The Mughal Era in India
Re: The Mughal Era in India
After Shah-jahan, there was a free run! After Aurangzeb, it was an open ground for conquests by Marathas. The wiki article on Maratha Empire speaks more about 'great mughals', who were made insignificant by Shivaji and later nominal by Baji Rao. Good references on the status of Mughals and overall condition in Bharat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire
Re: The Mughal Era in India
I did not know this:
Again, all the great mughal lovers' maps of complete mughal control of India is pure BS that is bought by idiots.Delhi was captured by Maratha army under Raghunath Rao in August 1757 defeating Afghan garrison in the Battle of Delhi. This laid the foundation for the Maratha conquest of North-west India. In Lahore, as in Delhi, the Marathas were now major players.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Murugan,
Do you know during the Sultanate to Mughal interlude there were two Hindu rulers of Delhi though for a very short period?
Atri has a blog on the first one and the later was Hemu.
There is a google book titled "Hemu, Napoleon of India"
Do you know during the Sultanate to Mughal interlude there were two Hindu rulers of Delhi though for a very short period?
Atri has a blog on the first one and the later was Hemu.
There is a google book titled "Hemu, Napoleon of India"
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Ramana garu,
I know about Hemu but who was the other gentleman?
I know about Hemu but who was the other gentleman?
Last edited by Murugan on 17 May 2013 22:47, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Thanks. Interesting this Deval Devi-ji.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Two key questions are would the history of india have been different if sher shah suri been able found a long lived dynasty and what if dara shikoh had won over aurangzeb.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
if Dara Shikoh had won, the trajectory would not have changed much. IMHO, by the mid-17th century, India was on its way to liberation from the Islamic reign. the Maratha rise in the South would not have been stopped by Dara's victory over Aurangzeb.
also, even if Dara won by dispatching Azeb, what makes us think he could have held on to the Muslim religious/noble elite for long? He would have, in all probability, a short-reigned Emperor. I don't think he would have been able to keep the Islamics in his pocket at all.
also, even if Dara won by dispatching Azeb, what makes us think he could have held on to the Muslim religious/noble elite for long? He would have, in all probability, a short-reigned Emperor. I don't think he would have been able to keep the Islamics in his pocket at all.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
It would be Delhi Sultanate redux. As it is the Syed brothers et al were running amok during Aurangazeb's progeny's occupation of the throne. Only would have been earlier.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Here are some dates that influenced this stuff
1. Guru Nanak Dev was arrested by Babar in 1524-25
2. Battle of Panipat in 1526.
3. Humayun ruled from 1530-1540 when Hem Chandra expelled him from Delhi and became Samrat.
4. Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (Hemu) ruled till 1556 when Akbar became "Ghazi" by severing the head of the already dead Samrat Vikramaditya.
5. East India Company was established in 1600.
6. Akbar ruled till 1605 when he died due to dysentery
7. Jahangir became Emperor of India and immediately he got influenced by Naqshbandi order of "Sufis".
8. Guru Arjan Dev was murdered by Jehangir in 1606 and Guru Hargobind ji imprisoned at Gwalior around 1615 A.D
9. Shahjehan rule came in till 1658 when he became ill giving rule to his heir apparent Dara Shikoh.
10. Aurungzeb and Murad Defeated Dara Shikoh and then Aurungzeb arrested Murad and murdered him taking over India., trying to Salafiied/Wahabiite/Sunniite India. Dara Shikoh was murdered in 1659.
11. Jats, Satnamis, Jains were persecuted by Aurungzeb.
12. Kashmiris were persecuted by Aurungzeb., thus Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom at Delhi and subsequent creation of the Khalsa and later Banda Bahadur and so fort.
13. Music, poets and dances were stopped and artists put in jail.
14. First battle fought by East India company was at Plassey in 1757 (100 years after Dara)
The real reason in my opinion that British took over India was because Aurungzeb put all his energies trying to convert India to his version of "Islam" otherwise John Company would not have fought the battle in 1757., a whole 98 years after rule of Aurungzeb.
India during the rule of Aurungzeb was attracted like flies get attracted to Jalebi!
Portuguese in Goa - Bombay - Surat belt.
Dutch north of Bombay - Surat.
French all along the coast of current Tamil Nadu
Brits over to Calcutta.
and so forth.
1. Guru Nanak Dev was arrested by Babar in 1524-25
2. Battle of Panipat in 1526.
3. Humayun ruled from 1530-1540 when Hem Chandra expelled him from Delhi and became Samrat.
4. Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (Hemu) ruled till 1556 when Akbar became "Ghazi" by severing the head of the already dead Samrat Vikramaditya.
5. East India Company was established in 1600.
6. Akbar ruled till 1605 when he died due to dysentery
7. Jahangir became Emperor of India and immediately he got influenced by Naqshbandi order of "Sufis".
8. Guru Arjan Dev was murdered by Jehangir in 1606 and Guru Hargobind ji imprisoned at Gwalior around 1615 A.D
9. Shahjehan rule came in till 1658 when he became ill giving rule to his heir apparent Dara Shikoh.
10. Aurungzeb and Murad Defeated Dara Shikoh and then Aurungzeb arrested Murad and murdered him taking over India., trying to Salafiied/Wahabiite/Sunniite India. Dara Shikoh was murdered in 1659.
11. Jats, Satnamis, Jains were persecuted by Aurungzeb.
12. Kashmiris were persecuted by Aurungzeb., thus Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom at Delhi and subsequent creation of the Khalsa and later Banda Bahadur and so fort.
13. Music, poets and dances were stopped and artists put in jail.
14. First battle fought by East India company was at Plassey in 1757 (100 years after Dara)
The real reason in my opinion that British took over India was because Aurungzeb put all his energies trying to convert India to his version of "Islam" otherwise John Company would not have fought the battle in 1757., a whole 98 years after rule of Aurungzeb.
India during the rule of Aurungzeb was attracted like flies get attracted to Jalebi!
Portuguese in Goa - Bombay - Surat belt.
Dutch north of Bombay - Surat.
French all along the coast of current Tamil Nadu
Brits over to Calcutta.
and so forth.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
I think Indics would have gotten the rule back under Dara Shikoh.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
SBajwa, Also add 1585(?) when Kandhar was lost to the Persians by Akbar. Ended the steady stream of Central Asian refugees.
One hundred years later Mughals were in doldrums and another fifty years completely reduced in power.
One hundred years later Mughals were in doldrums and another fifty years completely reduced in power.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: The Mughal Era in India
This is the most likely scenario.devesh wrote:if Dara Shikoh had won, the trajectory would not have changed much. IMHO, by the mid-17th century, India was on its way to liberation from the Islamic reign. the Maratha rise in the South would not have been stopped by Dara's victory over Aurangzeb.
also, even if Dara won by dispatching Azeb, what makes us think he could have held on to the Muslim religious/noble elite for long? He would have, in all probability, a short-reigned Emperor. I don't think he would have been able to keep the Islamics in his pocket at all.
Remember that after Akbar's death the ulema rallied around Jahangir over his promise of reversing Akbar's "kaffir" practices.
One can also look at the conversion of the pagan Mongol Il Khanate into an Islamic one, the former was religiously tolerant but the ulema still managed to eventually subvert it into a sharia governed hell hole.
So I don't think Dara winning would have made much of a difference in the long-term as the Islamic zealots would have reverted to their usual tactics of subverting what they perceive as "kaffir" rule.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Had Dara won, and ruled long, and there had been no rule by Aurangzeb:
1. Would Guru Gobind Singhji have founded the Khalsa without the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur?
2. Would Shivaji have revolted to rid the Deccan of Mughal rule, or would he have agreed to be co-opted in Dara's "enlightened" Mughal rule as a regional satrap?
3. Without the mass forced/ induced conversions during Aurangzeb's rule, the demographics of the subcontinent may have been very different. Perhaps Pakistan and Bangladesh would have remained parts of India?
But I agree that Dara would have been a short-term ruler. 'Enlightened' rulers do not last for long in Islamic world. His successors would have been co-opted by the mullahs.
JMT
1. Would Guru Gobind Singhji have founded the Khalsa without the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur?
2. Would Shivaji have revolted to rid the Deccan of Mughal rule, or would he have agreed to be co-opted in Dara's "enlightened" Mughal rule as a regional satrap?
3. Without the mass forced/ induced conversions during Aurangzeb's rule, the demographics of the subcontinent may have been very different. Perhaps Pakistan and Bangladesh would have remained parts of India?
But I agree that Dara would have been a short-term ruler. 'Enlightened' rulers do not last for long in Islamic world. His successors would have been co-opted by the mullahs.
JMT
Re: The Mughal Era in India
up until akbar's time it seems land grants to the mansabdars were not hereditary. once the guy passed away, his hiers had to petition the emperor to get their names on the grant. it was at the sultans discretion to continue it, enlarge or reduce it. I believe these were revenue free grants and quite lucrative because they didnt have to pay tax revenue to central govt on it.
from around shah jahan or aurangzeb the Ulema managed to convert this into hereditary, make themselves rather than scholars or soldiers as the prime beneficiaries of grants and also start making the emperor revoke the grants given to non-muslims.
so whenever any 'weakness' or 'ghazi enthu' was perceived in the emperor, the hawks were always in the sidelines waiting to pounce and impose the faith.
the akbari alliance with the rajputs broke down when the rathore king died in Jamrud and two of his wives who were pregnant came back to their kingdom. aurangzeb wanted to raise the infant of the sisodia rani as a muslim in his harem and educate him as a munna vassal prince, but durga das rathore conducted that epic escape of the ranis from delhi back to the homeland and then mewar got drawn into the long guerilla war.
aurangzeb baba can surely be credited for starting the long slide of the mughals into oblivion and the titular head of chandni chowk which was bahadur shah zafar
from around shah jahan or aurangzeb the Ulema managed to convert this into hereditary, make themselves rather than scholars or soldiers as the prime beneficiaries of grants and also start making the emperor revoke the grants given to non-muslims.
so whenever any 'weakness' or 'ghazi enthu' was perceived in the emperor, the hawks were always in the sidelines waiting to pounce and impose the faith.
the akbari alliance with the rajputs broke down when the rathore king died in Jamrud and two of his wives who were pregnant came back to their kingdom. aurangzeb wanted to raise the infant of the sisodia rani as a muslim in his harem and educate him as a munna vassal prince, but durga das rathore conducted that epic escape of the ranis from delhi back to the homeland and then mewar got drawn into the long guerilla war.
aurangzeb baba can surely be credited for starting the long slide of the mughals into oblivion and the titular head of chandni chowk which was bahadur shah zafar
Re: The Mughal Era in India
If the slow exclusion of Hindus from the Mansabdari-Jagirdari system, a system which grew too large to be economically viable, was avoided then the empire could have stayed longer. That was all started by Aurangzeb IIRC..... a consequence of his fanaticism and his endless wars. But again, note that he weakened and swallowed up the "heretic" Bahmanis with these actions too paving the way for the rise of the Marathas.
Pliss to note the polity of the Mughal Empire (before the cracks developed) was different from most Indian empires, with exception of the Mauryas, in the depth of central control and presence in all walks of life. It was more than your plain vanilla glorified confederacy of feudal lords who were actually pretty much free of the Overlord who they swore fealty to. The economy was cash based and even till the reign of Bahadur Shah Zafar I, the coinage was quite decent. It stationed huge standing armies based on a rather efficient land revenue system and the centrally appointed quasi-feudals (Mansabdars/Jagirdars) themselves should prove their mettle in war and administration. This might explain why Birbal, Todar Mal and Abu Fazl took up the sword on occasion......... Birbal was betrayed by another General and fell fighting Afghans in present day FATA. Akbar was livid and had the betrayer Mecca'ed IIRC. Abu Fazl had a brief military record too.... actually rode to a sure death against Prince Salim's forces led by Bir Singh Bundela. It is said the Keshava Dev Temple was financed by Jahangir as a reward for removing Abu Fazl from the chessboard.
Anyway, the Empire loomed large in the public consciousness...... and perhaps this was why even the predominant Marathas thought to bring the old camel into their tent, so as to speak..... and the mutineers of 1857 sought to establish legitimacy by hoisting the Sher-o-Shayar Bahadur Shah Zafar II. The Mauryan polity had similar centralized control and huge standing armies and cash economy.... I mean, even the Late Sangam texts speak of Vamba Mouryar with their huge armies and endless white banners.
So, what would have happened if they improved their basics, consolidated what they already had and not gone South (literally, at that point), improved relations with the Rajput? Would the situation be conductive for an industrial revolution? Would a social revolution have taken place? Would the Hindu influence be so strong and indispensable so as to further tame the Mughals? Would their slow and steady path lead them to be a true subcontinental power.... from the Lut desert to the Irrawady and the Pamirs to Sri Lanka?
Pliss to note the polity of the Mughal Empire (before the cracks developed) was different from most Indian empires, with exception of the Mauryas, in the depth of central control and presence in all walks of life. It was more than your plain vanilla glorified confederacy of feudal lords who were actually pretty much free of the Overlord who they swore fealty to. The economy was cash based and even till the reign of Bahadur Shah Zafar I, the coinage was quite decent. It stationed huge standing armies based on a rather efficient land revenue system and the centrally appointed quasi-feudals (Mansabdars/Jagirdars) themselves should prove their mettle in war and administration. This might explain why Birbal, Todar Mal and Abu Fazl took up the sword on occasion......... Birbal was betrayed by another General and fell fighting Afghans in present day FATA. Akbar was livid and had the betrayer Mecca'ed IIRC. Abu Fazl had a brief military record too.... actually rode to a sure death against Prince Salim's forces led by Bir Singh Bundela. It is said the Keshava Dev Temple was financed by Jahangir as a reward for removing Abu Fazl from the chessboard.
Anyway, the Empire loomed large in the public consciousness...... and perhaps this was why even the predominant Marathas thought to bring the old camel into their tent, so as to speak..... and the mutineers of 1857 sought to establish legitimacy by hoisting the Sher-o-Shayar Bahadur Shah Zafar II. The Mauryan polity had similar centralized control and huge standing armies and cash economy.... I mean, even the Late Sangam texts speak of Vamba Mouryar with their huge armies and endless white banners.
So, what would have happened if they improved their basics, consolidated what they already had and not gone South (literally, at that point), improved relations with the Rajput? Would the situation be conductive for an industrial revolution? Would a social revolution have taken place? Would the Hindu influence be so strong and indispensable so as to further tame the Mughals? Would their slow and steady path lead them to be a true subcontinental power.... from the Lut desert to the Irrawady and the Pamirs to Sri Lanka?
Re: The Mughal Era in India
mughals has a clear line to central asia - source of warlike tribes, fresh stocks of horses, perhaps access to metalwork advances in places like baghdad , istanbul and damascus via ummah links.
indian communities were able to produce both well educated elites and warriors.
if they had toned down their reliogisity something like what you say could have emerged though south india could have ended up as a separate country in the 4 southern states, while part of afghanistan,TSP,north india, BD and north myanmar perhaps as a "new" India
the new king of the unified north would have to play a role in protecting the south because in that period, hungry european ships loaded with merchants and soldiers were trying to control and sew up every vital port in the world. if the euros with their colonies like goa and pondicherry and kolkata were able to control the levers of external trade, set prices , put up their own vassals all over the south, they would surely have made a play at ruling entire south india like dutch east indies or malaya.
indian communities were able to produce both well educated elites and warriors.
if they had toned down their reliogisity something like what you say could have emerged though south india could have ended up as a separate country in the 4 southern states, while part of afghanistan,TSP,north india, BD and north myanmar perhaps as a "new" India

the new king of the unified north would have to play a role in protecting the south because in that period, hungry european ships loaded with merchants and soldiers were trying to control and sew up every vital port in the world. if the euros with their colonies like goa and pondicherry and kolkata were able to control the levers of external trade, set prices , put up their own vassals all over the south, they would surely have made a play at ruling entire south india like dutch east indies or malaya.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Fall of Vijayanagara at Talikota sealed the fates of the Bahamani dregs. The reason is they could not count on being preserved against the hated Hindus south of them. So once they won at Talikota it became a Shia Sunni fight which the latter won.
Also the design of the Mughal Sultanate was different than the earlier Delhi Sultanate. It anchored in the 'heart'/core of India a central ruling power, which was only existent in the epic times, and which the local populace could look upto as their hukumat.
Earlier Sultanates acted as occupying alien powers and had deep resentment.
Also the design of the Mughal Sultanate was different than the earlier Delhi Sultanate. It anchored in the 'heart'/core of India a central ruling power, which was only existent in the epic times, and which the local populace could look upto as their hukumat.
Earlier Sultanates acted as occupying alien powers and had deep resentment.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
GD, Two battles ended Hindu power in North India. The Satakarni defeat of the Kanwas ended Maghadha as a ruling power for ever. The other was Pullekesin II defeat of Harsha on the banks of the Narmada which plunged the area into chaos.
Into the chaos the newly converted Turks burst into over two hundred years starting from Subuktigin to Mohd Ghori. All the sultantes after that were Turkish in origin even if they claimed to be Afghans, Mughals cyborgs.
Into the chaos the newly converted Turks burst into over two hundred years starting from Subuktigin to Mohd Ghori. All the sultantes after that were Turkish in origin even if they claimed to be Afghans, Mughals cyborgs.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
interesting, southern monarchs seem to have played a "spoiler" role in these, plunging the north in chaos and weakness but unwilling to go up north themselves and re-establish a new order. again its the central theme of powerful indian kings with exception of guptas and mauryas...even when they defeat the adversary, they do not follow up and establish another ring of rule in the adversary's homeland or uproot them in depth, they are content to preserve status quo and not give hot pursuit.
btw I was leafing through a book on the early days of portugese rule in goa. seems like they upper class imported slaves from any source including west africa, east africa and even japan (!) and the treatment given to these poor people was very cruel . virgins were sold after verifying their hymen were intact. any small accident like spilling a glass of milk at home was reason for them to be tied down and beaten half to death , people had boiling oil poured into orifices, branded with hot irons...pretty psycho stuff. even the mix race "mestico" upper class ladies were pretty cruel once they had climbed up the pole.
btw I was leafing through a book on the early days of portugese rule in goa. seems like they upper class imported slaves from any source including west africa, east africa and even japan (!) and the treatment given to these poor people was very cruel . virgins were sold after verifying their hymen were intact. any small accident like spilling a glass of milk at home was reason for them to be tied down and beaten half to death , people had boiling oil poured into orifices, branded with hot irons...pretty psycho stuff. even the mix race "mestico" upper class ladies were pretty cruel once they had climbed up the pole.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Akbar was also interested in the South..... remember Chand Bibi and all that. He however had a greater desire to reclaim the lost ancestral lands of CAR.... but those cats played a good game balancing Persia and India. The Bahmanis were in a good shape at that time also.... this was right after Talikota and there were the odd pesky Rajputs and a romantic Baz Bahadur in the way. Akbar was no fool.... he knew he had to get the Rajputs fully on his side before going south. Aise, waise ya jaise. He could have done an Allaudin Khalji style Blitz and followed up on Ahmednagar but Akbar was all about long term. Towards the end the succession problems began..... sons turned out to be rather useless or sick or both and many friends died. Moreover, in the middle phase of his life he became more introspective and soul searching and all that..... and he died rather early too, in his early 60s. They say he died simply because "he gave up the will to live" ..... Salim's rebellion, Birbal, Daniya and Abu fazl dying and all that.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Bjawaji, you have to include maharana pratap, shivaji maharaj and marathas in timeline.
Control over deccan was every mughal padishahs dream. Akbar tried 50 long years to get hold of it and during last 5 years of rule could have little stronghold in ahmednagar. All the deccan dreams were shattered by shiva by. Thus mughals deccan and further south control could hardly last for 70 years.
Control over deccan was every mughal padishahs dream. Akbar tried 50 long years to get hold of it and during last 5 years of rule could have little stronghold in ahmednagar. All the deccan dreams were shattered by shiva by. Thus mughals deccan and further south control could hardly last for 70 years.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Resurgence of maratha power and hindivi swarajya would have not taken place if dara wd hv been there. Dont know how strong and smart strategic thinking dara had. There were abdali and alike looming large. Perhapd there wd have been no maratha light infantry with IA.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
The urge to throw out mlenchhas is displayed by every indic power right from saatavahanas who threw out greeks (later ones) to ant-britain freedom struggle. Vincent Smith drerisively calls it a "brahminical disgust towards foreign barbarians", because he experienced it at the hands of hindus in spote being a victor.
Dara would have suffered no differently. Only thing i think would have happened is that section of mughals would have started converted to dharma just like kanishka first became buddhist and his son becsme a vaidik. Perhaps a new vansha of kshtriyas would have arose in our society. One of the possibilities, onlee. Dara would not lasted long, in either case. Yes, if Aurangzeb was not emperor (but somebody else), India would not have seen the emergence of wahabis and jamat-e-islami types. It was aurangzeb's long patronage which gave them initial incubation. Aurangzeb did to Wahabism what Ashoka did to Buddhism.
Dara's rule would have been disastrous for kabila model. Kabila model thrives on expansion. When it is denied, it starts killing the host itself. Islam and all islamic empires were and are based on kabila model.
Dara would have suffered no differently. Only thing i think would have happened is that section of mughals would have started converted to dharma just like kanishka first became buddhist and his son becsme a vaidik. Perhaps a new vansha of kshtriyas would have arose in our society. One of the possibilities, onlee. Dara would not lasted long, in either case. Yes, if Aurangzeb was not emperor (but somebody else), India would not have seen the emergence of wahabis and jamat-e-islami types. It was aurangzeb's long patronage which gave them initial incubation. Aurangzeb did to Wahabism what Ashoka did to Buddhism.
Dara's rule would have been disastrous for kabila model. Kabila model thrives on expansion. When it is denied, it starts killing the host itself. Islam and all islamic empires were and are based on kabila model.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Sorry! about that! I will include Maharana Pratap, Great Shiva ji and later Marathas
Here are some dates that influenced this stuff
1. Guru Nanak Dev was arrested by Babar in 1524-25
2. Battle of Panipat in 1526.
3. Humayun ruled from 1530-1540 when Hem Chandra expelled him from Delhi and became Samrat.
4. Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (Hemu) ruled till 1556 when Akbar became "Ghazi" by severing the head of the already dead Samrat Vikramaditya.
5. In 1568 Rana Udai Singh II of Mewar was defeated by Akbar., Udai Singh left Mewar with Jaimal and Fattu (anybody heard the songs of jaimal-fatta? )
6. Maharana Pratap (son of Rana Udai Singh) continued the battle using Guerilla tactics and in 1582 defeated the Mughal army at Dewair. Then he consolidated the areas of Southern Rajasthan and northern Gujarat.
7. Maharana Pratap died of injuries in an hunting accident in 1595 (aged 57).
5. East India Company was established in 1600.
6. Akbar ruled till 1605 when he died due to dysentery
7. Jahangir became Emperor of India and immediately he got influenced by Naqshbandi order of "Sufis".
8. Rana Amar Singh Son of Maharana Pratap, continued the struggle with Mughals and fought over 17 battles. Later when Jahangir let Rana Amar singh alone in this area there were no further issues.
9. Guru Arjan Dev was murdered by Jehangir in 1606 and Guru Hargobind ji imprisoned at Gwalior around 1615 A.D
10. Shahjehan rule came in till 1658 when he became ill giving rule to his heir apparent Dara Shikoh.
11. Aurungzeb and Murad Defeated Dara Shikoh and then Aurungzeb arrested Murad and murdered him taking over India., trying to Salafiied/Wahabiite/Sunniite India. Dara Shikoh was murdered in 1659.
12. Shivaji Bhonsle started the Maratha resistance against Adilshahis and Mughals., in 1674 He became the Chhatarpati (paramount Sovereign)
13. In 1680 Chhatarpati Shivaji passed away but the Marathas ruled till 1818 A.D. even harassing the foreign powers
14. Jats, Satnamis, Jains were persecuted by Aurungzeb.
15. Kashmiris were persecuted by Aurungzeb., thus Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom at Delhi and subsequent creation of the Khalsa and later Banda Bahadur and so fort.
16. Music, poets and dances were stopped and artists put in jail.
17. First battle fought by East India company was at Plassey in 1757 (100 years after Dara)
Here are some dates that influenced this stuff
1. Guru Nanak Dev was arrested by Babar in 1524-25
2. Battle of Panipat in 1526.
3. Humayun ruled from 1530-1540 when Hem Chandra expelled him from Delhi and became Samrat.
4. Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (Hemu) ruled till 1556 when Akbar became "Ghazi" by severing the head of the already dead Samrat Vikramaditya.
5. In 1568 Rana Udai Singh II of Mewar was defeated by Akbar., Udai Singh left Mewar with Jaimal and Fattu (anybody heard the songs of jaimal-fatta? )
6. Maharana Pratap (son of Rana Udai Singh) continued the battle using Guerilla tactics and in 1582 defeated the Mughal army at Dewair. Then he consolidated the areas of Southern Rajasthan and northern Gujarat.
7. Maharana Pratap died of injuries in an hunting accident in 1595 (aged 57).
5. East India Company was established in 1600.
6. Akbar ruled till 1605 when he died due to dysentery
7. Jahangir became Emperor of India and immediately he got influenced by Naqshbandi order of "Sufis".
8. Rana Amar Singh Son of Maharana Pratap, continued the struggle with Mughals and fought over 17 battles. Later when Jahangir let Rana Amar singh alone in this area there were no further issues.
9. Guru Arjan Dev was murdered by Jehangir in 1606 and Guru Hargobind ji imprisoned at Gwalior around 1615 A.D
10. Shahjehan rule came in till 1658 when he became ill giving rule to his heir apparent Dara Shikoh.
11. Aurungzeb and Murad Defeated Dara Shikoh and then Aurungzeb arrested Murad and murdered him taking over India., trying to Salafiied/Wahabiite/Sunniite India. Dara Shikoh was murdered in 1659.
12. Shivaji Bhonsle started the Maratha resistance against Adilshahis and Mughals., in 1674 He became the Chhatarpati (paramount Sovereign)
13. In 1680 Chhatarpati Shivaji passed away but the Marathas ruled till 1818 A.D. even harassing the foreign powers
14. Jats, Satnamis, Jains were persecuted by Aurungzeb.
15. Kashmiris were persecuted by Aurungzeb., thus Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom at Delhi and subsequent creation of the Khalsa and later Banda Bahadur and so fort.
16. Music, poets and dances were stopped and artists put in jail.
17. First battle fought by East India company was at Plassey in 1757 (100 years after Dara)
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Singha wrote:interesting, southern monarchs seem to have played a "spoiler" role in these, plunging the north in chaos and weakness but unwilling to go up north themselves and re-establish a new order. again its the central theme of powerful indian kings with exception of guptas and mauryas...even when they defeat the adversary, they do not follow up and establish another ring of rule in the adversary's homeland or uproot them in depth, they are content to preserve status quo and not give hot pursuit.
.......
In both cases the conquerors did not last long to sustain their conquests.
BTW Samudra Gupta did a long march to the south and it was more of a raid than a conquest.
You need to understand that there are two models of rule:
1) people and the rulers are of same dispensation and
2) people and rulers are not of same dispensation
2) leads to great instability and either the rulers converts(Mongols in Persia) or the people convert over long duration(Most Islamic states) or the ruler gets thrown out(Brits)
By keeping the existing order the conqueror maintains stability(Indian history).
BTW the cold hand of death also summons potential conquerors(vijesu) before they can execute their plans.
Eg. Krishna Deva Raya, Hemu, Ranjit Singh, Baji Rao Vallabh Bhai Patel.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
ramana wrote:
Eg. Krishna Deva Raya, Hemu, Ranjit Singh, Baji Rao Vallabh Bhai Patel.
you forgot Madhava Rao, ramana garu. he was another bright light that was extinguished long before his time. he could have easily ruled for a good 40-50 years.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
the Mauryan and Gupta leaders understood something about the South which later ones did not (for eg, Harshavardhana).
every power which took an invasion route near the geographical center of India (Central Highlands) into the South, always failed.
but the Mauryans and Guptas took a different approach. they always co-opted the coastal networks first.
this was achievable more instinctively by the "Eastern" rulers in Pataliputra.
as the northern power center moved more towards the Upper Gangetic and later towards the Center of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (Sthaneshwar for Harsha, and Delhi for the Muslims), perhaps their geographic background didn't allow them to understand the power of having the coastal trading networks in hand first, before venturing for an "official" invasion.
Important lesson there for a future Magadha of India.
In many ways, India has much to re-remember from the Mauryas and Guptas, and earlier from the the MB times.
there has been some kind of bewildering amnesia which seems to have developed.
every power which took an invasion route near the geographical center of India (Central Highlands) into the South, always failed.
but the Mauryans and Guptas took a different approach. they always co-opted the coastal networks first.
this was achievable more instinctively by the "Eastern" rulers in Pataliputra.
as the northern power center moved more towards the Upper Gangetic and later towards the Center of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (Sthaneshwar for Harsha, and Delhi for the Muslims), perhaps their geographic background didn't allow them to understand the power of having the coastal trading networks in hand first, before venturing for an "official" invasion.
Important lesson there for a future Magadha of India.
In many ways, India has much to re-remember from the Mauryas and Guptas, and earlier from the the MB times.
there has been some kind of bewildering amnesia which seems to have developed.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Devesh ji
Good one.
Mughals failed conquest of deccan was also one such case.
****
We need to make movies on both the chandraguptas and on skandagupta. If bollywood can make bakwas movies like jodha akbar and bajirao and asoka, why not attempt better historical movies on these smarats. Ridley scotts movies as benchmark
Good one.
Mughals failed conquest of deccan was also one such case.
****
We need to make movies on both the chandraguptas and on skandagupta. If bollywood can make bakwas movies like jodha akbar and bajirao and asoka, why not attempt better historical movies on these smarats. Ridley scotts movies as benchmark
Re: The Mughal Era in India
the reverse case is also true. when the Cholas wanted to drink water of the ganga, they invaded through kalinga and then bengal, bringing back huge urns of water and building gangaikondacholapuram. travel and trade, plus cultural links is much easier in the eastern belt vs the rough terrain & forested tracts, lower population density and harsh weather of the interior...much easier to sustain a long term hold.
no wonder the europeans made a beeline for strategic chokepoints and trading cities on coasts all over the world. the whole paradigm of world power changed when the sea became main line of trade and conquest...the continental horse powers like the mughals & muslim empires in general had no concept of sea power & engineering as a game changer and lost - bigtime.
no wonder the europeans made a beeline for strategic chokepoints and trading cities on coasts all over the world. the whole paradigm of world power changed when the sea became main line of trade and conquest...the continental horse powers like the mughals & muslim empires in general had no concept of sea power & engineering as a game changer and lost - bigtime.
Last edited by Singha on 21 May 2013 09:26, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
IMO Mughals (like the Mauryas) succeeded simply because of the talent based military-bureaucracy and cash economy which helped field HUGE armies. At least in the beginning. Alauddin Khalji was also an efficient administrator (as in everyone was scared sh1tless of him) and he commanded huge armies controlled by the Centre. His sack of the south was a huge force multiplier to his ambitions up North.
The Deccan doab was a much sought after prize.... and so were southern Karnataka and the fertile Deccan deltas. Nobody bothered with Dileep/Nairgolis-land and Theo-land.
In the medieval age when foreign/internal trade significantly fell and feudalism rose (compared to the Golden/Silver Age of 300 BC-around 500 AD), it was land revenue that filled the coffers. The best lands were designated as crown lands and would be directly administered by the royal court and the rest divided to Khans/Nayaks/Pillais/Thevars/ityadi.
The Deccan doab was a much sought after prize.... and so were southern Karnataka and the fertile Deccan deltas. Nobody bothered with Dileep/Nairgolis-land and Theo-land.

Re: The Mughal Era in India
Singha ji,
the problem of "defeating but not finishing the job", is partly rectified by the Marathas. unlike previous iterations of Pulakeshin and Rashtrakutas and others, the Marathas did follow through and chart a course for "conquest and assimilation". the project failed for various reasons, but the South seems to have realized that the sphere of entire Bharat belongs under one power. and I think this historic lesson has not been forgotten and will be remembered in the future when the occasion rises.
the problem of "defeating but not finishing the job", is partly rectified by the Marathas. unlike previous iterations of Pulakeshin and Rashtrakutas and others, the Marathas did follow through and chart a course for "conquest and assimilation". the project failed for various reasons, but the South seems to have realized that the sphere of entire Bharat belongs under one power. and I think this historic lesson has not been forgotten and will be remembered in the future when the occasion rises.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Devesh -ji wonderful insight. Something that had not, at least in my mind, gone "click" before. Thinking further on the thesis, I would be in strong agreement with the idea.devesh wrote: Important lesson there for a future Magadha of India.
.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Khalji's south india was 'success' because of a convert chand ram known as malik kafur. 20 years is a very small period to measure effectiveness of administration, BUT, akbar's effective administration was spearheaded by raja todarmal the first statistician of world.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Akbar onward were raised as Sunnis right? looks like his dad was good at takiya...plus he was one who lost us the kandahar and the easier route to CAR via baluchistan and herat.
from the shah tahmasp entry in wiki:
Royal refugees: Bayezid and Humayun
The Mughal Empire was Iran's eastern neighbour. In 1544, the Mughal emperor, Humayun, fled to Tahmasp's court after he had been overthrown by the rebel Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan). Tahmasp insisted on the Sunni Humayun converting to Shi'ism before he would help him. Humayun reluctantly agreed and also gave Tahmasp the strategically important city of Kandahar in exchange for Iranian military assistance against the heirs of Sher Khan and his own rebellious brothers. By 1555, he had regained his throne.[10][11]
Humayun was not the only royal figure to seek refuge at Tahmasp's court. A dispute arose in the Ottoman Empire over who was to succeed the aged Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman's favourite wife, Roxelana, was eager for her eldest son, Selim, to become the next sultan. But Selim was an alcoholic and Roxelana's third son, Bayezid, had shown far greater military ability. The two princes quarrelled and eventually Bayezid rebelled against his father. His letter of remorse never reached Suleiman and he was forced to flee abroad to avoid execution. In 1559, Bayezid arrived in Iran where Tahmasp gave him a warm welcome. Suleiman was eager to negotiate his son's return, but Tahmasp rejected his promises and threats until, in 1561, Suleiman offered him land and 400,000 gold pieces. In September of that year, Tahmasp and Bayezid were enjoying a banquet at Tabriz when Tahmasp suddenly pretended he had received news that the Ottoman prince was engaged in a plot against his life. An angry mob gathered and Tahmasp had Bayezid put into custody, alleging it was for his own safety. Tahmasp then handed the prince over to the Ottoman ambassador. Shortly afterwards, Bayezid was killed by agents sent by his own father.
from the shah tahmasp entry in wiki:
Royal refugees: Bayezid and Humayun
The Mughal Empire was Iran's eastern neighbour. In 1544, the Mughal emperor, Humayun, fled to Tahmasp's court after he had been overthrown by the rebel Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan). Tahmasp insisted on the Sunni Humayun converting to Shi'ism before he would help him. Humayun reluctantly agreed and also gave Tahmasp the strategically important city of Kandahar in exchange for Iranian military assistance against the heirs of Sher Khan and his own rebellious brothers. By 1555, he had regained his throne.[10][11]
Humayun was not the only royal figure to seek refuge at Tahmasp's court. A dispute arose in the Ottoman Empire over who was to succeed the aged Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman's favourite wife, Roxelana, was eager for her eldest son, Selim, to become the next sultan. But Selim was an alcoholic and Roxelana's third son, Bayezid, had shown far greater military ability. The two princes quarrelled and eventually Bayezid rebelled against his father. His letter of remorse never reached Suleiman and he was forced to flee abroad to avoid execution. In 1559, Bayezid arrived in Iran where Tahmasp gave him a warm welcome. Suleiman was eager to negotiate his son's return, but Tahmasp rejected his promises and threats until, in 1561, Suleiman offered him land and 400,000 gold pieces. In September of that year, Tahmasp and Bayezid were enjoying a banquet at Tabriz when Tahmasp suddenly pretended he had received news that the Ottoman prince was engaged in a plot against his life. An angry mob gathered and Tahmasp had Bayezid put into custody, alleging it was for his own safety. Tahmasp then handed the prince over to the Ottoman ambassador. Shortly afterwards, Bayezid was killed by agents sent by his own father.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal-Saf ... 80%931623)
Mughal–Safavid War (1622–23)
Date 1622–1623
Location Afghanistan
Result Safavid victory
Territorial
changes Kandahar falls to Safavid Iran
Belligerents
Safavid Empire Mughal Empire
Commanders and leaders
Abbas I of Persia Jahangir
Strength
5000 5000
The Mughal–Safavid War of 1622–1623 was fought over the important fortress city of Kandahar, in Afghanistan.
Shah Abbas desired to capture the strategic fortress on Kandahar since he had lost in in 1595.[1] In 1605 the governor of Herat, Hosayn Khan, besieged the city but the tenacious defense of the Mughal governor, Shah Beg Khan, and the arrival in the next year of a relieving Mughal army to Kandahar forced the Safavids to retreat.
With the conclusion of the Ottoman-Safavid War (1603-1618), Shah Abbas was secure enough for a war on his eastern frontier,[1] so in 1621 he ordered an army to gather at Nishapur.[1] After celebrating the new year at Tabas Gilaki in southern Khorasan, Abbas joined with his army and marched on Kandahar where he arrived on 20 May and immediately began the siege.[1] Though Jahangir had information of the Persian's movements he was slow to respond,[1] and without reinforcements the small garrison of 3,000 men could not hold for long.[4]
The Emperor asked his son and heir apparent Khurram who was at Mandu in the Deccan to lead the campaign, but Khurram evaded the assignment fearing to loose his political power while he was away from court.[5] The relief force the Mughal's could assembled proved too small to raise the siege,[3] so after a 45 day siege the city fell on 22 June followed shortly after by Zamindawar.[6]
After fortifying the city and appointing Ganj Ali Khan as governor of the city,[2] Abbas returned to Khorasan via Ghur, subduing on the way troubling emirs in Chaghcharan and Gharjistan.[7]
The rebellion of Khurram absorbed the Mughal's attention, so in the spring of 1623 a Mughal envoy arrived at the Shah's camp with a letter from the Emperor accepting the loss of Kandahar and putting an end to the conflict.[8]
Mughal–Safavid War (1622–23)
Date 1622–1623
Location Afghanistan
Result Safavid victory
Territorial
changes Kandahar falls to Safavid Iran
Belligerents
Safavid Empire Mughal Empire
Commanders and leaders
Abbas I of Persia Jahangir
Strength
5000 5000
The Mughal–Safavid War of 1622–1623 was fought over the important fortress city of Kandahar, in Afghanistan.
Shah Abbas desired to capture the strategic fortress on Kandahar since he had lost in in 1595.[1] In 1605 the governor of Herat, Hosayn Khan, besieged the city but the tenacious defense of the Mughal governor, Shah Beg Khan, and the arrival in the next year of a relieving Mughal army to Kandahar forced the Safavids to retreat.
With the conclusion of the Ottoman-Safavid War (1603-1618), Shah Abbas was secure enough for a war on his eastern frontier,[1] so in 1621 he ordered an army to gather at Nishapur.[1] After celebrating the new year at Tabas Gilaki in southern Khorasan, Abbas joined with his army and marched on Kandahar where he arrived on 20 May and immediately began the siege.[1] Though Jahangir had information of the Persian's movements he was slow to respond,[1] and without reinforcements the small garrison of 3,000 men could not hold for long.[4]
The Emperor asked his son and heir apparent Khurram who was at Mandu in the Deccan to lead the campaign, but Khurram evaded the assignment fearing to loose his political power while he was away from court.[5] The relief force the Mughal's could assembled proved too small to raise the siege,[3] so after a 45 day siege the city fell on 22 June followed shortly after by Zamindawar.[6]
After fortifying the city and appointing Ganj Ali Khan as governor of the city,[2] Abbas returned to Khorasan via Ghur, subduing on the way troubling emirs in Chaghcharan and Gharjistan.[7]
The rebellion of Khurram absorbed the Mughal's attention, so in the spring of 1623 a Mughal envoy arrived at the Shah's camp with a letter from the Emperor accepting the loss of Kandahar and putting an end to the conflict.[8]
Re: The Mughal Era in India
This is a beautiful thread! My koti koti pranaams to all of you who have contributed.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
this predates the mughals who corner all the limelight and worship of indian sarkari historians, but take a look at the career of alauddin khilji. these turkic khiljis has been displaced from CAR by mongol expansion and made a new power base in pak and north india.
looking at this track record, he & his generals zafar khan, ghazi khan and the infamous malik kafur seems to be far more successful in defeating, disrupting and beating back mongol raids than any other ruler in the borderlands of the mongol grasslands and deserts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alauddin_Khilji
the heavy armoured european knights who fought dismounted were crushed my the mongol cavalry. but the khilji army being turkic probably had better lighter armour, technology parity in steel and equally good stock of horses to bring to the fight as the mongol tumans.
given the reputation of the mongols preceded them, it took some serious balls to stand up to them repeatedly and crush their raids one by one. that counts in my book.
of the mughals, only akbar & babar were probably as dynamic and effective...the others spent their time wasting the legacy of their parents.
looking at this track record, he & his generals zafar khan, ghazi khan and the infamous malik kafur seems to be far more successful in defeating, disrupting and beating back mongol raids than any other ruler in the borderlands of the mongol grasslands and deserts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alauddin_Khilji
the heavy armoured european knights who fought dismounted were crushed my the mongol cavalry. but the khilji army being turkic probably had better lighter armour, technology parity in steel and equally good stock of horses to bring to the fight as the mongol tumans.
given the reputation of the mongols preceded them, it took some serious balls to stand up to them repeatedly and crush their raids one by one. that counts in my book.
of the mughals, only akbar & babar were probably as dynamic and effective...the others spent their time wasting the legacy of their parents.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
This filled the vacuum left due to the long period between the defeat of the Kanwas by Pulomavi (Satavahana) which ended Maghda rule in North India and Harsha by Pulekeshin II(Chalukya).ramana wrote:Fall of Vijayanagara at Talikota sealed the fates of the Bahamani dregs. The reason is they could not count on being preserved against the hated Hindus south of them. So once they won at Talikota it became a Shia Sunni fight which the latter won.
Also the design of the Mughal Sultanate was different than the earlier Delhi Sultanate. It anchored in the 'heart'/core of India a central ruling power, which was only existent in the epic times, and which the local populace could look upto as their hukumat.
Earlier Sultanates acted as occupying alien powers and had deep resentment.
Re: The Mughal Era in India
Thanks Ramana, did not see this thread...Also need to understand Shahjahan's relationship with his daughter while in prison!
According to alternate story of Anarkali Akbar forbade Salim from seeing Anarkali as she was part of his harem and would not have been proper.
Aurungzeb reportedly fell in love only once...with a hindu lady, it is a well written narrative by Sarakar ( I think).
Also need to understand NW frontier policy of earlier Muslim sultans and how they kept the invasions at bay. There is a Google book on this.
According to alternate story of Anarkali Akbar forbade Salim from seeing Anarkali as she was part of his harem and would not have been proper.
Aurungzeb reportedly fell in love only once...with a hindu lady, it is a well written narrative by Sarakar ( I think).
Also need to understand NW frontier policy of earlier Muslim sultans and how they kept the invasions at bay. There is a Google book on this.