What's new

Sultana, a descendant of the Mughal emperor, wants ownership of the Red Fort

Did our forefathers had lost the war of independence in 1857 only because the very old Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was womanizing at the age of 82?

Are not you living in a surreal world influenced by the Indians (read Hindus)?

View attachment 805466
Dude not at all it was due to incompetency of Mughal rulers after the death of Aurangzab.
 
Dude, are you a despo? You are literally ignoring my previous post and posts of others as well and are coming to the same point. This is just another level of simping for the Mughals😅

Read some history please.

Too many people pass comments without reading and understanding the subjects they comment on.
 
He even abused me in one post, after which I put him on "ignore" list. But, I don't know, why he got banned?

He was on my ignore list too. You will notice that unfortunately some of these people lose their cool too quickly, which may be the mark of an uneducated upbringing. This is typically the background of Hindutva people in India.

They are fond of reading Vedic history. :lol:

Yup. :-)

Reading history is fine, but why look down and hate on people of a different background or religion? Makes no sense.

99% of these people have never read about Mughal History but they all say it should be erased from official Indian textbooks.
 
All royal properties are the property of the Government of the Republic of India. Princes and kings and nawabs whatever they were aren't allowed to retain their ancestral properties or claim titles in today's society.


Their titles and privileges were taken away. However their ancestral palaces and properties remain with them. Govt can retract the privileges that it itself granted to princes however confiscating their Ancestral homes and properties wasn't in their power and wouldn't stand in court even if attempted. For eg in my native city (hyderabad) nizams descendants still own the palace (although it's been converted into hotel/museum) and if you ever visit Rajasthan almost every major city you will plenty of palaces/forts still in the possession of erstwhile royal families.
 
Dada - put down your dharmic identity and Hindutva Propaganda for a second and consider their contributions. If they ruled for six hundred plus years, they could not have done things so wrong. A large conglomeration of people centered in India (of which today's BD was a part) could not have been governed so successfully for so long if they were such heinous rulers.

They founded Bengal Subah as an entity (with Capital in Dhaka, and seat of the Subahdar, i.e. Mughal Viceroy) when Kolkata (Sutanuti) was not even anywhere on the map - which made East Bengal (i.e., 33% of Indian economy) a huge part of the global economy. Textiles and shipbuilding were primary industries along with of course agricultural and other crops/products (saltpeter, opium, mulberry i.e. silk). Much later, capital was to shift to Murshidabad, which saw Mughal decline in Bengal.

Some of the people who did this research were Hindus by the way.





More information,


By the way, the Mughals gave India the Tabla and the Sitar, Hindutvas will deny those too? Selective cherry-picker Denial? :lol:


Swami Haridasa with Mia Tansen and Akbar at Vrindavana
960px-Swami_Haridasa_with_Tansen_and_Akbar_at_Vrindavana_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Leave your Muslim Identity, take a deep breadth and think. Other improving the GT road and founding a ill planned old Dhaka city nothing is coming to my mind. Again the city was there with Mughals for approx 150 years and there after it went to oblivion .
We mastered the art of ship building and textile for long, even before world know the word Mughals.

If you have read my question i asked what good they have for present day BD? I am well aware of the fact they did something to hindi heartland, the Indus valley region, to Kashmir and even to Afg.
They contributed to arts and crafts. Even big land reforms happened. That's why Akbar is one of the great of this subcontinent.
 
The British ruled over present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka. Your post suggests British only ruled over India. Based on this, I would say this picture could very well be from present-day Pakistan. I hope you get my point.

I'm stating facts based on what I read. Please come up with a counter point if you want to.

Ruling over Northern India is equivalent to ruling entire India for them🤦‍♂️

no my post doesn't suggest, you are assuming.
TIPU sultan now this guy was great ruler he brought some industry to india.
 
The post, you are asking to be deleted, reflects the real psyche of the elite Hindus, with a few exceptions. All the rest is farce and a fraudulent facade. In that sense, such posts are very valuable, for us Pakistanis, to understand and comprehend India.
I've seen worst posts from you guys lol. What does that say about Pakistanis then?
 
Read some history please.

Too many people pass comments without reading and understanding the subjects they comment on.
So are you another Mughal simp? I mean, these guys literally ruled over your land. I understand you belong to the same religion and could have some affinity for them but try to exercise your brain a little.
Ok tell me one thing, why couldn't the local Bangladeshi Muslims establish their own rule after the foreign Muslim invasions. Why are most of the local kings even post the Muslim invasions mostly local Hindus and not local Muslims? I might've acknowledged your point if it was some Bangladeshi Muslim as the head of the Mughal empire or even if it was Bangladeshi Muslim ruling entire Bengal, but that's not the case is it? In the South, even with the religious persecution that Tipu did against Hindus, the support for him is understandable kyuki vo yaha ka hi aadmi hai, bahar ka nahi. If the Turks/Arabs invade Bangladesh today and attempt to spread 'true' Islam in BD, will you accept them as legitimate leaders just because they are Muslims?

I would've debated more with you @Bilal9 bhau but I don't have a lot of time nowadays.

Now, I'm not denying the Mughals entirely but I'm just being more objective about them.
 
Why are most of the local kings even post the Muslim invasions mostly local Hindus and not local Muslims?
after mughals, it was muslim nawabs of bengal who ruled. last free nawab was Siraj ud-Daulah. After him British took over but kept a puppet Muslim nawab. when did Hindus rule us after mughals?
 
Why it should Aryan Invasion and why not Aryan immigration and settlement in India. By the way, there was Sanskrit language. Was it developed by uneducated Sudras who were your forefathers? Better you study history and make a proper analysis of the historical accounts.

Why an invasion was necessary when the population was tiny in a very big land? Do you think the Indian population was 1.3 billion 5000 years ago? Aryans entered through the mountain passes and settled in Aryabarta. Most of their kind live in Iran and Afghanistan, and many migrated to Europe from Central Asia.

Learn before you talk.

Lol. How do you even know Shudras or even for the matter Brahmins as my forefathers? Do you honestly think you know what you are talking about? Do you think Shudras are incompetent fools and incapable of civilization? Or they were uneducated? As I said, your words only demean your own anchestors and this last statement you are spitting on them.
I honestly don't believe Indian subcontinent civilisation took off only after the "arrival" of Aryans. There is many historical evidences to that fact. But of course, inferiority ridden complexes from you folks is hard to get past by.
Mughals were the Sovereign of India. They were not another Raja dynasty. So, those Constitution clauses do not interfere with their former status that was taken away by the British colonialist power.

Sovereign of some part of India might be. They didn't rule South India for not more than 20 years at best at the end of Aurangzeb reign. Even when Khilji invaded, he just plundered and moved on. South, NE India were free of Mughals.

Even before the British, Mughals were stripped of their power by the Marathas. While Zafar was a peaceful man, he has no options. If he had rejected the sepoys, the very chances are he might have been killed by the sepoys themselves. It's sad that his sons had to be killed before his own eyes.

To this topic, India respects some agreement it signed in 47 with then available princely states. Even that agreement was cancelled in 69-70. India did not sign any agreement in 47' with Mughal heirs.
 
Last edited:
99% of these people have never read about Mughal History but they all say it should be erased from official Indian textbooks.
They get their info about the Mughals from WhatsApp forwards and Hindu revisionist pseudo historians. I`m not much of a fan of the Mughals but its hilarious to watch these vedickroaches seethe over events that happened centuries ago
 
after mughals, it was muslim nawabs of bengal who ruled. last free nawab was Siraj ud-Daulah. After him British took over but kept a puppet Muslim nawab. when did Hindus rule us after mughals?
There was the Cooch Behar kingdom who ruled mostly in the Assam region but I'm not sure whether they ruled present day BD. Also, there were Ahoms too but Ahoms definitely didn't rule present day BD unless I'm mistaken.
The Nawabs btw weren't local.
 
The old lady could hire a ghost writer to write about the last days of Mughal descendents in India. If done properly, it could result in a tidy sum for her and family.

No royalty or nobility should be entertained in the Republic of India. :-)
 
The old lady could hire a ghost writer to write about the last days of Mughal descendents in India. If done properly, it could result in a tidy sum for her and family.

No royalty or nobility should be entertained in the Republic of India. :-)
pretty much this
mwr7phrtgh981.jpg
 

Back
Top Bottom