon I shall preach to you. I take my leave of you, and remind you that our next meeting will be on the day of resurrection.”

Having said this, the Shaikh came down from the pulpit. The Muazzin [crier to prayer] followed him and begged that he might be allowed to accompany him. The Shaikh said he might do so. When they had journeyed three farsákhs they halted, and the Muazzin asked permission to return to the town to attend to some business, saying he would come back again immediately. As he was passing the mosque, he said to himself: “For a last time, I will just go and call out the evening prayer.” So he ascended the minaret and called the evening prayer. As he was doing so, he noticed that something was raining down from the sky; it was like snow, but dry. He finished his “call,” and then stood praying for a while. Then he descended, but found that the door of the minaret was blocked, and he could not get out. So he again ascended and, looking round, discovered that it was raining sand, and to such a degree that the whole town was covered; after a little while he noticed that the ground was rising, and at last only a part of the minaret was left free. So, with fear and trembling, he threw himself from the tower on to the sand; and at midnight he rejoined the Shaikh, and told him his story. The Shaikh immediately set out on his road, saying: “It is better to keep at a distance from the wrath of God.” They fled in great haste; and that city is, to this day, buried in sand. Sometimes a wind comes, and lays bare the minaret or the top of the dome. It often happens also, that a strong wind uncovers a house, and when any one enters it he finds everything in perfect order, though the master has become white bones. But no harm has come to the inanimate things.*

In short, the Shaikh finally came to Bái Gul,* which is in the vicinity of Aksu. At that time Tughluk Timur Khán was in Aksu. When he had first been brought there he was sixteen years of age. He was eighteen when he first met the Shaikh, and he met him in the following way. The Khán had organised a hunting-party, and had promulgated an order that no one should absent himself from the hunt. It was, however, remarked that some persons were seated in a retired spot. The Khán sent to fetch these people, and they were seized, bound and brought before him, inasmuch as they had transgressed the commands of the Khán, and had not presented themselves at the hunt. The Khán asked them: “Why have you disobeyed my commands?” The Shaikh replied: “We are strangers, who have fled from the ruined town of Katak. We know nothing about the hunt nor the ordinances of the hunt, and therefore we have not transgressed your orders.” So the Khán ordered his men to set the Tájik free. He was, at that time, feeding some dogs with swine's flesh, and he asked the Shaikh angrily: “Are you better than this dog, or is the dog better than you?” The Shaikh replied: “If I have faith I am better than this dog; but if I have no faith, this dog is better than I am.” On hearing these words, the Khán retired and sent one of his men, saying: “Go and place that Tájik upon your own horse, with all due respect, and bring him here to me.”

The Moghul went and led his horse before the Shaikh. The Shaikh noticing that the saddle was stained with blood (of pig) said: “I will go on foot.” But the Moghul insisted that the order was that he should mount the horse. The Shaikh then spread a clean handkerchief over the saddle and mounted. When he arrived before the Khán, he noticed that this latter was standing alone in a retired spot, and there were traces of sorrow on his countenance. The Khán asked the Shaikh: “What is this thing that renders man, if he possess it, better than a dog?” The Shaikh replied: “Faith,” and he explained to him what Faith was, and the duties of a Musulmán. The Khán wept thereat, and said: “If I ever become Khán, and obtain absolute authority, you must, without fail, come to me, and I promise you I will become a Musulmán.” He then sent the Shaikh away with the utmost respect and reverence. Soon after this the Shaikh died. He left a son of the name of Arshad-ud-Din, who was exceedingly pious. His father once dreamed that he carried a lamp up to the top of a hill, and that its light illumined the whole of the east. After that, he met Tughluk Timur Khán in Aksu, and said what has been mentioned above. Having related this to his son, he charged him, saying: “Since I may die at any moment, let it be your care, when the young man becomes Khán, to remind him of his promise to become a Musulmán; thus this blessing may come about through your mediation and, through you, the world may be illumined.”

Having completed his injunctions to his son, the Shaikh died. Soon afterwards Tughluk Timur became Khán. When news of this reached Mauláná Arshad-ud-Din, he left Aksu and proceeded to Moghulistán, where the Khán was ruling in great pomp and splendour. But all his efforts to obtain an interview with him, that he might execute his charge, were in vain. Every morning, however, he used to call out the prayers near to the Khán's tent. One morning the Khán said to one of his followers: “Somebody has been calling out like this for several mornings now; go and bring him here.” The Mauláná was in the middle of his call to prayer when the Moghul arrived, who, seizing him by the neck, dragged him before the Khán. The latter said to him: “Who are you that thus disturb my sleep every morning at an early hour?” He replied: “I am the son of the man to whom, on a certain occasion, you made the promise to become a Musulmán.” And he proceeded to recount the above related story. The Khán then said: “You are welcome, and where is your father?” He replied: “My father is dead, but he entrusted this mission to me.” The Khán rejoined: “Ever since I ascended the throne I have had it on my mind that I made that promise, but the person to whom I gave the pledge never came. Now you are welcome. What must I do?” On that morn the sun of bounty rose out of the east of divine favour, and effaced the dark night of Unbelief. Khidmat Mauláná ordained ablution for the Khán, who, having declared his faith, became a Musulmán. They then decided that for the propagation of Islám, they should interview the princes one by one, and it should be well for those who accepted the faith, but those who refused should be slain as heathens and idolaters.

On the following morning, the first to come up to be examined alone was Amir Tulik, who was my great grand-uncle. When he entered the Khán's presence, he found him sitting with the Tájik, and he advanced and sat down with them also. Then the Khán began by asking, “Will you embrace Islám?” Amir Tulik burst into tears and said: “Three years ago I was con­verted by some holy men at Káshghar, and became a Musulmán, but, from fear of you, I did not openly declare it.” Thereupon the Khán rose up and embraced him; then the three sat down again together. In this manner they examined the princes one by one. All accepted Islám, tillit came to the turn of Jarás, who refused, but suggested two conditions, one of which was: “I have a man named Sataghni Buka,* if this Tájik can overthrow him I will become a Believer.” The Khán and the Amirs cried out, “What absurd condition is this!” Khidmat Mauláná, however, said: “It is well, let it be so. If I do not throw him, I will not require you to become a Musulmán.” Jarás then said to the Mau­láná: “I have seen this man lift up a two year old camel. He is an Infidel, and above the ordinary stature of men.” Khidmat Mauláná replied, “If it is God's wish that the Moghuls become honoured with the blessed state of Islám, He will doubtless give me sufficient power to overcome this man.” The Khán and those who had become Musulmáns were not pleased with these plans. However, a large crowd assembled, the Káfir was brought in, and he and Khidmat Mauláná advanced towards one another. The Infidel, proud of his own strength, advanced with a conceited air. The Mauláná looked very small and weak beside him. When they came to blows, the Mauláná struck the Infidel full in the chest, and he fell senseless. After a little, he came to again, and having raised himself, fell again at the feet of the Mauláná, crying out and uttering words of Belief.* The people raised loud shouts of applause, and on that day 160,000 persons cut off the hair of their heads and became Musulmáns. The Khán was circumcised, and the lights of Islám dispelled the shades of Unbelief. Islám was disseminated all through the country of Chaghatái Khán, and (thanks be to God) has continued fixed in it to the present time.
What to make of such miracles? :P Note the presence of terms like "Sataghni".
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

brihaspati wrote:From Tabaqati-i-Akbari, by Bakshi Nizamuddin Ahmad
The Emperor mounted on an elephant, and, attended by his devoted followers on foot, entered the fortress. An order for a general massacre was issued, and more than 8000 Rájpúts who were in the place received the reward of their deeds.* After noon the slaughter was stayed,
From Fatehnama-i-Chittor by Jalaluddin Akbar
the whole victorious troop entered the fort. In accordance with the imperative Command “And kill the idolators all together,”
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Why other Rajputs did not come to Help rana Udai Singh ever?
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 »

Akbar seems to be a consumate modern politician, telling everyone what they want to hear, running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, all the while keeping between 500-5000 young women in his harem .... many of whom would be beauties captured as war booty, or simply kidnapped uday hussein style whenever she caught the eye of the king passing by.

the scary part is he was the 'best' and 'most liberal' of that bloodline. things head south right or left of him.
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 »

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

whether by threats or inducements or both, the baburid line was able to break away the more exposed eastern part of the rajput confederation (probably its richer and more developed states) and thus deprive the holdouts like Mewar of strategic depth, money, manpower and artisans needed to craft weapons.

he was a very special kind of character it seems.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Ra*dibaaj turks disappeared while ...

http://www.eternalmewar.in/
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 »

awesome stuff.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Fall of chittor gave birth to Udaipur

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

***
(Against Grandeur of rajput palaces, all the other royal palaces of the world look like bhikaris.)

Added later:

The fall of chittor in the hands of akbar was 3rd sacking of chittor in history.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Murugan wrote:Why other Rajputs did not come to Help rana Udai Singh ever?
Help from where?
1. Amber was co-opted as permanent Mughal ally in 1561 by matrimony. Akbar shuttled between Agra and Ajmer unchallenged.
2. Marwar's Rao Maldev died in 1562 and the state engulfed in fratricidal dispute over succession. The instable Kingdom fell to Akbar in 1563 after the strategically important Merta fort under (vassal) Jaimal Rathore was taken by Mughals in 1562. This went unchallenged by Mewar.
3. Gondwana was won by Mughals from the Chandel Queen Durgavati in 1564. She was seriously injured in the war and lastly stabbed herself to death. This went unchallenged by Mewar, Marwar, Ranthambhor.
4. Chittor is sieged in 1567-68.
I don't think any Rajput armies participated in Chittor's siege on Mughal side. In fact Jaimal Rathore of "Merta" and Fatah Singh Sisodia of "Kelwa" were leading the garrison in Chittor.
5. Ranthambhor of the "Hada" vassals under Mewar was taken later by another Siege. Again no one there to help.

So you see Akbar picked them all one by one. Sometimes the nearby states were themselves unstable and troubled, sometimes the infighting/rivalry became a reason. While on other occassions everyone else is defeated and you're on your own.
When parts of a group become weaker they are more troubled with their own issues that the greater cause is bound to suffer.
Anyone who can realize this and cash in on it is the winner, as was Akbar. Rajputs are a heavily clannish, hierarchial people. Kingdoms and even armies are found to be clanwise.
While this makes Rajputana a long term, resilient and decentralized entity not winnable in one shot; OTOH it also limits the extent to which single top leadership can be implemented across and leveraged effectively. Because that would mean one clan had to be the unchallenged boss - there comes the inherent contradiction.
The ineffecient, occasional, last minute gathering doesn't help against the type of enemy Mughals were. As said already, the permanent/stable single headed monarchial system to politically cement the entire Rajputana together - wasn't there.
Being clannish is not wrong. But it should remain a familial and cultural attribute thats it. When it divides the logsitics of the larger picture, it becomes the undoing.
Similar fault runs under the Indian sheet on a grander scale even today and we're all well aware of it.

Akbar was not the first to break through, he was though more successful.
Sher Shah Suri had captured Marwar in 1944 whereas the triumphant Mewar of Sanga's times contracted back into its own shell and instability after Sanga died (three Ranas in quick succession and then a minor Udai Singh). Mewar was nowhere on the scene created between Marwar-Sher Shah Suri.
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 »

I think thats a good summary. for low key distributed guerilla warfare of the Shivaji mould one needs committed lower level commanders and some good high level strategists , but small units are enough no need to mass force and use them effectively. for facing mughal armies in the field, either you need change the playing field or hit their logistical tail like the gakhar's sometimes tended to do in punjab.

also unlike the musalman factions, hindu kingdoms seldom put aside local quarrels to face bigger foes with organized planning. a few contrarian examples exist of the later Guptas chasing out the Huns once and for all.

the Rajputs faced a hard choice choice of trying to safeguard their families in forts which could be beseiged one by one or abandoning their old, women and children and waging guerilla warfare. todays rajasthan is sparesely populated in terms of density, so even the main clans must have been relatively small compared to the mass of mughal standing army and the levies they could call up from musalman sardars all the way down to bengal. so even manpower was short. the loss of the more prosperous jaipur and jodhpur areas to mughal attacks and intrigue deprived them of revenues , trade routes and skilled artisans and minerals. given their lack of resources and depth they put up a very brave fight...

one way of changing the playing field or rather taking advantage of the playing field was the soggy marshes of assam where the man singh cavalry could not manouver effectively, so the battle shifted to infantry actions and into the water, where the lighter boats of lachit's army held the advantage of local boatmen and speed over the bigger mughal boats that had sailed up from BD. plus unlike many a time when musalman cavalry managed to escape intact from defeat in india using their stronger horses to outrun chasing units, in the river there was no easy escape.

lachit also weeded out 'underperformers' in a ruthless manner because he knew his life and many others depended on it. he killed his own maternal uncle in guwahati, few days before saraighat battle when his uncle asked to supervise a night shift of workers making emergency repairs to a defensive wall slacked off. he simply said "my country is greater than my uncle" and killed him right there to set an example. they also managed to disable some mughal cannons by sneaking up and pouring water down the tubes.

the way to take down big animals is to attack the hindquarters like smaller wild dogs or hyenas or wolves do in a pack, or be strong enough for a head to head going for jaguar vein bite....being halfway and unsure is dangerous.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

As far as I remember, at least one source narrative from the Muslim side mentions that Durgavati's daughter-in-law [who is specifically mentioned as not yet having cohabited with her husband -hmm - the Muslims checked it out too] and daughter remained alive even after the whole room with women was set on fire as part of the ritual euthanasia - and they were packed off to Akbar's harem.

Who wants to call Akbar "liberal"?
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 general belief, It was MahaRana Pratap who started guerilla warfare, 100 years before Shivaji Maharaj's Ganimi Kawa.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Yagnasri »

MahaRana prohibited every one from starting any agri activity. The lived on attacking at taking food from Muslim garrisons. This is one example of hard life he and his people are prepared to live for Dharma. The story of his reply to Prudvi Raj ( it may well be only a story and never took place) about calling akbur only a turk is summarises the outlook of freedom loving indic people. When Peshwa Baji Rao at the hight of his power went to meet Maharanas of Marwar he said to have sit on the floor out of respect of to their great ancesstor. While the children of mugals died under the horses of Khalsa the children of Maharana still held in great respect.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Narayana Rao wrote:MahaRana prohibited every one from starting any agri activity. The lived on attacking at taking food from Muslim garrisons.
Plains were under Mughal control and from the hills where he fell back, it took him some time to gain the control of most of his state.
In that time even though he couldn't muster all resources from hills, doing/allowing agricultural activities (in plains) meant that you're spoon feeding Mughals with your hands. It looks tough and ugly for him, his people but was necessary. Mewar defied that Mughals by telling them "Run your boots all you want in the plains like loonies, you won't suck a dime's worth from Mewar".
Narayana Rao wrote: While the children of mugals died under the horses of Khalsa the children of Maharana still held in great respect.
Khalsa and Marathas stamping their authority in Delhi-Agra zone reminds me of the immense importance this area has had in Bharatiya Itihaas.
From Mahabharata days upto this date, every major turnaround re-affirms that this region is the top floor of political supremacy in the country.

Regards,
Virendra
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

Murugan wrote:Contrary to general belief, It was MahaRana Pratap who started guerilla warfare, 100 years before Shivaji Maharaj's Ganimi Kawa.
Ghanim-i-Qavvait (गनिम इ क़वैत)

This term for Guerilla warfare technique, which was used and perfected by Marathas, was introduced in Deccan by a person named "Malik Ambar". While the technique itself is very old (Krishna himself was a master of Guerilla warfare, his war against Kaal-Yavana is an excellent example of his genius), it started becoming a common practice in Krishna-Godavari Antarvedi (present day MH, AP, KN) region after Malik Ambar's time. Until advent of Malik Ambar, this technique was more of an exception than rule. Marathas from Seuna Yadava empire were waging traditional styled wars with their neighbors after disintegration of Rashtrakoota and Chalukya Empire.

The Arabic term गनिम-इ-क़वैत (Maneuver of the successful) implied that those who fought by "Koota-Neeti" were always successful. The Arabic word Ganim (successful) is absorbed in Marathi but with the meaning "Enemy".
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Virendra, How did Bappa Rawal become a great ruler if Rajputs were clannish? There is something missing between the response to Arab invasion and reduced efforts to the Turks from 1192.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

I really don't know. Yes they were clannish and decentralized even then, though may be not so much as the later centuries.
What I know is that confederations/alliances were formed and they worked.

In North to South sequence of Indian resistance to Arab invasion attempts. If it hadn't happened this way, Indian would perhaps be like middle east today:

1. Lalitaditya Muktipada a.k.a. Ashwa-ghas (Cavalry expert) of Karkota dynasty ruled Kashmir. He defeated advancing Arab armies thrice as mentioned by Kalhana. In his lifetime his territories maximized to - Iran borders in west, Tukharistan in north, parts of Tibet in east and Punjab in south. He ordered Turks (under Arab rule then) to shave off their heads as a symbol of their submission. This is corroborated by records of contemporary Chinese travelers.

2. King Yashovarman of Kannauj defeated Arabs between Kannauj and southern Punjab.

3. Bappa Rawal (Kalbhoj) of Guhil clan was the unchallenged ruler in Rajasthan then.
His power can be gauged from the fact that he was able to join (with Mewar) many smaller Rajput states like Ajmer and Jaisalmer to form his own confederation against Arabs. He defeated the Arab advance from Rajasthan beating them in retreat across entire Rajputana from Mewar to beyond the borders of Rajasthan.

3. Nagabhatta of Gurjara-Pratihara clan from Gurjaratra desh was ruling in Gujarat, Malwa, parts of S. Rajasthan - south of Bappa and his minor allies. He defeated the Arab advance at Avanti. This is recorded at the Gwalior inscription of King Bhoja I. He has been specially mentioned by Arab chroniclers this way "Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Islamic faith than he. He has got riches, and his camels and horses are numerous"

5. Prince Avanijanashraya Pulakesi, son of Governor Jayasimha Varman of Lat (South Gujarat) was ruling in Navasari on Behalf of Chalukyan emperor from south - Vikramaditya II. He defeated the Arab advance at Navasari. This is recorded at the Navasari inscription where Pulakesi is adorned with titles such as "Solid pillar of Dakshinapatha" and "Repeller of the unrepellable".

Lalitaditya and Yashovarman had as allies defeated the Arabs as corroborated by Chinese accounts (before former defeated and killed the latter).
Pulakesi and Nagabhata above were actively allied together in achieving their victories over Arabs. There are references to Nagabhata's alliance with Bappa Rawal also but haven't yet been able to verify it.

Firstly, the Arab incursions stopped after those sound defeats. It was only the converted Turks who started later.
Turkic attempts were repulsed many times but unlike Arabs they didn't stop at these defeats. They kept coming.
Secondly, after defeating the Arab advance at Rajasthan border Bappa Rawal went deep into enemy territory to send a stern, threatening message. Though how farther he went is debatable.
The same response was given to Arabs by Lalitaditya Muktipada who took his army into Tukharsitan (Balkh) ruled by Arab governor Mammuni till then. Lalitaditya is hailed as Kashmir's Alexander.
But there are hardly any such illustrative counter attacks into the Turks territory by Indian rulers in later centuries.

Regards,
Virendra
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Lalmohan »

i forget the name of the king, but he gathered the rajput clans together at mt abu and defeated a significant arab or turkish force
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Must have been Bappa Rawal. Mt. Abu is the southern most tip of Aravalis. Southern Aravali was under Mewar ruled by Bappa Rawal.
I've been thinking Arabs were based out far from India as compared to the Turks of 12th and 13th century.
Did distance become a limitation for them, if yes, how exactly it affected their ground work?

Regards,
virendra
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Arabs attacked from both north and south. Note that they had some success in keeping a hold on Multan. However their greater presence was in the south - Sindh-Baloch region. This is prehaps because from pre-Islamic times they had trade related presence and networks under Indian ruling patronage along the coasts. This helped in intel gathering, local resource gathering, and pehaps even subversive helpers from disgruntled factions of the regime - developed during longer times of profit sharing.

We do have narrative indications of such collaborations.

But also, after the initial fall of the Parthian empire at the hands of the Muslim Arabs, such as in Ctesiphon [where a 8/9 year old Parthian "princess" was abducted by the Arabs and used as hostage and a possible forced marriage with Ali - that led to the ultimate Shia-Sunni dynamics], it was the south eastern bottom of the Gulf, such as places like Kupha - that became the Arab naval and military power base. This was closer to the Indian principalities in the Sindhu-Kaccha hinterland.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

The Turks were more successful from the north because, first - Arab grip over Persia was slower to come - than that claimed by islamic narratives. There are now more modern archeological and other textual pointers to large parts of the Persian homeland remaining zoroastrian, Buddhist or a mixture even to the 1200's, and in some cases until late 1400 or early 1500. The Iranians did fight back and resist just as initially the Kashmiris did.

Turks were being sandwiched between two forces - initially, between the Islamized opportunists who took over power with the help of the Arab army in the eastern parts - which included Turk lands, and the pressure from imperial China which had been trying to get a grip on eastern Turkmenistan as well.

There are curious pointers to the possibility that while the imperial Chinese were trying to rope in Kashmir and Cholas into a confederacy against Arab Muslim exclusion of Chinese from the CAR trade, they were also secretly [or diplomatically] trying to get handles with the Muslims against the Turks and the Tibetans.

The Turks were at the time, like mongols further to the east, were trying to fight off Chinese expansion and the Chinese - at a crucial juncture during this eastern campaign coordinated [as the result shows] with Arab deceptive military moves. This was perhaps a Ribbentrop-Molotov type secret agreement to divide up Turk and Mongol land with the Muslims. The Turkish leadership at this stage were "animists"+Buddhist. They were crushed in this virtual two-front war.

As happens in violently culturally or ideologically confrontational war, the best elements or the most committed elements get wiped off more - leaving behind a broken society and the more opportunistic among the defeated [just as it happened in India during the freedom movement]. This section found employment as jihadis and were employed initially by the Arabs to expand into India. Soon adventurers and petty robbers like Sabuktigin struck out on their own. [Ultimately they destroyed the Caliphate too].
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Before the Islamic onslaught in Central Asia the region was consolidated under Tibetian rule from ~700 AD to 875 AD.

Bji, The Arabs also introduced Turkish slaves to their armies as a way to keep other Arabs out of power. That too backfired.
jambudvipa
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by jambudvipa »

Lalmohan wrote:i forget the name of the king, but he gathered the rajput clans together at mt abu and defeated a significant arab or turkish force
There was a big battle with the army of Gujarat under Solanki queen Naikidevi against Mahmud Ghauri in 1178.Ghuari had to be carried away on a litter of spears,was badly wounded.The jihadi army was virtually wiped out.
Naikidevi had the little Mularaja II ( he was six years old i think) in her lap as she led the troops to battle.

Of course there could have been earlier battles with the Arabs in the same location.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by SaiK »

Thank you Ghazni, for at least leaving the structure intact.

Once, there was a pure gold idol of the Sun God here, riding his golden chariot drawn by seven golden horses, all placed in a 15 feet pit filled with gold coins. Looted by Ghazni and Khilji, we now only have hundreds of bats hanging from the ceiling, repelling visitors.
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 »

how were the arabs so 100% able to convert to islam people like the egyptians, settled turks, syrians, persians and mesopotamians who had long and settled civilizations and religions of their own. and why did the roving CAR hordes and mongols of the grasslands adopt islam over their old faiths? in chengis khans time I read some of his people were shamanist, some were muslim, some buddhist and some were jesuit christian.

and what accounts for the failure of islam to achieve its usual 100% conversion rate in Bharata? this must be the only place where it failed apart from Spain where the christians reconverted everyone at the point of a sword and deported the rest to morocco with a vague promise of being allowed back later (they never were). In indonesia , the kings gave up hinduism which retreated to its sanctuary in Bali with the much more populous sumatra and java going muslim.
Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Ardeshir »

There were a few reasons in my opinion.
1. Islam accorded legitimacy to spoils of war, not limited to just jewels and valuables, but also females sex slaves, and male servants. To a largely unpaid army, that might have been a huge motivating factor since it was sanctioned by Allah and his Rasool himself.

2. Mohammed's own strategic brilliance: In just 13 years after Khadija's (Mohammed's first wife) death, Mohammed wiped out local religions, and established himself as the overlord of the Arabian peninsula. He wasn't shy to commit mass murder (as evidenced by the beheading of 700-odd males of the Banu Qurayza tribe).

3. Legitimacy of War Itself: War itself, when conducted to further the cause of Islam is conferred a divine status. For warring tribes and factions, this was all the rationalization they needed.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Singha wrote:how were the arabs so 100% able to convert to islam people like the egyptians, settled turks, syrians, persians and mesopotamians who had long and settled civilizations and religions of their own. and why did the roving CAR hordes and mongols of the grasslands adopt islam over their old faiths? in chengis khans time I read some of his people were shamanist, some were muslim, some buddhist and some were jesuit christian.

and what accounts for the failure of islam to achieve its usual 100% conversion rate in Bharata? this must be the only place where it failed apart from Spain where the christians reconverted everyone at the point of a sword and deported the rest to morocco with a vague promise of being allowed back later (they never were). In indonesia , the kings gave up hinduism which retreated to its sanctuary in Bali with the much more populous sumatra and java going muslim.
Complicated : but the common factors for going down under Islam seems to be
(1) dependence on long distance trade for economic well-being or "prosperity"
(2) presence of a politically influential foreign-trade mercantile class and growth of financial capital supported by/mutually supporting risk-avoiding philosophies
(3) very highly sophisticated and over-adapted production systems vulnerable to changes in climate or raids of attrition.

One way or the other these are the three factors I found to be in common where Islam proceeded well. India and China and Europe, to an extent Russia also had advantages of "strategic depth" in their geography. In India, those regions which came under one or more of the three factors above, were more easily "converted".
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Singha ji,
for Egypt or western Mesopotamia, we also know that intra-Christian factional fight helped. The Christians had already started off the iconoclastic campaigns, violence against "pagan" learning and sciences, [for example the lynching and public dismemberment of female scientist Hypatia by a Christian mob instigated by the local Bishop engaged ina power struggle with another bishop], and basically all the negatives of Judaic practice that we see reflected in Islamism, were already being used by the Bishops and the Church establishment in the regions of ex-Roman dominance - from Coptic Egypt to western half of Mesopotamia.

In fact Coptic subversion actually supposedly invited the Arab army in as a means of hitting back at the Byzantine christian overlords.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Lalmohan »

singha - the mongols started off as predominantly shamanist - they worshipped the eternal blue heavens primarily. genghis to kubilai they encouraged all religions within their domains, and organised debates. there are instances where he had mullahs and bishops put to death for argueing about religion at court. genghiz himself was in later life heavily influenced by a chinese scholar and started adopting his 'way' - lao tsu (from memory)

as they encountered settled populations the mongols started to change their lifestyles to that of the conquered peoples as being civilisationally superior - the jagatai and ilkhanates migrated towards islam, some moved towards xtianity, the ones in china turned buddhist. the core mongol population of the steppes remained animist until they were defeated by the Ming and converted to buddhism

had the mongols established themselves in india prior to the turks, they would be hindus today
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 »

a contrarian example of trade guilds being risk averse and prone to subversion would be Gujarat, long an ancient center of maritime trade with arabia and rome, with traders in central asia like kashgar also and not very agricultural due to arid climate. gujarat was and remains one of the core centers of hinduism in India and was not easily conquered by anyone - afair Akbar had to wage a big campaign to subdue gujarat.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by abhischekcc »

Lalmullah,

A settled society will always subsume an invading people, even when the invading people achieve military victory. And when the invading people refuse to be absorbed into the culture of the settled people, they end up being ejected from the region. Case in point the muslims and british were ejected from India in 1947.
sugriva
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Exposing the uber communist luddites masquerading as capitalists

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by sugriva »

For good or for bad, the very fact that India was a fractious polity helped it in enduring the Islamic onslaught. Arabia's earliest opponents, Persia and Byzantine, were entities with a strong central role. Once the centre collapsed, it was easy to fold up the rest of the provinces. In addition Persia and Byzantine were sapped by incessant warfare stretching back to a couple of centuries. In contrast India was a loose federation of kingdoms. While it was probably easy to beat one, the others fought on and this in turn sapped the energy of the invaders.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by ramana »

Looks like I wasn't too far off when I started this thread!!!

X-post....
Salman Khurshid’s amateurish & deeply biased play - 'Sons of Babur'
Salman Khurshid’s play - “Sons of Babur - A play in search of India” - is amateurish. A poseur, the play is patronizing, proselytizing and a lopsided genealogical assessment of history.

Deeply biased, it delves into the identity of an “Indian” in modern India through imagery and anecdotal inspiration from lives of Mughal Emperors.

Vague attempts to create harmony between Hindu and Islamic cultures fail. The author loses track, becoming an apologist for Mughals even as history forces him to acknowledge a bigoted Islam’s role. This is coupled with anti-Hindu rhetoric. Thus, while Chittor’s defeat was certain, Akbar “rues” that Rajputanis committed Jauhar.
It is well known that conquered cities saw Golgotha’s, rapes and enslavement.

Attempts to understand Babur and Humayun are biased. In truth they were enterprising migrants using Islam to inspire soldiers, raising the banner of dar-ul-Islam to commit Hindu genocide for personal safety. Guru Nanak’s scathing assessment of Babur’s atrocities is known.

Akbar’s military compulsions called upon consolidating shaky gains politically. He found a willing ally in opportunist Man Singh; the latter tempted by loots from conquests and Mughal weaponry.

Akbar’s expansionism did not stop in lieu of his new found tolerance or as “Khurshid’s Akbar” claims that hunting was, “tugging at our conscience”. Akbar was no Emperor Ashoka.

The author errs in denying Maharana Pratap’s battle against Akbar was not religious. Mughal atrocities, cloaked as Jihad, were known to the defiant Maharana. In fact he was encouraged by Prithviraj Rathod from within Akbar’s court! The Maharana also approached Saint Tulsidas to prevail upon Man Singh from harassing a fellow Hindu.

The author proudly admits Mughal bias against Muslim Princess’ marrying Hindus. However, he makes no attempt to analyze the trauma ordinary citizens experienced due to Mughal policies. He generalizes the sporadic joint revolts against Mughals as examples of Hindu-Muslim camaraderie forgetting the horrible atrocities and conversion of Hindus!

He centers simplistic arguments on the emergence of a modern Indian identity when Zafar was proclaimed India’s Emperor in the Revolt of 1857; eulogizing Zafar when masses’ suffering reached its nadir! The debauchery of the elite is well captured by Munshi Premchand in his story “Shatranj ke Khiladi”. The author questions why no Maratha or Sikh filled in. He forgets that these warriors had brief years and meager resources with which they had chipped away at the terrible dynasty.

He forgets that “Indianness”, exists as “Bharat” from Emperor Bharat’s times and his descendants like Rama, whose rule inspired the household term “Ramrajya”, references to which are found in South Asia; or during Chandragupta Maurya’s Dynasty that successfully repelled the Greeks.

Unlike the superficial understanding of Monotheism by European/Middle Eastern masses, India absorbed its essence culturally, giving it resilience to absorb diversity and a unique political identity. India is well integrated post - independence, contrary to similarities cited with Europe.

Despite the power vacuum during times when Utopian Idealism reached its pinnacle under Buddhism’s influence, a definite politico-cultural identity prevailed within India before Islam’s advent. These values were revived through Saint Shankara in 8th Century and Bhakti movements that galvanized the entire nation wherefore indigenous leaders emerged.

It is this Indian identity that Indian Muslims have repeatedly denied.

The author’s dilemma is two pronged. On one hand is a resurgent Hindu majority, while on the other a Muslim community that resists Renaissance and acceptance of pre-Mughal influences.


The former is easy to resolve since Hindus increasingly show preference for secularism and good governance, rejecting religious dogmatism. Distrust of polity continues over the latter’s opportunism in using Muslims as vote banks, Partition’s trauma, infiltration, etc.

The play handles challenges facing the Muslim community vaguely even as the same resists attacks from imported Salafism, while desperately needing to look within and deal with its Indian heritage. He concedes that Muslims need to accept that modern laws have outpaced manmade Sharia and that Muslims are yet to come to terms with the fact that their rule over Hindus is over.

Khurshid repeatedly invokes Sufism to legitimize Islam’s mystical aspect but forgets that the hordes that invaded India did not come here as philosophers, rather with swords to run their writ. They were bigoted medieval barbarians, attempting to assimilate a people far beyond their sensibilities. Moreover, all Indian Muslims are not Sufi.

Immigrant Americans apologize to Native Americans; Germans for the wars; Modern India denounces casteism, yet we do not see any such bold introspection in this play.

The protagonist’s defense of democracy is a moral sham; the play being dedicated to the political toy, Sonia Gandhi!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Singha wrote:a contrarian example of trade guilds being risk averse and prone to subversion would be Gujarat, long an ancient center of maritime trade with arabia and rome, with traders in central asia like kashgar also and not very agricultural due to arid climate. gujarat was and remains one of the core centers of hinduism in India and was not easily conquered by anyone - afair Akbar had to wage a big campaign to subdue gujarat.
I am afraid that is perhaps not true entirely from the historical perspective. We were talking of easier foisting of Islamic regimes. It is indeed seen from epigraphical records that the merchant community and ruling regimes facilitated Muslim incursions and subversions by protecting their presence among the non-Muslims or allowing them to settle and convert locals. The infamous "prabhas pattan" mosque inscriptions in sanskrit and Arabic is a very well known doc thanks to Thaparites. Before Akbar, it was Ulugh Khan who overran Gujarat in 1299, some 250 years before Akbar. After that, it was also a fief of the so-called latter day Gujarat "sultans".

The current proportions that we see and the growth of "Hindu" influence -is a more recent phenomenon, out of various demographic and economic factors during the mid-British empire stage.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

It is very difficult to find out the fall of three big-time religiosity based invaders:

1) Delhi Sultanate = 1206-1526 (How many had pan India control?)

5 Years = Qutb-ud-din Aibak (1206–1210), appointed Naib us Sultanat by Muhammad of Ghor, first Muslim Sultan of India, ruled with Delhi as capital

1 Year = Aram Shah (1210–1211).
16 Years = Shams ud din Iltutmish (1211–1236), son-in-law of Qut-bud-din Aybak.
1 Year = Rukn ud din Firuz (1236), son of Iltutmish.
4 Years = Raziyyat-ud-din Sultana (1236–1240), daughter of Iltutmish.
3 Years = Muiz ud din Bahram (1240–1242), son of Iltutmish.
4 Years = Ala ud din Masud (1242–1246), son of Ruk-nud-din.
21 Years = Nasir ud din Mahmud (1246–1266), son of Iltutmish.
21 Years = Ghiyas ud din Balban (1266–1286), ex-slave, son-in-law of Sultan Nasir ud din Mahmud.
5 Years = Muiz ud din Qaiqabad (1286–1290), grandson of Balban and Nasir-ud-din.

Khilji dynasty (1290-1321)
7 Years = Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji (1290–1296)
21 Years = Alauddin Khilji (1296–1316)

5 Years = Qutb ud din Mubarak Shah (1316–1320) (Qutb-ud-din was murdered by Khusro Khan in 1320, which ended the Khilji dynasty.Khusro Khan was a former Hindu slave of the Bawariya Hindu caste in Gujarat.)

2 Years = Khusro Khan (1320–21)

Tughlaq dynasty
Delhi Sultanate under Tughluq dynasty.

5 Years = Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq (1321–1325)[4]
17 years = Muhammad bin Tughluq) (1325–1351)
1 month ? = Mahmud Ibn Muhammad (March 1351)
29 Years = Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351–1388)
2 Years = Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughluq II (1388–1389)
2 Years = Abu Bakr Shah (1389–1390)
4 Years = Nasir ud din Muhammad Shah III (1390–1393)
2 months = Sikander Shah I (March - April 1393)
2 Years = Nasiruddin Mahmud Shah (Sultan Mahmud II) at Delhi (1393–1394)
5 Years = Nusrat Shah, grandson of Firuz Shah Tughluq, controlled the west from Firozabad and Nasiruddin Mahmud Shah, son of Mahmud Nasir ud din, controlled the east from Delhi (1394–1398)

Sayyid dynasty
8 Years = Khizr Khan 1414 - 1421
15 Years = Mubarak Shah 1421 - 1434
12 Years = Muhammad Shah 1434 - 1445
7 Years = Alam Shah 1445 - 1451

Lodi dynasty
Delhi Sultanate during Babur's invasion.
40 Years = Bahlul Lodi (1451–1489)
29 Years = Sikandar Lodi (1489–1517)
10 Years = Ibrahim Lodi (1517–26), killed by Babur in the First Battle of Panipat on April 20, 1526.

2) Turks - 1526 - 1707

5 Years = Babur 1526 - 1530
Humayun
11 Years = 1530-1540
02 Years = 1555 - 1556
50 Years Akbar = 1556 - 1605
23 Year = Jahangir 1605 - 1627
31 Years = Shahjahan = 1627 - 1658
52 Years = Aurangzeb = 1658 - 1707

3) British - 1857 - 1947
Last edited by Murugan on 18 Jul 2012 12:08, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

1. did the pre-Mughal sultanate and its converts/imports show more signs of accepting and being absorbed into the indic culture than he mughals. i am referring to the afghan tribes that settled in UP, Bihar, Bengal belt before the mughals arrived on the scene. were they less conscious of religion and fair > darkie skin colour issues? some of these like sher shah suri seemed to be sworn enemies of the mughals.

2. Buddhism is often "blamed" for injecting India into a pacifist and non-interventionary meditative phase which set us up for exploitation and invasion later when the hawks and have-nots were ready to pounce. yet the same buddhism that migrated to tibet did not have any issue with the tibetans, chinese (partly buddhist), mongols(partly buddhist), ASEAN region fighting major and bloody wars of pillage and conquest. was the "vajrayana" buddhism of north and east asia somehow different than the buddhism in India?
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Murugan »

Buddhism lost
1)Afghanistan to Muslims
2) South Korea to Evangelists
3) Tibet to Communists
Locked