The Mughal Era in India

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2013 05:49

Which one is the Google book?
Mostly the faced numerous invasions during the Mameluke or Slave dynasty.
Tughlaq wanted to invade China and lost 150,000 troops.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2013 06:01

Here is an Internet Archive book

Sultanate of Delh from Arab invasion to Mughalsi
Srivatsava

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 06:03

if anyone ever visits delhi, make it a point to visit the wonderful lodhi gardens which houses small tombs of a few pre-mughal low key sultans. the domes are decorated with beautiful blue tiles and the gardens are wonderfully maintained being in a very posh area (lodhi road). its walkable from metro stn.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2013 06:07

Yes those are the Lodi Tombs.

The earlier Sultans tombs are not there. Dont know where they are? Maybe Old Delhi?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2013 06:38

Balban's is in Mehrauli. However Aibaks is in Lahore. However, just like the Taj, have never had the bad fortune to visit the Lodi tombs either. Made a point of not visiting them even during my stays. A potential Delhiwaali gudyia (would have been delectable

) was psyched off by my quiet determination not to visit "sultanate" and "Mughal" love sites.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 06:51

Bji that PDF map bolded below is a mass of historical sites. worthy of visiting each place for anyone interested in architecture and history (regardless of our views on the rulers...it is what it is and ancient history now)...I am still working my way through the list....even to cover mehrauli outside the qutub complex would be a full day of tramping through the scrubland , over forgotten ruins to the mystic howl of peacocks...meow meow...I love such solo walkabouts...

qutub ud din aibak tomb is in lahore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civ4a2-Qm7Y
iltutmish tomb - it is within the qutub minar complex off in one corner
razia sultana - near turkoman gate in purani dilli
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/incoming ... 316640.jpg

jalal uddin khalji in kaushambi which is near rae bareilly
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/71580662

ala uddin khalji
his tomb is within the qutub minar complex

ghiyas uddin tughlaq - within the tughlaqbad fort http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ughlaq.JPG
http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/ ... aqabad.pdf

firoz shah tughlaq - in hauz khas which is near iit-dilli
http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=5

muhammad bin tughlaq...another dara shikoh type..more liberal than the norm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Tughluq
his tomb is said to be somewhere in gujrat (Sindh)

Sayyids and Lodhis
their tombs are in the lodhi gardens. small scale monarchs but ended up in the best part of town in modern era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate
Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Sultanate was its temporary success in insulating the subcontinent from the potential devastation of the Mongol invasion from Central Asia in the thirteenth century. However, the invasion of Timur in 1398 significantly weakened the Delhi Sultanate. It revived briefly under the Lodis before it was conquered by the Mughal emperor Babur in 1526.

The last Lodi ruler, Ibrahim Lodi, was greatly disliked by his court and subjects. Upon the death of his father Sikander Lodi, he quashed a brief rebellion led by some of his nobles who wanted his younger brother Jalal Khan to be the Sultan. After seizing the throne, by having Jalal Khan murdered, he never really did succeed in pacifying his nobles. Subsequently Daulat Khan, the governor of Punjab and Alam Khan, his uncle, sent an invitation to Babur, the ruler of Kabul to invade Delhi.

By way of superior generalship, vast experience in warfare, effective strategy and appropriate use of artillery, Babur won the first Battle of Panipat (April 1526), in which Ibrahim Lodi was killed on the battlefield. Babur subsequently occupied Agra and Delhi and the new Mughal dynasty was to rule Delhi until 1857.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 06:56

sher shah suri who kicked humayun out of delhi and was set for a long stable reign before being killed by a accident in a explosive magazine, has a beautiful "rajput" type bomb in sasaram, bihar

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 07:05

another forgotten somewhat but huge structure is safdarjung tomb complex. its side wall is opposite the bungalow of our home minister

the solitary guard at the gate gave me a scowl as I trekked past.

it is a late mughal era structure, built in 1754
pix here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Safdarjung

the walls have some nice patterns and being much newer than the lodhi gardens is not so worn out. its worth a visit for its lavish size symmetric gardens.

another thing I noticed is that important nobles, favourite children, begums would often be buried in adjoining chambers or on the outside verandah of sultans tombs. this is quite obvious in humayun's tomb which again is a must visit site and always busy with tourists.

sadly, the only ones visiting these sites seriously seem to be busloads of foreign tourists , a few desi tourists rushing from A to B to get their passports stamped and a few wandering mendicants of the brf mould.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 25 May 2013 11:50

It is obvious to see foreign tourists around tomb. Necrophile Westerners are obsessed with tombs. It is also obvious Indians do not go to visit tombs for that obvious reason that they dont believe in even observing or knowing death anniversary of Rama, Krishna etc, we dont bother to observe it even if we know. Indians are all for life.

Necrophiles also making movies on tombs and dead people, most favourite tourist places are tombs around the world.

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 25 May 2013 11:54

It figures. Gora's religion is nothing but corpse worship.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 25 May 2013 12:13

When i first saw Iron Pillar and that symbol of gulami and oppression, my choice was that scientific marvel. Out tourism department has gradually shifted from showing victory tower of chittorgarh in official website and publication of Kutub Minars, tombs of oppressors and bigots as national symbol. Recently Travel Trend Channel wali said Kutub Minar is the oldest Mughal (sic) structure standing in Delhi.

Our history is only mughals, sultans and their tombs according to our govt. and for people at large.

No mughal or sultante structure built for public welfare other than couple of gardens, god know whether they were also created on udyans of previous rajas, just like tombs and mosques built on temples.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 25 May 2013 12:37

It is a national shame that India use Tomb of a cruel pervert's wife, and a structure built to commemorate victory of invader consider national monuments and their pictures are used to represent India! Ack-thoo!

Many of the cities have such gulami monuments, viz., Mumbai - Victoria terminus and PoWalse Museum, Kolkata is known by Victoria Memorial, Delhi by Kutub Minar and a coward Humayun's tomb, Aurangabad by Aurangzeb's Bibi's Makabara, Ahmedabad by Sidi Saiyed Jali, Hyderabad by Char Minar. Fortunate it is not true for many cities and states.

Just imagine that Iron pillar is used as a representative of India's achievement, the psychological effect of knowing that our ancestors built marvellous piece that has no parallel, scientific temperament it generates!

Many of the Chola temples are number one architectural marvel far far better and 4-5-10 times bigger and 500 years older than tomb of cruel pervert's wife. Why they cant be national monument? Why invaders and cruel perverts get importance and not kings who always worked for public welfare and lead pious lives?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 16:41

Murugan, Chola temples are well known as are many other world heritage sites like sravanagelagola .
but you compare the number of domestic tourists who visit the "golden triangle of agra-jaipur-delhi" and those that make the trek to thanjavur and chidambaram? most people could not locate either place on the map.

these places suffer from being off the well shod beaten path of domestic tourists in india. partly is connectivity problem, if they were located 50km from chennai or blr could get 10X the number of footfalls and publicity.

wrt to projection in books and such, again they suffer vs the far more famous forts and palaces of rajasthan which the gora coffee table books drool over.

one of the things which happened in rajasthan over last decade is a lot of even tier2 and tier3 havilis , forts and palaces got converted by the inheritors in heritage hotels. that has not happened in most other parts of the country in such a scale.

Anand K · Post by **Anand K** » 25 May 2013 16:51

Singha's right, there's a reason for the Naarth Tourist Zone's popularity.... in tourist season you have a wide variety of things to see within a 300 mile radius. There's the terai, a glacier or two, endless mango orchards, Rishikesh-haridwar, the monuments in Delhi-Agra, the NCR itself with all the museums and English architecture, Chandigarh, Jaipur, Amritsar.....

The bang for buck is high.... many foreign friends and tourists have mentioned this.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 18:39

among the southern places mysore-coorg-bandipur-nagarhole and mahabalipuram have that strategic closeness to big city airports.
that is why mysore sees more tourist footballs than probably any other location in south, incl even most corporate travellers to blr make it a weekend trip atleast.
hampi has far more to see and belur/halebidu/sravanabelagola are also world heritage sites. hampi is 3/4 of a day's hard driving and the others really need a overnight halt at hassan or chikmagalur after a 4-5 hr drive to get covered, with neither hassan or chikmagalur being overly rich in good hotels.

if you think the south is getting neglected think of the east!

bodh gaya is generally reached by a overnight ride on the rajdhani from nai dilli RS. the vast number of other sites spread around bihar were off the map and deemed not possible for tourists due to bad roads and poor road security. nalanda and many more... west bengal govt also in typical style has done little to nothing to publicize...all that I see as +ve delta is a bunch of luxury resorts along the hooghly that came up pvtly. ganga kutir, vedic village, ffort raichak on ganges. they could have taken what the angrez and afghan sardar's left behind, given a fresh coat of paint and sold that...once people came started converting the old jamindari rajabari into heritage hotels with authentic bangla style maalish with mustard oil and mishti doi with naalen gurer sandesh for breakfast!

compare to the kerala tourism publicity campaign. they have completely taken over ayurveda in public perception though its a pan-indian thing really.
cunning chaps these mallu brothers

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 18:59

Nai dilli in typical style has also arranged for the best trains (shatabdi) to radiate out to jaipur, chandigarh , amritsar(?), dehra run (for haridwar & rishikesh) and bhopal(via agra I guess), even lucknow.

nice play that one. south has mysore-blr-chennai shatabdi and I guess thats it.

habal · Post by **habal** » 25 May 2013 19:51

there is Jan Shatabdi for south, but the coaches are nowhere in comparison to the northern ones, which I presume are imported german ones.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2013 21:09

Singha ji,
I am against tomb culture from my own understanding of our philosophy. We do not in general celebrate death and the physical remains of the body. Each death is a future life. Most of these excessive tomb architecture and decorations is against even the Islamic doctrines, and was done specifically to stake a cultural claim on our soil. I sincerely wish large scale earthquakes or collateral damage in a future war removes them.

After all "life on earth" is just but a fleeting glimpse for that religion, to be enjoyed as per the suprahuman authorities supposed rulings, and then dust returned to dust. No trace should remain. We should help them in being truthful to their religion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2013 21:15

yes the big windows indicate the imported coaches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGQXCRLpze0
I think mysore shatabdi has also moved to using such coaches recently.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 May 2013 22:45

IMHO, Lets not deny these Tombed dead bodies the propler Indian honor. Cremate all of them and scatter/ recycle the ashes in Sewage treatment plant. And lets not forget their Suffiee teachers, they must join their Chelas and enjoy the same courtsey. I see no harm in declaring a pubic holiday to accomplish this good patriotic deed in the name of Jannat.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 25 May 2013 22:57

Cenotaphs do exist even among Hindus even if the bodies are not buried there. In an earlier trip to Mandore gardens (Jodhpur) saw some beautiful cenotaphs of former rulers. (Unfortunately the place is not well maintained and the local young seem to believe in dirtying it even more with active partying, drinking and throwing things around).
Lingayat's bury too including with tombstones (afaik) - so Indian custom is a varied one across religions in india.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 May 2013 01:33

viv, Small children, sanyasis, Lingayats all get buried. In Rayalseema they have hero-stones where they commemorate fallen warriors. Examples are there in Connemera museum in Madras. Why bring in Hindu burial practices in the Mughal era thread? You could have used the OT thread.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 26 May 2013 06:48

Ramana, I was only commenting that tomb or cenotaphs are not non-Hindu or non-Indian. But yes please move to OT thread.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 26 May 2013 10:30

Vivji this was only about tomb tourism, tombs are gradually especially mughal tombs humayun and taj being promoted as national must see monuments. Burial practices are very old even in indian societies but people get rebirth in our philosophy and death is 'temporary'. Cowards and cruel pervert mugal's tomb cannot be national monument, and never should be promoted for tourism. Why iron pillar is not projected and why tombs of delhi agra?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 May 2013 12:14

famous cenotaphs of the bundela kings are also there in orchha m.p. banks of the betwa river.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 May 2013 12:50

The most consistent theme in indian history is when we take our indic quarrels to a outsider as arbiter or to seek support, end result is BOTH the indic parties ended up losers big time.

There is some truth to old wise saying of never taking family quarrels into the street for outsiders to exploit.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 May 2013 18:59

viv wrote:Cenotaphs do exist even among Hindus even if the bodies are not buried there. In an earlier trip to Mandore gardens (Jodhpur) saw some beautiful cenotaphs of former rulers. (Unfortunately the place is not well maintained and the local young seem to believe in dirtying it even more with active partying, drinking and throwing things around).
Lingayat's bury too including with tombstones (afaik) - so Indian custom is a varied one across religions in india.

Huge architectural complexes spread over acres for "Indics" with sole purpose of tombification? I can tell you a dozen more Indic streams that bury - but not with this my death is bigger than yours type of land grabbing. But in general tomb-culture even if you carry all burials into it, is a very thin minority strand within Indic, and it is not ostentatious where it is practised.

For sultanate or Mughals in India - these tombification drives were something akin to the way first state supported Churches in medieval Europe went about suppressing "pagan" land-symbols. These are political statements of occupation and contest - matched almost nowhere else in such ostentation in the Islam dominated world.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 May 2013 22:27

There are few old graves being "looked after" near Imperial Hotel and Western court in Delhi. No Idea , Who and How many Foreigners are occupying the real expensive Indian real estate there.
The best use of the land wasted for these Tombs is to build public Pakhans and subsidized housing for Dharmic refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 27 May 2013 06:29

Murugan wrote:Vivji this was only about tomb tourism, tombs are gradually especially mughal tombs humayun and taj being promoted as national must see monuments. Burial practices are very old even in indian societies but people get rebirth in our philosophy and death is 'temporary'. Cowards and cruel pervert mugal's tomb cannot be national monument, and never should be promoted for tourism. Why iron pillar is not projected and why tombs of delhi agra?

I get your point. Anyway was also bemoaning the monuments in Mandore were not being maintained. They would be a great tourist attraction.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 27 May 2013 12:47

Jhujar wrote:There are few old graves being "looked after" near Imperial Hotel and Western court in Delhi. No Idea , Who and How many Foreigners are occupying the real expensive Indian real estate there.
The best use of the land wasted for these Tombs is to build public Pakhans and subsidized housing for Dharmic refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

++1 to that. Since when have we become Grave worshippers.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 27 May 2013 16:10

Murugan wrote:It is a national shame that India use Tomb of a cruel pervert's wife, and a structure built to commemorate victory of invader consider national monuments and their pictures are used to represent India! Ack-thoo!

Many of the cities have such gulami monuments, viz., Mumbai - Victoria terminus and PoWalse Museum, Kolkata is known by Victoria Memorial, Delhi by Kutub Minar and a coward Humayun's tomb, Aurangabad by Aurangzeb's Bibi's Makabara, Ahmedabad by Sidi Saiyed Jali, Hyderabad by Char Minar. Fortunate it is not true for many cities and states.

Just imagine that Iron pillar is used as a representative of India's achievement, the psychological effect of knowing that our ancestors built marvellous piece that has no parallel, scientific temperament it generates!

Many of the Chola temples are number one architectural marvel far far better and 4-5-10 times bigger and 500 years older than tomb of cruel pervert's wife. Why they cant be national monument? Why invaders and cruel perverts get importance and not kings who always worked for public welfare and lead pious lives?

Murugan ji, we have places like 'Max Muller bhavan' and roads like 'Aurangzeb Road' in the national capital

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 27 May 2013 20:18

Singha wrote:The most consistent theme in indian history is when we take our indic quarrels to a outsider as arbiter or to seek support, end result is BOTH the indic parties ended up losers big time.

There is some truth to old wise saying of never taking family quarrels into the street for outsiders to exploit.

This khujli is still continuing. Congress lobbied hard with the Goras to persuade them to deny Modi a visa.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 28 May 2013 00:55

I don't know whether it was through official channels or through back channels but the groups who are supporting cessation of Kashmir (from India) are the ones who spearheaded this move in massa. There could be other forces at work - the usual suspects Britain and S. Arabia influencing their stooge Pakistan to muddy the waters through their contacts.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 28 May 2013 02:14

by Murugan
It is also obvious Indians do not go to visit tombs for that obvious reason that they dont believe in even observing or knowing death anniversary of Rama, Krishna etc, we dont bother to observe it even if we know. Indians are all for life.

We should visit these tombs to spit and urinate! and demand our right to do so!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 May 2013 03:16

Socha Thhaaa Ki Nikal Gya Woh Qital kaa Sammah,
Phir Bhii Dekh Ranha Hoon Main Onnhe Iddar Yaanha

Yanha Main Ajnabi Hoon,Yanha Main Ajnabi Hoon
Main Jo hoon , Yeeeeh Nahi hoon !!
Kanha Tombs ,Masoleums Terre
Kanha Vihar ,Thaakur Gurdware Merreee
Baaaahut Ruswah Hoonye hai
Iiss sei
Dill O Zajbaat Merrree
Yanha main Ajnabi Hoon ...

Alien Tehzzeb hai yeh, Paapi thaa Woh Zamana
Magar Mai Dharm Puttar Hoon Yugo Yug Poorana
Main Kya Jaannoo Yeh PSecularism,
Yeh Subb Saaf Baat karna
Mere Dukhi Uttering ko Zarra tum
Kaan Lagga Kei Sunn-naah.
Indraprasht Me Dekhoon ,kyon Ghairo ki Baatte
Main Laoon gaa kanha se Aisse kaffir Nigahey
Koi Paapi rasm hogga,
Mlech Daastoor hogga
Mujhe Falsaffa aisa
Nahi Manzoor Hogga!!
Bhalla Kaise yeh Merra , lahoo bann Jayye Paani
Main Kaisse Bhool Jaoon ,Main Hoon Hindustani .
...ajnabi Hoon!!
PSecularism key Joooouth Mahal Meyyyy
Nahi appna Gujjaaaarra
Waqt Phir Aaaa Raha Hai
Dharma Bullaa Raha Hai
Dukho ko Khatam Kar dho
Andhe Putt Kaurvoh Ko phir
Nestanbhood Karr Kar dho!
.... ajnabi hoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmPZ83bmMQ

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jun 2013 23:33

Ishwa in India Forum:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... -in-india/

Muslim rule from Delhi from 1206-1707 (= 501 years)

The Muslim rulers of Delhi influenced more or less the politics from the fortified residences within their annexed areas the life in and outside those areas. While they could dominate (read terrorize) the cities, towns and countryside outside their strongholds but within their kingdom respectively empire, they tried to conquer the inimical strongholds outside their kingdom with planned raids of the cities, towns and countryside and sieges of their strongholds. These were either annexed or remained independent.

The Turki and Mughal invasions were attempted to conquer and rule over India. The Islamiced Turks from the Ghazni belt, pressing the local Bauddha Turks and Hindu/Bauddha Pathans and other locals, managed to rule over Delhi and other fortified areas in the northern plains. The Mughals started from 1221 on with their attempts from the Ghazni-Gandhara belt. They only managed to conquer India in 1526, to lose it again in 1540, and regain it in 1555 , with the help of Iran.
Four groups of Mughals, Turks, Pathans and other Indians interacted, with the Hindu-remaining Indians within specific geographical zones, which I call Mandalas, from Central-Asia to the Indian seas.

Mandalas (belt): Political wave effects on India from geo-zones

I. OXUS-JAXARTES VALLEYS
1. Khurasan Mandala (Khurasani areas)
This area was important for the developments into the subcontinent from the Hindukush deep into the Indo-Gangetic plains. The Islamiced Turks and Tajiks and other E-Iranic (E-Iranian and descendants of Sakas and Tukharas) were dominant in these areas with a hybrid but predominantly Persian culture.
Mughal invasion, enslaving Turks from the north, and then also Turks and Tajiks from Khurasan caused a deep antagonism between Turks-Tajiks and Mughals.

II. OUTER INDIA (Pash/khtuni areas)
2. Ghazni-Gandhara Mandala
Migrated Turks and Tajiks already settled or freshly arrived from Khurasan dominated the local newly Islamiced Pathans-Hindkos-other Hindus and non-Islamiced populations. This caused a deep antagonism of the Turk-Tajik with the local freshly Islamized Pathans-others and non-Islamized Hindu groups.
With the Mughal invasion within the Ghazni-Gandhara Mandala, we get three antagonistic groups: Mughals-Turks and Tajiks-Pathans and Hindus.

III. INNER INDIA (Pakistani areas)
3A. Indus Valley Mandala: (WPanjab-Multan-Sindh)
After the Ghazni Mandala the next thread came from the Islamized Indus Valley centers in Lahore and Multan. The last was an Ismaili Shiite mini-belt.

B. North India Mandala
In this Mandala the power triangle Delhi-Bangal-Gujarat influenced other centers like Rajputana, Malwa-Mathura and the Mid-Gangetic. Political fortified centers and other citadels were interlinked, Hindu religious centers were converted into Muslim ones, changing also their place names.

The four Sunnite tribes formed these groupings: Khurasano-Afghani Mughals, Turk and Tajiks versus Afghano-Hindustani converted Pathans and converted Hindus. Both groupings were antagonistic towards each other, but both were religiously hostile towards Hindus. Pathans were spread in the Purab and other countrysides.

C. South India Mandala
In this Mandala the Iranian Shiites started a belt in the Deccan, wagings political wars against the Sunnites from the North, with help of the Hindus, but religious wars with help of Sunnites against the same Hindus from the South.

The Muslims, starting from Muhammad bin Sam established bases for Muslim overlords over Hindu rulers who paid tribute. At local levels within direct Muslim rule, a host of lesser chieftains (muqqaddams) and headmen (khots) were employed during Alauddin Khilji, as per Barni.
During Muhammad Tughluq, Hindus who lived in villages under a Muslim officer or Hakim were distinguished from Hindus of the Mawasat (jungles, bare or barren lands).

Dar-ul-Islami heartland
A. The fortified areas (forts, towns, cities) were under direct Sultanate rule.
B. The open countryside was land of the infidels: The landholders (zamindar) and peasants (dahiqin) are only ostensily subjects (ra'aya-yi suri), paying taxes out of fear of the sword.

Dar-ul- Harbi periphery
A. Zaminbus areas; loosely tolerated Hindu kingdom areas were existent due to paying tributes (pAibUs, zamInbUs).
B. Mawas areas: these were beyond control. Even Muslim rebels and dissidents took refuge there, forming a cluster sometimes of Hindu and Muslim partizans.
Two means of attacking these Harbi areas were through actions of Sultani Swords and Sufi Saints.

Within every stronghold area of the Delhi Sultanate, there were pacified Zaminbus royals and troublemaking Mawas rebels. The Delhi and other Sultans never controlled their subjects outside the fortified dots within their kingdoms. Therefore, any map depicting the geographical limits of their power with one colour, is giving a highly flattered picture!

In the Sultanate Period, the largest kingdoms were under:
a. Turki Balban Mamluk
b. Turkoid Alauddin Khalaji
c. Turki Muhammad Tughluq
d. Turkoid Sikandar Lodi (Khalaji)

The Padishah Period has three subperiods:
A. Babur and Humayun
B. Interregnum Suri Pathans
C1. Akbar: most influential Padishah
2. Jahangir
3. Shah Jahan
4. Aurangzeb: largest kingdom

I. 1st Delhi Kingdom (1206-1398 = 192 years)
1. Turki Mamluks (1206-1290 = 84 years)
Shamanist Mughal threats, at least 15 major invasions.

A. Qutbuddin Aibak (1206-1210)
B. Aram Shah (1210-1211)
C. Iyaltimish (1211-1236)
1223/4 Dorbey and Bala Mughals invade Multan and Lahore for Chengiz Khan (1206-1227)
1235 Kashmir area invaded for Ogodei (1227-1241)
Pakchak Mughal invades Peshawar for Ogodei (1227-1241)

D. Rukuddin Firuz (1236), Razia Sultana (1236-1240), Muizzuddin Bahram (1240-1242), Alauddin Masud (1242-1246) , Nasiruddin Masud (1246-1266)
1239 Mughal held the tract beyond the Chenab.
1241 Dayir and Mengutei Mughal invasion of Lahore for Ogodei (1227-1241)
Sali Mughal invades Kashmir area for Mongke (1251-1257)
1245/6 Mengutai Mughal invasion of Uch and Multan
1248-1252 Sali Mughal invades Multan and Lahore for Hulagu (1257-): bought of.. Lahore and Sindh became Mughal
1257 Kushlu Khan invades Delhi
1257/8 Sali Mughal occupies Ucch and Multan for Hulagu
NOTE: Ulugh Khan Balban was active as general against the Mughal invasions. Not always successful.

E. Ghiyasuddin Balban (1266-1286)
Annual Mughal attacks, as far as Rupar on the Satlaj, as per Barni.
1266 Mughals crossed the Beas river and attacked Uch.
1268 Balban takes Lahore from Mughal subordinate Kushlu Khan.
1284/5 Temur Mughal defeats Balban's general at Ravi junction with Dhandh.

F. Muizzuddin Kaikubad (1286-1290)
Kayumars (1290) only three years old was dethroned by his guardian Alauddin Khalaji.
1287 Temur Mughal invades territory between Lahore and Samana.

2. Turkoid Khalajis (1290-1320 = 30 years)
Shamanist some Muslim Mughal invasions, 10 counted.
1303 Siri and Jahanpanah fortifications repaired.

A. Jalaluddin Firuz
1291 Mughal invasion at frontier.
1292 Abdallah Mughal invasion: Alughu into Panjab, Alughu and his 4000 advance guard became the New Muslims and settled in Delhi's Mughalpur quarter, main thread of Mughals was bought off.

B. Ali Gurshasp Alauddin (1296-1316): usurped the throne
1st Mughal invasions 1296-7 Duva Khan: in 1297 Jalandhar
2nd Mughal invasion 1297/8 Saldi
3rd Mughal invasion 1399 Qutluq Khvaja into Delhi
4th Mughal invasion 1303 Targhay into Delhi
5th Mughal invasion 1303 Ali Beg and Tartaq into Panjab
6th Mughal invasion 1306 Kebek into Multan and Panjab
7th Mughal invasion 1307/8 Iqbalmand and Taibu at Indus river. Duva Khan died, succession war.
Mughal commander tried to kill Malik Kafur in 1311 > all Mughals of Sultanate murdered.

C. Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah (1316- 1320)
1320 Mongol invasion of Zulju into Kashmir

- Interregnum
1320 Sultan Khushrau Khan Parvar: Hindus and their cults (ban on cow-slaughter) again revered.

3. Turki Tughluqs (1320-1413 = 93 years)
Three Mughal invasions
A. Giyathuddin (1320-1325)

B. Muhammad (1325-1351): 'usurped' the throne
1327 Mughal invasion Tarmashirin into Lamghan-Multan-siege Delhi. Thread was bought off. Bauddha Tarmashirin later became Muslim.
Mughal raids of Amir Qazaghan into Northern India
Mughal Amir Qazaghan helped Muhammad suppress rebellions in 1350.

C. Firuz Shah (1351-1388)
Note: Timur from 1363 ruler of Transoxiana-Khurasan: centralization (politics), Islamization (religion) and Islamo-Persianization (culture). A split between Islamiced and non-Islamized Chaghatai Mughals. He tried to found a new Mughal empire.

II. 2nd Delhi Kingdom (1398-1556 = 158 years)
1398 DESTRUCTIVE RAID TIMUR A CHAGATAYID MUGHAL
1398-1414 anarchy and regionalism
Many areas in Northern India were untouched by the weakened Delhi kingdom.

a. Saiyads (1414-1451 = 47 years)
A. Khizr Khan (1414-1421): vassal of the Timurid Chaghatays (Mughal)
B. Mubarak Khan (1421-1434)
C. Muhammad Shah (1434-1445)
D. Alauddin Alam Shah (1445-1451)

b. Turkoid Lodis (Khalajis) (1451-1526 = 75 years)
A. Bahlul (1451-1489)
B. Sikandar (1489-1517)
C. Ibrahim (1517-1526
Mughal invasion of Babar

c. Timurid Chaghatay Mughals (1526-1556 = 30 years)
A. Babar (1526-1530) – hated his Mughal ancestry, considered himself a Turk, but Barlas are Mongols.
B1. Humayun 1st rule (1530-1545)
C. - Interregnum Pathan Suris (1540-1555)
B2. Humayun 2nd rule (1555-1556)
- Interregnum Hemu (1556)

III. Delhi Empire (1556-1707 = 151 years)
A. Akbar (1556-1605)
B. Jahangir (1605-1627)
- Interregnum (1527-1528)
C. Shah Jahan (1528-1558)
D. Aurangzeb (1558-1707)

The above described scheme includes many blank incidents, not mentioned in standard works, such as the prolonged Mughal attempts to conquer India from 1221 on. Omitting the weight of these invasions, and even all the occurring ones in contemporary works indicates the submissive nature of court writers to their Turki patrons. Many facts, like defeats were not given proper attention. Exageration of their own exploits were not uncommon. (This is equally true of their defeats at Hindu hands.)

The scheme has the benefit to get a better grasp of the political picture, related to the regnal periods and extent of their dominion. Keeping in mind that the Muslims only controlled fortified dots within their kingdom, we get also a picture of the partly independent tributary Rajas and also the fully independent and uncontrollable rulers.
We get a better outlining of the heoric Hindu resistence.

The severe threats of the invasions of the Mughals were the real cause of the relocations of the capital seat in Delhi, and even once outside Delhi during the Tughluqs. There wasn't any time and money to build from scratch any major city, fort or building, thus the Sultans were content with usurping preexisting ones, making them fit or embellishing them to acquire Islamic standards, to pacify their Ulemas.

Another factor to reckon with is the political and religious interaction of 4 groups of Muslims (outer belt Mughals, outer belt Tajik-Turks, inner belt Pathans and other converted, inner belt converted Hindus; actually a fifth is when taking the Shiites apart from the Sunnites) with each other and against the non-Muslim Hindus.
This scheme provides a handy tool to outline the atrocities commited by the Muslims rulers, originating from which belts and by which of their 5 groups, and thus getting a twofold better picture of the Hinducides and total Hinducaust and the developments of architecture.

Exactly! The Muslims had by then a dreadful fear for "Pagan" Mughals.

See also my scheme below for India:

I. 1st Delhi Kingdom (1206-1398 = 192 years)
1. Turki Mamluks (1206-1290 = 84 years)
Shamanist Mughal threats, at least 15 major invasions

2. Turkoid Khalajis (1290-1320 = 30 years)
Shamanist Mughal invasions, 10 counted.

NOTE: except for the invasion of the Mughal Abdallah. He converted to Islam when the Mughals were governing Ghazni. But still, despite being a Muslim, he despised the Turks, for Mughals they were slaves. Therefore he attacked the Turkoid Khalajis, who were actually Turks from Mawara-un Nahr (Transoxiana), and fled to the southeast for the Mughals. The Khalaji Sultan made an agreement, and the depicted story is that the Mughals became newly converted and settled in Delhi. The real story rather must have been that these were freshly converted Mughals from the army settled in Ghazni. Probably they were captured and spared and considered as special mercenaries in the army of their co-religionists. They were used against the Hindu Rajas. Till some incidents occurred against the general of the Sultan, that all were considered too dangerous for the Turks. Thus the newly Muslim Mughal mercenaries were massacred.

But the main body of Mughals in Transoxiana were still non-Muslim Shamanists.

3. Turki Tughluqs (1320-1413 = 93 years)
Three Mughal invasions
Tarmashirin of the first invasion in 1327 was a Bauddha, afterwards converted to the Islam.

How fast the islamization of the Mughals went on, I don't know yet fully in detail. It had to do with the islamization of the heartland of Mughals (Transoxiana) from where they launched expeditions to the next belt which they held for launching attacks on Turki Sultans in India.
By the time of the Timurid Chaghatay Mughals, of the clearly Mughal Barlas tribe, this islamization of that heartland was completed. The role model for this new identity came from the largest populations of Transoxiana: Muslim Turks (language) and E-Iranic Sogdians (architecture, culture) and to a lesser extent Muslim Iranic Tajiks (Persian culture). The Shamanist Mughals then must have been looked down upon by the Muslim ones.

But, Timur remained a (raiding) Mughal and still looked down upon the Turks, whether Muslim or not. That's why he punished the Delhi Tughluq Sultan, not because he found him lax, but simply because Turks were considered their slaves, unworthy to be their equals as rulers. But in which standard book is this point mentioned?
Of course, Hindus were unworthy of living in his Muslim eyes.

By the time of Babur, the Turkic influence through the language was the strongest, may be through marital relations with Turki women? May be also because other powerful Mughals in Central-Asia were hostile towards him.
Anyway, the Timurid Mughals spoke by then Turki and were Tajiko-Persianized in their manners. Previously the enemies of the Turks during their Shamanist period, now really started looking down on the dominant people of the new belt towards India: the ethnically different (islamized) Pathans.

In the Sultanate Period, the largest kingdoms were under:
a. Turki Balban Mamluk - Mughal invasions
b. Turkoid Alauddin Khalaji - Mughal invasions > relocated to preexisting citadel of Siri - impregnable when besieged
c. Turki Muhammad Tughluq - Mughal invasions > relocated to Tughluqabad , then to Devagiri , then to Jahanpanah-Siri
d. Turkoid Sikandar Lodi (Khalaji)

But the irony is that the most dreadful invasions of Mughals occurred during the rules of the first three putting a heavy financial load on the shoulders of the Sultans. And two of these had their royal seats relocated.
When Balban was a general during the last Mamluk Kaikubad, the Mughals were very actively threatening the Sultan and the royal seat was relocated far away from the western fortress of Yoginipura towards Indarpat metropolis. The new capital seat, a preexisting fortress city in safer areas, was called Shahr-i Nau.
Firuz Shah Tughluq, with constant Mughal threats, relocated his capital seat to the remoter location in Indarpat metropolis.
The relocating Sultans were very nervous of the Mughal threats. They moved towards preexisting city forts and palaces which they took from their tax paying Hindu vassals.

According to Hari Charan Das in his work he gives these names for the Rajas of the later called Shahjahanabad area in Indarpat metropolis:
Hari Charan Das: Chahar Gulzar Shuja'i (ca. 1785 century finished)
Book V. The Kalí Yuga: this book is divided into two parts.
Part I.—The Rájas of Dehlí, now called Sháh-Jahánábád, from the beginning of the Kalí Yuga, or the reign of Rája Judhishtar, in whose time the great war took place, up to the first irruption of the Muhammadans, as taken from the Rájávalí and Faizí's translation of the Mahábhárata from Hindí into Persian.
Part I.—Sec. i. ….X. Dahí Sen; Baláwal Sen, son of Dahí Sen; Keshú Sen, son of Baláwal Sen; Madhú Sen, son of Keshú Sen; Súr Sen, son of Madhú Sen; Bhím Sen, son of Súr Sen; Kanak Sen, son of Bhím Sen; Hari Sen, son of Kanak Sen; Ghan Sen, son of Hari Sen; Náráin Sen, son of Ghan Sen; Lakhman Sen, son of Náráin Sen; Madr Sen, son of Lakhman Sen.— xi. Rája Díp Singh. Six Rájas of this family ruled during 107 years and 7 months: Rán Singh, son of Díp Singh; Ráj Singh, son of Rán Singh; Chatar Singh, son of Ráj Singh; Nar Singh, son of Chatar Singh; Jíwan Singh, son of Nar Singh.—xii. Rája Pithaurá. Of this line five princes filled the throne during 80 years 6 months and 10 days: Ráí Abhai Mal, son of Ráí Pithaurá; Durjan Mal, son of Abhai Mal; Udai Mal, son of Durjan Mal; Ráí Vijai Mal, son of Udai Mal.

NOTE: Indarpat metropolis with the royal area of Shahjahanabad had its own Raja! Hari Charan Das confirms ca. 130 years after Shah Jahan that Indarpat city had its own Rajas before Muhammad bin Sam and Qutbuddin. The Mirat-i Ahmadi confirms that Shah Jahan only repaired the existing palaces with marble stucco, within Red Citadel. The structures were there already. He only renamed this ancient fortress city.
Dipasimha usurped the throne of the previous dynasty hailing from Bangal, who ruled for 152 years (853-1005), according to other sources The architecture style of the Bangal school was probably introduced in the Red Fort city of Shahjahanabad-Indarpat during these Rajas from Bangal.

Thus, 107 years and 7 months 1005-1113
Dipasimha
Ranasimha
Rajasimha
Chhatrasimha
Narasimha
Jivanasimha

And 80 years and 6 months 1112-1193 86 years in other sources
Pithaura Prithviraja 12-2 (1107-1119)
Abhayamala Abhayapala 14-5 (1119-1133)
Durjanamala Durjanapala 11-4 (1133-1144)
Udayamala Udayapala 11-7 (1144-1156) Vigraharaja Chauhana conquered Dhilli and probably also Indarpat
Vijayamala Yashapala 36-4 (1156-1193) Prithviraja Chauhana overlord of Dhilli and probably of Indarpat

Qutbuddin Aybak conquers Delhi, thus also Indarpat. There was another Pithaura in the Tomara Dhilli list in 1073-1095. In 1093 Chandradeva Gahadavala was overlord of Indrasthaniyaka, making the Raja there (Jivanasimha) his vassal. The next dynasty may have been of the Tomara branch too (like their cousins in Dhillipura metropolis) and seized the Indarpat throne from the vassal.

The Indarpat Rajas were not affected by Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion attempts. Dhilli the capital city of Vijayapala is unaffected by Mahmud, but he did harrass the areas of the Tomaras in Haryana. During Salar Mahmud's invasion, Mahipala had an encounter which he lost initially, giving up Thaneshvar and Hansi, temporarily.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jun 2013 10:12

Does Ferishta or anyone explain how did Shia adventurers rfom Turan come and establish the Bahmani kingdom in Deccan? I know the Madurai Sultanate establishment after Mohd Tughlaq was a precursor.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2013 10:36

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

The sultanate was founded on 3 August 1347 by governor Ala-ud-Din Hassan Bahman Shah, a Persian (Tajik) [3] descent from Badakhshan, who revolted against the Sultan of Delhi, Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Nazir uddin Ismail Shah who had revolted against the Delhi Sultanate stepped down on that day in favour of Zafar Khan who ascended the throne with the title of Alauddin Bahman Shah.

His revolt was successful, and he established an independent state on the Deccan within the Delhi Sultanate's southern provinces. The Bahmani capital was Ahsanabad (Gulbarga) between 1347 and 1425 when it was moved to Muhammadabad (Bidar). The Bahmani contested the control of the Deccan with the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire to the south. The sultanate reached the peak of its power during the vizierate (1466–1481) of Mahmud Gawan.

After 1518 the sultanate broke up into five states: Nizamshahi of Ahmednagar, Qutubshahi of Golconda (Hydrabad), Baridshahi of Bidar, Imadshahi of berar, Adilshahi of Bijapur. They are collectively known as the "Deccan Sultanates"

----
once they setup the shop, I think their main links to arabia and iran were via the west coast not through delhi.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 06 Jul 2013 06:19

Aakar Patel has his Chaddi's in a twist on Ekta Kappor's TV potrayal of Akbar.

A serial on Akbar and Jodha began on Zee TV last month. It is advertised as a woman’s taming of a wild man. “Dahshat hai Akbar ka doosra naam (terror is Akbar’s middle name)” is the show’s line, “kaisay bana payegi Jodha usay insaan (how will Jodha make him a human being?)”.

So what sort of man was this ruler? Very different from what the serial suggests. In fact, the opposite.

Akbar was never a barbarian and he was always a freethinker. He wasn’t just secular, as our textbooks suggest. Think of him as a modern liberal, and I have always imagined him as a California-type faddist.

He was vegetarian by choice, drank and doped moderately, dressed elegantly in colour-coordinated and event-appropriate fashion, and was always perfumed. His religious beliefs, remarkably modern for the 16th century, were so eclectic that they would be out of place even in our time (Oh really!!!!).

On his roof, a fire burnt night and day, because of his conviction that the Zoroastrian faith of the Parsis carried an eternal truth. The other faith he liked was Jainism.

He vigorously engaged with their monks, and thought highly of their spartan habits and godless religion. During the sacred week of the Jain paryushan, all slaughter was banned across north India, and this was a time before refrigeration, meaning everyone, Hindu and Muslim, had also to be vegetarian.

Akbar loved—there is no other word—the religious diversity of India. He was illiterate but he had texts read out to him, which he debated with the scholars he always kept around him.

Akbar was the first Mughal to introduce Hindus to court, giving rank to the Kachwaha Rajputs of Amber (today’s Jaipur). He took up Hindu cultural traditions, such as getting himself weighed on his birthday against precious objects and giving this wealth away in charity.

He had the classic Indian outlook of respect for all faiths.

When the Jesuits of Goa hurried to visit him, hoping to convert him, Akbar kissed the Bible they offered and put it on his head in humility. He engaged with religion, but like the more enlightened of moderns, he had no time for dogma. He gave up going to the tomb of Salim Chishti, whom he credited with giving him his sons. In the teeth of opposition from the Sunni ulema (and even in the 21st century we are aware of how intransigent they are), Akbar restructured the Islamic faith.

Mischievously, he ordered that coins be struck with the words “Allah Akbar” on them—meaning either God is great or Akbar is God. His secret biographer Abdul Qadir Badauni, an orthodox Muslim, has recorded for us Akbar’s battles with the Muslim clergy, who fought, and lost, the battle to keep the ruler a practising Muslim. Badauni’s book should be compulsory reading in our schools, but it is a forgotten classic and is today not even in print.

We, the English-medium inheritors of Jawaharlal Nehru’s thinking and B.R. Ambedkar’s Constitution, find it easy to be open-minded about religion. Akbar was his own man in an era where faith and background defined you entirely. He was secular out of personal choice and intellectual curiosity. (A 16th Century Momeen is far ahead of the English constitution inspired Secular teachings!!!!!)

Mind you, Akbar was no dandy. He was masculine, insisting on mounting elephants when they were in musth (a sexually aggressive phase), fighting on the frontlines with his musket, hunting with a sword (his testicles were once gored by a stag he wrestled) and during his life, deflowered perhaps a thousand virgins.

Like all warriors he had his moments of cruelty. The big one in Akbar’s life came at the end of the long and tough siege of Chittor when he was 25. He slaughtered the garrison and the non-combatants, but this was not out of religious bigotry or savagery (Look how he trivializing a historically recorded act of savegery). Alexander the Great massacred thousands of Punjabi mercenaries after declaring a truce with them, but he wasn’t accused of being bigoted so much as pragmatic. (We thought only Pakis indulged in equal-equal)

Warriors are not usually Buddhists and the Mongols, who were the core of the Mughal army in Akbar’s early days, were barbaric. Their habit was to make mountains of severed heads. Akbar in fact moderated and Indianized their ways.Akbar did not need anyone to make him human.

There was no woman called Jodhabai married to him (we don’t know the name of the Amber princess he married because she maintained the Rajput tradition of purdah). Jahangir was married to a woman called Jodhbai.

Whatever her name was, could “Jodha” have civilized Akbar? Actually, as a Rajput princess she would have been illiterate. She would have spent her youth in purdah and known almost nothing about the world. It is likely that it would have actually been Akbar who would have civilized her (How could a Yindu have civilzed a Momeen, of course it has to be the other way round!!!!!). The public family squabbles of the Rajput women shown in the serial would have been impossible. Another thing the serial gets wrong is the reluctance of the Amber Kachwahas to give their daughters to the Mughals. It was not something that the Muslims forced on them, and the marriage was a strategic alliance which paid off well for what became the royal family of Jaipur.

Zee’s Jodha Akbar, produced by Ekta Kapoor, has serious flaws, but we can overlook most of them because there is a disclaimer that runs through the screen disowning the content as being historical. But so casually has it been made that they have Mughal warriors in battle with no armour.

Akbar himself is shown as someone from Uttar Pradesh, with a classic Indian face and wheatish complexion. In fact, he was Chinese-looking as the Jesuits who met him recorded, and had little facial hair. Akbar was a headstrong and independent man, who discarded his mentor Bahram Khan in his late teens because he knew precisely how he wanted to rule. In an age when people rarely lived into their 50s and princes often became kings in their teens, Akbar was an experienced and competent ruler by age 17 and matured into one of the world’s finest and most memorable monarchs.

Akbar means great and Akbar the Great is tautology.

Look at this A**H**E. He goes out of his way to taut the greatness of Akbar relying and quoting on selective writings and attempts to whitewash the killings he indulged in. Akbar's general disdain for islamic religious practices is shown as an act of secularism!!!!
Compare this to the way he goes nuts to paint NaMo as a Murderer.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 06 Jul 2013 11:03

^Why give publicity to this clown anyways. He is a known baiter but then isn't this the image of Akbar and other Mogul barbarians that has been fed to us via NCERT books and Akbar-Anarkali kind of dumb Movies.
50 more years and we will be declaring Aurangzeb too to be the greatest secular King that Bharat had.