# Is Pakistan the heir to the Mughals?



## tower9

I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent. 

I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire? 

Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy. 

Agree or disagree?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
5


----------



## Pak Nationalist

tower9 said:


> I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.
> 
> I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire?
> 
> Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


They do, but how accurate is that is up for debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AsianLion

Given Lahore City the huge Capital of Mughals for centuries, so many big forts, Tombs of Jahangir, and many Mughal leaders not just in Lahore City but everywhere in Pakistan, go to Peshawar, Go to Kandahar, Go to Multan, where from they ruled India for centuries and centuries are truly the heir to the Mughals.

Evidence is all thier to see in Pakistan and even Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Maula Jatt

I am not too sure, I personally don't think so but its debatable
India is heir to khalsa empire even though there was barely nothing on the indian side, india also claims to be the heir to Chanakya and you know they say zero was invented in india but it wasn't invented in modern day parts of india afaik and are probably our ancestors

But In all these situation we and the world consider India to be heir to this history even though technically it might not be true

So "heir" is a confusing theme you define heir by ideology, history, geography ?
all 3 will give you different answers

first we need to define what makes someone a heir?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sayfullah

Pakistan is heir to any Muslim empire which ruled over the Indian subcontinent.

A Hindu (their far from secular) country cannot be the heir to any Muslim empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## V. Makarov

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> Pakistan is heir to any Muslim empire which ruled over the Indian subcontinent.
> 
> A Hindu (their far from secular) country cannot be the heir to any Muslim empire.



A country that was made in the name of Allah, has no business associating itself with kings that came in a series of thousands throughout history. The motives/ideals/morals of this nation reside in the excellent men who lived 1400 years ago in Medina.

Although this country has not reached even 1/1000th the level of distinction those men enjoyed 1400 years ago, the struggle must not end. Educating this nation will take a lot of time and rehmat from Allah. Muslims of the subcontinent have been led astray by "elders" for the past 400 years. But there is an underground reformation ongoing in Pakistan since at least 2010, which will greatly help the nation to break away from all colonial/Turkic/Arab complexes.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sayfullah

V. Makarov said:


> A country that was made in the name of Allah, has no business associating itself with kings that came in a series of thousands throughout history. The motives/ideals/morals of this nation reside in the excellent men who lived 1400 years ago in Medina.
> 
> Although this country has not reached even 1/1000th the level of distinction those men enjoyed 1400 years ago, the struggle must not end. Educating this nation will take a lot of time and rehmat from Allah. Muslims of the subcontinent have been led astray by "elders" for the past 400 years. But there is an underground reformation ongoing in Pakistan since at least 2010, which can greatly help the nation to break away from all colonial/Turkic/Arab complexes.


All of Indian subcontinent is Muslim lands. We never forgot the gains Muslims made before us in this subcontinent. The country made in the name of Islam in the subcontinent is the heir of every single inch of land which was under Muslim rule at one point. Hadith tell us about Ghazwa e Hind. One day In Sha Allah the whole subcontinent will become Muslim lands again.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Rana4pak

Pakistan is heir of Indus Valley civilisation till modern day Islamic republic of Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

tower9 said:


> I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.
> 
> I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire?
> 
> Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


Yes, I too believe Pakistan is the successor to the Mughal Sultanate.

What would Hindus have anything to do with a Muslim empire?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WinterFangs

Yes, but nowadays Indians claim everything as theirs, even though before 1947 India was non-existant, thus their claim is invalid. even Pakistan is a older country than India by a day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INS_Vikrant

Sainthood 101 said:


> Chanakya


Chanakya was from present day Bihar although he was educated at Taxila which is in Pakistan today

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Maula Jatt

INS_Vikramaditya said:


> Chanakya was from present day Bihar although he was educated at Taxila which is in Pakistan today


Some people even claim that he was from south India, but I don't know, I am just going by google and most sources that I saw claim he was from Taxila (although admittedly even they said its blurry) So I don't know, it seems his origins are blurry

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## K_Bin_W

Yes, Pakistan is the last remnant of the Mughal Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Big Tank

Successors of Mughal Saltanat are lynching people every other day.

Sorry mate we've the most Jahil awam on earth we act totally like the Indians in our manners, habits and you're saying we're their heirs? No, as per our conduct, we're the heirs of nasties of India.

Also, do not associate yourself with kings and lavishers. Islam does not allow it.

Am expecting next thread after a year.
*Is Pakistan the heir of Ottoman Empire?* Because almost every Gujjar, Araeen, Kamoka, Butt nowadays is trying to prove how they're from Turkish lineage. Before they use to try their luck on Persian lineage. 

On a funny note, enjoy:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

No, but in some cultural aspects, we should try to be. Considering no one else wants to take up the mantle, Pakistan can (if it so chooses) claim to be the rightful cultural inheritors of Mughal culture, ignoring what we have done with the inheritance. There is no need to try to revive the dynastic rule of Mughals, we already have enough of that kind of mindset amongst politicians. What we can work on is bringing back the cultural products of the civilization that attracted visitors and enriched the lives of the people.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Mera na Baap Mughal tha , na Dada all working class

Mugal were just a family under power how can it even relate to anything in modern Pakistan ?

I looked in my closet , found no Crown or Tiera

All I know is when the Muslims were mopping floor , handful of Muslims accepted Education as means to end their sorry state and eventually created a political party to gather around.

Eventually it lead to the 23rd March decision where need for a homeland for Muslims

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Faqirze

Rana4pak said:


> Pakistan is heir of Indus Valley civilisation till modern day Islamic republic of Pakistan


Lol, don't insult the IVC by comparing it to modern day Pakistan


AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Mera na Baap Mughal tha , na Dada all working class
> 
> Mugal were just a family under power how can it even relate to anything in modern Pakistan ?
> 
> I looked in my closet , found no Crown or Tiera
> 
> All I know is when the Muslims were mopping floor , handful of Muslims accepted Education as means to end their sorry state and eventually created a political party to gather around.
> 
> Eventually it lead to the 23rd March decision where need for a homeland for Muslims


Finally a sensible post in this thread, we have nothing to do with Mughals. They are long gone and dusted, time to move on

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Paitoo

How much fusion do you allow after which some people stop being considered 'heirs' to a particular empire? 100 years? 300 years?

Firstly no Hindu claims to be heir to the Mughal empire. We claim the heritage to the extent that it is a shared heritage (the influences in architecture, food, music etc). Of course, we cannot also close our eyes and minds to the numerous monuments, which were built with the sweat, blood and tax money of our ancestors. And not just my ancestors, but also the ancestor of every Pakistani on PDF. 

I hope you know that the Mughal empire stretched till the Bay of Bengal through a combination of administrative machineries. There are various ethnic groups that inhabit these lands - Hindu jaats, Rajputs, Biharis, Bengalis and Assamese. That is why I asked first - how much fusion do you allow? The Mughals were numerically a small group when they arrived in India. Pakistanis would conveniently restrict it to a level where their fair skinned brethren can be passed off as a Mughal, despite the fact that early Mughals had distinct Mongoloid appearance. 

What is referred to as Persianized Mughal court culture existed in large parts in an area that was known as Central Provinces and United Provinces during British rule. Some Muslims from this region (as well as others) migrated to Pakistan after 1947, but a large majority stayed back. Do these Indian muslims have more right to claim the Mughal empire? 

Lahore was not the only seat of the Mughal empire. Delhi and Agra were also Mughal capitals at different points. For conquerors, a battle for India was the battle for Delhi, not Lahore. This is not to deny the importance and cultural majesty of Lahore, but one needs to call out revisionist tendencies, whether they are of the Pakistani variety or Indian variety. There is a lot of attempt in India these days to resurrect Hindu figures and events from history (and I have absolutely no problem with that), but in the process we are giving Pakistan an opportunity to act as the sole custodian of our Mughal/Islamic history. Even if BJP is trying to shred those links, the claims of heritage cannot automatically fall on the lap of Pakistanis exclusively. 

Frankly all claims to glorious empires are hollow in today's times. The countries that have done well are those that have chosen to focus on the present and future.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Mirzah

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> Pakistan is heir to any Muslim empire which ruled over the Indian subcontinent.
> 
> A Hindu (their far from secular) country cannot be the heir to any Muslim empire.


Pakistan can strengthen its Mughal credentials by finding out heirs of the last Mughal emperor and giving them constitutional official roles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Hareeb

No, but if so then Pakistan is an heir to Alexander the great too.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Bleek

Mirzah said:


> Pakistan can strengthen its Mughal credentials by finding out heirs of the last Mughal emperor and giving them constitutional official roles.


What's the point of that?


----------



## Mirzah

Bleek said:


> What's the point of that?


It's Pakistan cultural heritage, Mughals were the last Muslim dynasty before British usurped them. British still have royal family and crown, they celebrate royal weddings, royal births with huge fanfare, why shouldn't Pakistan at least recognize the present heirs and give them a ceremonial role?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Bleek

Mirzah said:


> It's Pakistan cultural heritage, Mughals were the last Muslim dynasty before British usurped them. British still have royal family and crown, they celebrate royal weddings, royal births with huge fanfare, why shouldn't Pakistan at least recognize the present heirs and give them a ceremonial role?


I wouldn't mind that but nothing which actually grants them any power to change anything related to Pakistan 

I believe in meritocracy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Varunastra

Mirzah said:


> It's Pakistan cultural heritage, Mughals were the last Muslim dynasty before British usurped them. British still have royal family and crown, they celebrate royal weddings, royal births with huge fanfare, why shouldn't Pakistan at least recognize the present heirs and give them a ceremonial role?


Does Pakistan even have any mughal ancestry claimants to recognize? In India they pop up every now and then


----------



## Maula Jatt

DrJekyll said:


> How much fusion do you allow after which some people stop being considered 'heirs' to a particular empire? 100 years? 300 years?
> 
> Firstly no Hindu claims to be heir to the Mughal empire. We claim the heritage to the extent that it is a shared heritage (the influences in architecture, food, music etc). Of course, we cannot also close our eyes and minds to the numerous monuments, which were built with the sweat, blood and tax money of our ancestors. And not just my ancestors, but also the ancestor of every Pakistani on PDF.
> 
> I hope you know that the Mughal empire stretched till the Bay of Bengal through a combination of administrative machineries. There are various ethnic groups that inhabit these lands - Hindu jaats, Rajputs, Biharis, Bengalis and Assamese. That is why I asked first - how much fusion do you allow? The Mughals were numerically a small group when they arrived in India. Pakistanis would conveniently restrict it to a level where their fair skinned brethren can be passed off as a Mughal, despite the fact that early Mughals had distinct Mongoloid appearance.
> 
> What is referred to as Persianized Mughal court culture existed in large parts in an area that was known as Central Provinces and United Provinces during British rule. Some Muslims from this region (as well as others) migrated to Pakistan after 1947, but a large majority stayed back. *Do these Indian muslims have more right to claim the Mughal empire?*
> 
> Lahore was not the only seat of the Mughal empire. Delhi and Agra were also Mughal capitals at different points. For conquerors, a battle for India was the battle for Delhi, not Lahore. This is not to deny the importance and cultural majesty of Lahore, but one needs to call out revisionist tendencies, whether they are of the Pakistani variety or Indian variety. There is a lot of attempt in India these days to resurrect Hindu figures and events from history (and I have absolutely no problem with that), but in the process we are giving Pakistan an opportunity to act as the sole custodian of our Mughal/Islamic history. Even if BJP is trying to shred those links, the claims of heritage cannot automatically fall on the lap of Pakistanis exclusively.
> 
> Frankly all claims to glorious empires are hollow in today's times. The countries that have done well are those that have chosen to focus on the present and future.


yep 100%, they and UP muhajirs here have more claim on Mughals than any other group on planet
as a lot of their cultural practices especially olden generation were similar to that of Mughal traditions 

Mughals were not exactly fair skinned, they looked like just another rich man from UP, dont think skin color has anything to do with mughals 
most of them were pretty much regular Indians (or maybe rich/upper caste) of north india,

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maula Jatt

B.K.N said:


> I am sure OP is not Chinese. And Pakistan does not claim to be the hire of any empire Pakistan was created for the Muslims of subcontinent in 1947. Muslims believed freedom from British rule would prove just a change of masters for them because democracy is rule of majority and Hindus were in majority so they demanded a separate country for themselves


I want Pakistan to claim people of our land as old as 9000 years ago, I don't want to claim anything from Hindustani lands - I don't care for it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maula Jatt

B.K.N said:


> Future ka socho bhol ja 9000 years pehlay mar janay walon ko


true

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> Does Pakistan even have any mughal ancestry claimants to recognize? In India they pop up every now and then


Pakistan has whole families and neighborhood with Mughal ancestry. Specially in Azad Kashmir and Pothar region. In AK they are known as *Maldiyal.*



Mirzah said:


> It's Pakistan cultural heritage, Mughals were the last Muslim dynasty before British usurped them. British still have royal family and crown, they celebrate royal weddings, royal births with huge fanfare, why shouldn't Pakistan at least recognize the present heirs and give them a ceremonial role?


Because most Pakistanis have slave mentality. They respected the person with free food and danda standing in present time.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

Mirzah said:


> Pakistan can strengthen its Mughal credentials by finding out heirs of the last Mughal emperor and giving them constitutional official roles.


Don’t have to find Royal blood line or DNA match to Bahadur shah Zafar. All Mughal (rulers), earned their throne through blood and sweat like real Kings do. They didn’t become kings because of Oil or sucking up to another empire. 

Now any Mughal can reestablish the claim, as long as he worth his salt. Remember, not all Mughal family were living in royalty. Most extended family of kings were normal people.


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> Pakistan has whole families and neighborhood with Mughal ancestry. Specially in Azad Kashmir and Pothar region. In AK they are known as *Maldiyal.*
> 
> 
> Because most Pakistanis have slave mentality. They respected the person with free food and danda standing in present time.


lol no one cares for Mughals, because you think you are related to one doesn't mean we should start caring for them 
and because we don't care for Mughals that makes us slaves? twisted logic

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> lol no one cares for Mughals, because you think you are related to one doesn't mean we should start caring for them
> and because we don't care for Mughals that makes us slaves? twisted logic


Why should you, why would any person whose ancestors were nothing more than a peasant care about history or heritage.

Thing about genetics is that it takes thousands of years to evolve and you can’t mix horse and a donkey, no matter, how much you train a donkey.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## jamahir

Mughals ? The time of monarchy is gone ( actually it should have never been there ). Establish true democracy where it is the masses who govern directly and not some king or landlord or prime minister or president.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

jamahir said:


> Mughals ? The time of monarchy is gone. Establish true democracy where it is the *masses who govern directly *and not some king or landlord or prime minister or president.


You mean, Banana republic?


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> Why should you, why would any person whose ancestors were nothing more than a peasant care about history or heritage.
> 
> Thing about genetics is that it takes thousands of years to evolve and you can’t mix horse and a donkey, no matter, how much you train a donkey.


Yeah this is exactly why I don't care, My people were jutts
why should I give a flying f about pleasing or doing ancestor worship of some dip shit moron who lived 100s of years ago, whoever he is it aint related to me - why should I care for another man?
My tax money should not go to these dumb exercises, I want the country to grow, farmers to make money, industries to grow,
worshiping or caring for them makes me slave, here I don't give a single f about them, I don't care for another man
I have no feelings towards them- nothing to do with me

dont bring rest of us in your ancestor worship, cause no one cares especially if you want us to collectively do this ancestor worship
Sorry, most of us wont we are independent people, no man can make us worship another man or his supposed ancestors

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jamahir

Genghis khan1 said:


> You mean, Banana republic?



No, I mean like the Libyan Jamahiriya which also started to be implemented in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez.

Why should masses governing directly mean something bad ? In fact that is way to go.


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> Yeah this is exactly why I don't care, My people were jutts
> why should I give a flying f about pleasing or doing ancestor worship of some dip shit moron who lived 100s of years ago, whoever he is it aint related to me - why should I care for another man?
> My tax money should not go to these dumb exercises, I want the country to grow, farmers to make money, industries to grow,
> worshiping or caring for them makes me slave, here I don't give a single f about them
> I have no feelings towards them- nothing to do with me


Last time I checked, Indian Subcontinent GDP was 24% of the world under monarchy. So how is your experience going so far. I heard you pay 45% of your total income as tributary money to IMF.


----------



## M.AsfandYar

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> Does Pakistan even have any mughal ancestry claimants to recognize? In India they pop up every now and then


There is a family in Lahore that is recognized as being direct descendant, don't know where they are know, the head used to be a judge or something, not sure though.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> Last time I checked, Indian Subcontinent GDP was 24% of the world under monarchy. So how is your experience going so far. I heard you pay 45% of your total income as tributary money to IMF.


yeah yeah and? what should I do with this information?
go to UP/Karachi slums this is where his descendants are nowadays better negotiate loans term with local karyana store or better yet make their garbage picking "empire" grow to 24% of orangi town
No mortal on earth will make us worship or care for dead SOB's lying somewhere, don't care one bit
Only thing worth caring for is parents, ancestral farm land, god, and nation
all other is whack BS and people trying to act over smart, acting all chads for their own good get proper treatment in the pinds,
saara mughliya bhoot uttar dien ge puttar tera

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> yeah yeah and? what should I do with this information?
> go to UP/Karachi slums this is where his descendants are nowadays better negotiate loans term with local karyana store or better yet make their garbage picking "empire" grow to 24% of orangi town
> No mortal on earth will make us worship or care for dead SOB's lying somewhere, don't care one bit
> Only thing worth caring for is parents, ancestral farm land, god, and nation
> all other is whack BS and people trying to act over smart, acting all chads for their own good get proper treatment in the pinds,


Nonsenses. Most of them are doing well in their respective fields. Doctors, judges, Generals. You seems to know lot about slums and karyana store. Kinda narrow it down where your ancestors are laying gathering dust.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> Nonsenses. Most of them are doing well in their respective fields. Doctors, judges, Generals. You seems to know lot about slums and karyana store. Kinda narrow it down where your ancestors are laying gathering dust.



My ancestors were sons of soil, they came from dust and went to dust like every mortal, we love our farm land, we love chaand sitara and willing to die for it whenever needed , respect our parents, fear god and no one else
we certainly won't worship or care for another man or his ancestors
Over our dead body

This is where majority of "mughals" are found nowadays, wast majority slum dwellers
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.id...l-descendant-and-wants-red-fort-back/18027704
better help grow Thier gol gapa buisness to 24% of Thier respective slum and get out of delusions 

*Cause No one gives a crap*

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Srinivas

Pakistan is the heir of East Bengal nothing more, they are the ones who created the idea and country.


----------



## Foinikas

I think Pakistan is and should be considered the heir of the Mughal Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sayfullah

Mirzah said:


> Pakistan can strengthen its Mughal credentials by finding out heirs of the last Mughal emperor and giving them constitutional official roles.





Mirzah said:


> It's Pakistan cultural heritage, Mughals were the last Muslim dynasty before British usurped them. British still have royal family and crown, they celebrate royal weddings, royal births with huge fanfare, why shouldn't Pakistan at least recognize the present heirs and give them a ceremonial role?


I agree 100%. Pakistan should give ceremonial roles to heirs of the Mughal empire those who can prove they are direct descendant of the last Mughal Sultan. The last Muslim empire in the subcontinent, Mughal empire was the heir to previous Muslim empires so is being the heir of Mughal empire makes us heir to all those Muslim empires. 
We still have so many British colonial rules and laws in our country. British came to colonize us. Mughals made us one of the strongest in the world. 
We should also find the descendants of other Muslim empires who fought British like descendants of Tipu Sultan and give them ceremonial roles. 


Genghis khan1 said:


> Because most Pakistanis have slave mentality. They respected the person with free food and danda standing in present time.


Agreed. 75 + years after our independence and yet a lot of stuff we haven’t changed since British times. It took us 70+ years just to change British laws in ex FATA. We still haven’t created any new provinces in our country after independence.

A kaffir country can never be heir to a Muslim empire. Any land conquered by Muslims will forever become Muslim lands even if kaffirs occupy it. Whole subcontinent is Muslim lands and was ruled by Muslims for centuries. In Sha Allah it will come under Muslim rule soon again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> My ancestors were sons of soil, they came from dust and went to dust like every mortal, we love our farm land, we love chaand sitara and willing to die for it whenever needed , respect our parents, fear god and no one else
> we certainly won't worship or care for another man or his ancestors
> Over our dead body
> 
> This is where majority of "mughals" are found nowadays, wast majority slum dwellers
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.id...l-descendant-and-wants-red-fort-back/18027704
> better help grow Thier gol gapa buisness to 24% of Thier respective slum and get out of delusions
> 
> *Cause No one gives a crap*


Talk like a true peasant. … just add to it, and God has chose few to rule over the peasant minded people. Remember, if it wasn’t for Mughal. You would be eat cow dung in some mandir. 

Mughals even in their 300 years of rule, have seen ups and down. Good days and bad day, where they lost everything, went to Afghanistan, even to Persia to regroup and regain. 
But again you cannot mix gadha (a slave or a peasant) with ghora. Gadha (slave minded peasant ) remained gadha, but ghora fought back and recreated empire from nothing. Now the legacy is so strong, that news media after 300 years, is still compelled to do an Article for those that make claim ( regardless of true or false). 

Meanwhile, your ancestors did nothing , contributed nothing. Created nothing, therefore, neither history nor present has anything to offer them. NOTHING.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SirHatesALot

pakistan can have mughal empire no issues here


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Foinikas said:


> I think Pakistan is and should be considered the heir of the Mughal Empire.


Not at all. Their mentality is opposite. Pakistanis say they have nothing to do with India and desire nothing to do with India [separatists], whereas Mughal built massive Indian Empire uniting Greater India in the tradition of the previous Delhi Sultanate and the ancient Maurya Indian empire which was even bigger. So, Mughal was primarily built by Indian Muslims, as well as Hindus, a significant number of whom became Muslim and some others were close to Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> Talk like a true peasant. … just add to it, and God has chose few to rule over the peasant minded people. Remember, if it wasn’t for Mughal. You would be eat cow dung in some mandir.
> 
> Mughals even in their 300 years of rule, have seen ups and down. Good days and bad day, where they lost everything, went to Afghanistan, even to Persia to regroup and regain.
> But again you cannot mix gadha (a slave or a peasant) with ghora. Gadha (slave minded peasant ) remained gadha, but ghora fought back and recreated empire from nothing. Now the legacy is so strong, that news media after 300 years, is still compelled to do an Article for those that make claim ( regardless of true or false).
> 
> Meanwhile, your ancestors did nothing , contributed nothing. Created nothing, therefore, neither history nor present has anything to offer them. NOTHING.



hard to find a non slum dog Mughal
It's pretty much a meme when some "Mughal" sitting in a slum starts begging for something and is quickly shown the door
Only rulling done is on the paan store of a slum somewhere in UP/Karachi selling cigrates and doing laundebaazi

As I said no one cares one about mughals especially no son of soil will worship another man, except for God or care for it and if someone's acting over smart they'll be given treatment

besides no proud man would do anything other than spit on the graves of those who drank, whored around and were a breed of bastards (going by islamic laws here as all mughals were born out of Hindu mothers)

love the lands, fear God, faught when flag is under attack, gave nishaan e Haider, gave PMs, form a chunk of the army, every army in history is incomplete without em

So Better stick to your expertise of running corner store paan shop and rulling 4x4 shack in a slum somewhere and let the men talk
You're as insignificant as people in slums usually are

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## SIPRA

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> Does Pakistan even have any mughal ancestry claimants to recognize? In India they pop up every now and then



Yes, we have. A person laid claim to Lahore Fort, quite sometime ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## jamahir

Sainthood 101 said:


> and were a breed of bastards (going by islamic laws here as all mughals were born out of Hindu mothers)



All I see is your contempt for the idea of Humanism. Sorry to say but you should have stayed in your Punjabi village and not gone to America where, not accounting for the genocide of the Native Americans, that country was built up of migrants of many elements of race, religion and political hues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SIPRA

SirHatesALot said:


> pakistan can have mughal empire no issues here



Thanks, for your generosity.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Maula Jatt

jamahir said:


> All I see is your contempt for the idea of Humanism. Sorry to say but you should have stayed in your Punjabi village and not gone to America where, not accounting for the genocide of the Native Americans, that country was built up of migrants of many elements of race, religion and political hues.


What's with you and butting into every Convo... 
Go preech somewhere else


----------



## jamahir

Sainthood 101 said:


> What's with you and butting into every Convo...
> Go preech somewhere else



So my words were wasted on you. Oh well. And you are the member of a discussion forum. 😞

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> hard to find a non slum dog Mughal
> It's pretty much a meme when some "Mughal" sitting in a slum starts begging for something and is quickly shown the door
> Only rulling done is on the paan store of a slum somewhere in UP/Karachi selling cigrates and doing laundebaazi
> 
> As I said no one cares one about mughals especially no son of soil will worship another man, except for God or care for it and if someone's acting over smart they'll be given treatment
> 
> besides no proud man would do anything other than spit on the graves of those who drank, whored around and were a breed of bastards (going by islamic laws here as all mughals were born out of Hindu mothers)
> 
> love the lands, fear God, faught when flag is under attack, gave nishaan e Haider, gave PMs, form a chunk of the army, every army in history is incomplete without em
> 
> So Better stick to your expertise of running corner store paan shop and rulling 4x4 shack in a slum somewhere and let the men talk
> You're as insignificant as people in slums usually



Ok. Whatever you say, slum expert. Wouldn’t change the fact on ground.


----------



## SIPRA

DrJekyll said:


> How much fusion do you allow after which some people stop being considered 'heirs' to a particular empire? 100 years? 300 years?
> 
> Firstly no Hindu claims to be heir to the Mughal empire. We claim the heritage to the extent that it is a shared heritage (the influences in architecture, food, music etc). Of course, we cannot also close our eyes and minds to the numerous monuments, which were built with the sweat, blood and tax money of our ancestors. And not just my ancestors, but also the ancestor of every Pakistani on PDF.
> 
> I hope you know that the Mughal empire stretched till the Bay of Bengal through a combination of administrative machineries. There are various ethnic groups that inhabit these lands - Hindu jaats, Rajputs, Biharis, Bengalis and Assamese. That is why I asked first - how much fusion do you allow? The Mughals were numerically a small group when they arrived in India. Pakistanis would conveniently restrict it to a level where their fair skinned brethren can be passed off as a Mughal, despite the fact that early Mughals had distinct Mongoloid appearance.
> 
> What is referred to as Persianized Mughal court culture existed in large parts in an area that was known as Central Provinces and United Provinces during British rule. Some Muslims from this region (as well as others) migrated to Pakistan after 1947, but a large majority stayed back. Do these Indian muslims have more right to claim the Mughal empire?
> 
> Lahore was not the only seat of the Mughal empire. Delhi and Agra were also Mughal capitals at different points. For conquerors, a battle for India was the battle for Delhi, not Lahore. This is not to deny the importance and cultural majesty of Lahore, but one needs to call out revisionist tendencies, whether they are of the Pakistani variety or Indian variety. There is a lot of attempt in India these days to resurrect Hindu figures and events from history (and I have absolutely no problem with that), but in the process we are giving Pakistan an opportunity to act as the sole custodian of our Mughal/Islamic history. Even if BJP is trying to shred those links, the claims of heritage cannot automatically fall on the lap of Pakistanis exclusively.
> 
> Frankly all claims to glorious empires are hollow in today's times. The countries that have done well are those that have chosen to focus on the present and future.



We, people of Subcontinent, are strange creatures.

Khaanay ko roti naheen hae, aur koyi Chandragupta Maurya kay saath lataknay ki koshish ker raha hae, tau koyi Mughal Empire kay saath. 

"Cheen o Arab hamaara, Hindustan hamaara
Rehnay ko ghar naheen hae, sara jahaan hamaara"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
6


----------



## Kambojaric

Depends on how we are defining "heir". For example all countries speaking a Latin based language like France, Portugal and even Romania could arguably be considered heirs of the Roman Empire in the sense that they draw significant cultural, historical and linguistic baggage from their Roman heritage.

Similarly South American countries like Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador could all claim some level of Incan heritage.

Ultimately very few modern countries outside of Europe could be considered direct heirs of pre-modern empires as very few survived colonialism. Ethiopia, Thailand and Japan are some of the few modern countries that spring to my mind, who made this transition from pre-modern statehood to modern statehood without the intervention of colonialism.

Coming to the case of Pakistan and the Mughal Empire there is obviously a link due to language (Urdu), heritage (Lahore: one of the capitals of the great Mughals), culture and politics (zamindari systems, kushti/pehlwani, mughlai food to name a few).

However barring Lahore, these links are not universal but rather are shared with other nations in the northern half of the Subcontinent. However one direct albeit tenuous link could arguably be Syed Ahmed Khan.

As a scion of Mughal nobility and whose close relatives were ministers and advisors to the last Mughal Emperor's, his role in the development of Muslim national conscious in this region eventually resulted in the Pakistan movement. That is a clear link for whatever that is worth in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Shehryar Ashraf

well someone has to be the heir to the mughals, and it cant be the cow worshippers, so by the process of elimination there is only 1 answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Paitoo

SIPRA said:


> We, people of Subcontinent, are strange creatures.
> 
> Khaanay ko roti naheen hae, aur koyi Chandragupta Maurya kay saath lataknay ki koshish ker raha hae, tau koyi Mughal Empire kay saath.
> 
> "Cheen o Arab hamaara، Hindustan hamaara
> Rehnay ko ghar naheen hae, sara jahaan hamaara"



To quote an Indian politician, this is the result of excessive ajinomoto in the diet. Noodles aur Manchurian - na khaein, na khilaein.

Cheen or Arab ka to pata nahin, Cheeni aur Arbi hamari zaroor hai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sainthood 101 said:


> hard to find a non slum dog Mughal
> It's pretty much a meme when some "Mughal" sitting in a slum starts begging for something and is quickly shown the door
> Only rulling done is on the paan store of a slum somewhere in UP/Karachi selling cigrates and doing laundebaazi
> 
> As I said no one cares one about mughals especially no son of soil will worship another man, except for God or care for it and if someone's acting over smart they'll be given treatment
> 
> besides no proud man would do anything other than spit on the graves of those who drank, whored around and were a breed of bastards (going by islamic laws here as all mughals were born out of Hindu mothers)
> 
> love the lands, fear God, faught when flag is under attack, gave nishaan e Haider, gave PMs, form a chunk of the army, every army in history is incomplete without em
> 
> So Better stick to your expertise of running corner store paan shop and rulling 4x4 shack in a slum somewhere and let the men talk
> You're as insignificant as people in slums usually are


It was strange to find a strain of bitterness in your post. Considering the number of Pakistanis whom I have met, who take - shall we say, extraordinary - pride in their Jat, Gujjar and Rajput ancestry, the kind of contempt that was displayed about the political marriages that the Mughals contracted was over the top.



Kambojaric said:


> Depends on how we are defining "heir". For example all countries speaking a Latin based language like France, Portugal and even Romania could arguably be considered heirs of the Roman Empire in the sense that they draw significant cultural, historical and linguistic baggage from their Roman heritage.
> 
> Similarly South American countries like Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador could all claim some level of Incan heritage.
> 
> Ultimately very few modern countries outside of Europe could be considered direct heirs of pre-modern empires as very few survived colonialism. Ethiopia, Thailand and Japan are some of the few modern countries that spring to my mind, who made this transition from pre-modern statehood to modern statehood without the intervention of colonialism.
> 
> Coming to the case of Pakistan and the Mughal Empire there is obviously a link due to language (Urdu), heritage (Lahore: one of the capitals of the great Mughals), culture and politics (zamindari systems, kushti/pehlwani, mughlai food to name a few).
> 
> However barring Lahore, these links are not universal but rather are shared with other nations in the northern half of the Subcontinent. However one direct albeit tenuous link could arguably be Syed Ahmed Khan.
> 
> As a scion of Mughal nobility and whose close relatives were ministers and advisors to the last Mughal Emperor's, his role in the development of Muslim national conscious in this region eventually resulted in the Pakistan movement. That is a clear link for whatever that is worth in my opinion.


That is stretching a point, but not beyond endurance.



SIPRA said:


> We, people of Subcontinent, are strange creatures.
> 
> Khaanay ko roti naheen hae, aur koyi Chandragupta Maurya kay saath lataknay ki koshish ker raha hae, tau koyi Mughal Empire kay saath.
> 
> "Cheen o Arab hamaara، Hindustan hamaara
> Rehnay ko ghar naheen hae, sara jahaan hamaara"


Ouch!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Kambojaric said:


> However one direct albeit tenuous link could arguably be Syed Ahmed Khan ... his role in the development of Muslim national conscious in this region eventually resulted in the Pakistan movement. That is a clear link for whatever that is worth in my opinion.


He would be appalled to be separated from India, as if Muslim is a separate nationality.


----------



## Maula Jatt

Joe Shearer said:


> It was strange to find a strain of bitterness in your post. Considering the number of Pakistanis whom I have met, who take - shall we say, extraordinary - pride in their Jat, Gujjar and Rajput ancestry, the kind of contempt that was displayed about the political marriages that the Mughals contracted was over the top.
> 
> 
> That is stretching a point, but not beyond endurance.
> 
> 
> Ouch!


Apologies, heat of the moment but according to laws majority of mughals would be considered illegitimate/bastards
so what I am saying is true even if it sounds bad or politically incorrect

I take it back if I can but I am not exactly wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## R2D2

This is very interesting discussion. It is Allah's tariqa that he puts responsibility for Islam to a powerful racial group. But he takes it back when they degrade in terms of toughness and moral values. Jews were the chosen people for thousands of years. Allah asked them to fight but they said Allah and his Prophet should fight. So Allah made them wander in the deserts for 40 years so their next generation was tough. Then after getting power they left the right path and Allah says that they are Maghzoob i Alaihim in Sura i Fathiha. Then Allah chose Arabs and they led the Muslim society for hundreds of years. Then they were destroyed by the Mongols and the Kurds and then the Turks became leaders of the Muslims. The Mongols in turn became Muslims and Babar who was Mongol from his mother's side laid the foundation of the Mughal Empire. Iqbal says

فطرت کے مقاصد کی کرتا ہے نگہبانی
یا بندہء صحرائی یا مرد کہستانی

It is the Afghans who are the tough people in our generation. They have defeated three World Super Powers while the Mughal Empire was taken over by the British due to rulers like Mohammad Shah Rangeela
It has been reported that the Mughal court used to start at 1 pm because the Emperer used to attend Mushaera until 6 am and then sleep. While the British Rulers used to get up at 3-4 am and wind up their business by 1 pm.
So we have to see which nation wakes up at 4 am and starts working hard from morning till evening. Putting degraded Mughals into ceremonial roles will further degrade our already degraded political system. Secondly there is no place of Kingship in Islam. The first four Caliphs were chosen on the basis of merit.
.The unity of Pathan and Punjabis who are sons of the soil can give rise to a modern day empire as both of these village peoples are tough and get up at 4 in the morning and toil in their lands till sunset.. Already there are intermarriages between these two peoples and both are of Aryan stock.

The present day KPK was part of Punjab under the British and Sikhs before them. The British divided it in 1901 or 1903 into two provinces because of the danger of insurgency from the tribal area spreading into parts of Eastern Punjab.

We see that the Pathans and Punjabis are fused with each other in the Army and civilian bureaucracy. Tehrik e Insaf is led by Imran Khan who is a Punjabi Pathan ( Altough I disagree with him due to bad performance) and there are both Pashtun and Punjabi ministers in his cabinet
It is the wish of every racial group to lead but only those can sustain who are tough and able to fight. Let us wish that our descendants are capable enough to lead the Ummah..
. .
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sainthood 101 said:


> Apologies, heat of the moment but according to laws majority of mughals would be considered illegitimate/bastards
> so what I am saying is true even if it sounds bad or politically incorrect
> 
> I take it back if I can but I am not exactly wrong


No problem. I mentioned it only because I find myself looking forward to your posts. 

I wish I had a five-rupee note for every hasty post I posted.



Novus ordu seclorum said:


> He would be appalled to be separated from India, as if Muslim is a separate nationality.


You know, that is a very insightful remark. I say this in spite of his rather dismissive remarks about us poor SDREs.


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Pakistani dil walay he. Mughal lawaaris ho gaye BJP ki waja se, toh hum hi panaa de dete he.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Joe Shearer said:


> You know, that is a very insightful remark. I say this in spite of his rather dismissive remarks about us poor SDREs.


Being dismissive about people, doesn't mean dismissing historical identity. My ancestral identity is Hindustani. I can be dismissive about people, but it is impossible to dismiss my ancestral identity, so your argument is not logical, it is emotional.


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> Apologies, heat of the moment but according to laws majority of mughals would be considered illegitimate/bastards
> so what I am saying is true even if it sounds bad or politically incorrect
> 
> I take it back if I can but I am not exactly wrong


… And you have the stats of Mughal population and all their marriages. You can’t even provide evidence that all the birth in your ancestry were legitimate, considering the times, land where you lived was conquered and reconquered so many times, plus unlike Mughal families. Average poor person has little to no protection or access to Royal courts appointed religious scholars in mix Hindu society.


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> … And you have the stats of Mughal population and all their marriages. You can’t even provide evidence that all the birth in your ancestry were legitimate, considering the times, land where you lived was conquered and reconquered so many times, plus unlike Mughal families. Average poor person has little to no protection or access to Royal courts appointed religious scholars in mix Hindu society.


Stop the butthurt
And Read history, it's all over the place
Most of the mughals were bastards according to Shariah 

Or maybe they don't teach you history in your slums ?


----------



## jamahir

R2D2 said:


> It is the Afghans who are the tough people in our generation. They have defeated three World Super Powers



Oh please.  



Joe Shearer said:


> You know, that is a very insightful remark. I say this in spite of his rather dismissive remarks about us poor SDREs.



Who are SDREs ?


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Genghis khan1 said:


> … And you have the stats of Mughal population and all their marriages. You can’t even provide evidence that all the birth in your ancestry were legitimate, considering the times, land where you lived was conquered and reconquered so many times, plus unlike Mughal families. Average poor person has little to no protection or access to Royal courts appointed religious scholars in mix Hindu society.



Looks like Mughal vs jatt fight is still continuing centuries later.


----------



## Genghis khan1

Sainthood 101 said:


> Stop the butthurt
> And Read history, it's all over the place


No it’s not. If one or two King decides to bang random women, doesn’t mean 99 of his relatives are all banging Hindu women or setting marriages to them. 

It’s just like claiming, that you are Muslim because Soldiers of Mughal army raped your ancestors during conquest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Genghis khan1 said:


> No it’s not. If one or two King decides to bang random women, doesn’t mean 99 of his relatives are all banging Hindu women or setting marriages to them.
> 
> It’s just like claiming, that you are Muslim because Soldiers of Mughal army raped your ancestors during conquest.



Kanjaro, suba jummay di namaz di tyari karni chaye’di twanu, te tussi ek dujay di bund maran de chakar’an vich masroof’o.

So jao.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Maula Jatt

Genghis khan1 said:


> No it’s not. If one or two King decides to bang random women, doesn’t mean 99 of his relatives are all banging Hindu women or setting marriages to them.
> 
> It’s just like claiming, that you are Muslim because Soldiers of Mughal army raped your ancestors during conquest.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khokhar
Baba fareed, atleast 300-400 years before any wannabe ancestors showed up

You wouldn't have done crap, it was the others way around to fend of this problem they started recruiting these guys in Thier army- it helped








lastofthepatriots said:


> Kanjaro, suba jummay di namaz di tyari karni chaye’di twanu, te tussi ek dujay di bund maran de chakar’an vich masroof’o.
> 
> So jao.


Alright enough for today... @Genghis khan1 lets call it a day...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

lastofthepatriots said:


> Looks like Mughal vs jatt fight is still continuing centuries later.


Idk he is jatt or whatever, jatt were peasants.


Sainthood 101 said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khokhar
> Baba fareed, atleast 300-400 years before any wannabe ancestors showed up
> 
> You wouldn't have done crap, it was the others way around to fend of this problem they started recruiting these guys in Thier army- it helped
> View attachment 816460
> 
> 
> 
> Alright enough for today... @Genghis khan1 lets call it a day...


no baba converted you guys. Without the protection of swords, no baba would have done anything. Mughals Recruited everyone after defeating them.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Being dismissive about people, doesn't mean dismissing historical identity. My ancestral identity is Hindustani. I can be dismissive about people, but it is impossible to dismiss my ancestral identity, so your argument is not logical, it is emotional.


You do get that my reference was to Syed Ahmed Khan?



jamahir said:


> Oh please.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are SDREs ?


What the tall, fair, wheat-eaters call us - small, dark, rice-eaters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Paitoo

Joe Shearer said:


> What the tall, fair, wheat-eaters call us - small, dark, rice-eaters.


Today 2 new terms have been added to my vocab- TFWE and SDRE
I will take the liberty to add MBWRE (Medium Brown Wheat & Rice Eaters like me). Why is that all these sounds like steaks?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## K_Bin_W

Foinikas said:


> I think Pakistan is and should be considered the heir of the Mughal Empire.


It is and I am Saleem-u-Din-Jehangir the 5th..


----------



## Foinikas

Genghis khan1 said:


> Idk he is jatt or whatever, jatt were peasants.
> 
> no baba converted you guys. Without the protection of swords, no baba would have done anything. Mughals Recruited everyone after defeating them.


By the way,since we're talking about Mughals,the guy who made your avatar is my online Pak friend,like a brother.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SIPRA

DrJekyll said:


> Today 2 new terms have been added to my vocab- TFWE and SDRE
> I will take the liberty to add MBWRE (Medium Brown Wheat & Rice Eaters like me). Why is that all these sounds like steaks?



Now, out of these three attributes of height, complexion and food, we can create, I believe, hundreds of categories, with the associated acronyms. A new field of study has emerged.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Joe Shearer said:


> You do get that my reference was to Syed Ahmed Khan.


He was Hindustani too.


----------



## 313ghazi

It's part of our history, but we're not the heirs of an empire. We need to focus on taking ownership of the people within our borders.


----------



## Paitoo

SIPRA said:


> Now, out of these three attributes of height, complexion and food, we can create, I believe, hundreds of categories, with the associated acronyms. A new field of study has emerged.



I feel 3 are not enough. I think we should add 2 more attributes to obtain more categories:

Libido
IQ
This will make it more interesting.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## SIPRA

DrJekyll said:


> I feel 3 are not enough. I think we should add 2 more attributes to obtain more categories:
> 
> Libido
> IQ
> This will make it more interesting.



Good idea, but care shall be taken that the length of acronyms doesn't start beating the names of Sri Lankans and probably South Indians.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Paitoo

SIPRA said:


> Good idea, but care shall be taken that the length of acronyms doesn't start beating the names of Sri Lankans and probably South Indians.



Sorry, I will need to re-examine the new attributes. I just read in a magazine of somewhat dodgy reputation that people with low IQ have high libido. So these attributes are not independent and may result in some invalid categories. When a matter of such supreme importance like sub-continent male's ego is concerned, we cannot be casual in our approach.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## SIPRA

DrJekyll said:


> Sorry, I will need to re-examine the new attributes. I just read in a magazine of somewhat dodgy reputation that people with low IQ have high libido. So these attributes are not independent and may result in some invalid categories. When a matter of such supreme importance like sub-continent male's ego is concerned, we cannot be casual in our approach.



People of Subcontinent wouldn't give much damn to IQ, but no compromise on the other attribute.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## S.Y.A

Sainthood 101 said:


> Apologies, heat of the moment but according to laws majority of mughals would be considered illegitimate/bastards
> so what I am saying is true even if it sounds bad or politically incorrect
> 
> I take it back if I can but I am not exactly wrong


According to Islamic law, yes they would be (only jahangir or shah jahan, rest had muslim mothers). if their wives hadnt been converted to Islam (a big if, since the last rites of akbar's wife were not performed according to hinduism but according to Islam). Unfortunately, though Muslims, the Mughals didnt really used to care much about Islam. Though during that time, Muslims did have primacy. a Muslim leader, no matter how sinful, is still a Muslim (much like our own leaders, and members of political, judicial, or military fraternities)


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Pakistani identity is parochial, a strong denial of Indian identity which likely is from the ancient past [perhaps from Mahabharat war]. We know gypsies originated in Pakistani Punjab and till the 21st century they had denied they originated in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

Sainthood 101 said:


> Apologies, heat of the moment but according to laws majority of mughals would be considered illegitimate/bastards
> so what I am saying is true even if it sounds bad or politically incorrect
> 
> I take it back if I can but I am not exactly wrong


also, there are a lot of people in punjab as well who put mughal in their names, or chughtai. Mughals were Chagatais.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ummarz

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Pakistani identity is parochial, a strong denial of Indian identity which likely is from the ancient past [perhaps from Mahabharat war]. We know gypsies originated in Pakistani Punjab and till the 21st century they had denied they originated in India.


Why should a Punjabi who has always lived in current day Pakistan, who's ancestors never lived in any part of current day India claim to have Indian identity... ? They can however claim to belong to Indus Valley civilization.

What the historians or ancient empires attributed to India in the past is now divided among various countries in the Indian subcontinent.

Further more, Punjabis and Pathans of current day Pakistan have had more connections extending westward, than eastward. Our language, heritage, culture, and migration routes have always had much stronger connections to west and Central Asia than to south East Asia/ India. Ofcourse Punjabis have also had influences from people who lived in lands that form part of India now. Just like modern day Indians had from people living in lands part of modern Pakistan.

Pakistani identity is not parochial, it is in fact beautifully diverse.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

ummarz said:


> Why should a Punjabi who has always lived in current day Pakistan, who's ancestors never lived in any part of current day India claim to have Indian identity... ? They can however claim to belong to Indus Valley civilization.
> 
> What the historians or ancient empires attributed to India in the past is now divided among various countries in the Indian subcontinent.
> 
> Further more, Punjabis and Pathans of current day Pakistan have had more connections extending westward, than eastward. Our language, heritage, culture, and migration routes have always had much stronger connections to west and Central Asia than to south East Asia/ India. Ofcourse Punjabis have also had influences from people who lived in lands that form part of India now. Just like modern day Indians had from people living in lands part of modern Pakistan.


Alexander invaded a part of India which today is Pakistan. So India existed.


----------



## hussain0216

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Alexander invaded a part of India which today is Pakistan. So India existed.



No it didn't, it's like saying Africa existed

What connection do the people of Pakistan have with the people to the east?


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Foinikas said:


> By the way ...


What do they teach in Greece, Alexander invaded India. Yes?


----------



## hussain0216

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> What do they teach in Greece, Alexander invaded India. Yes?



Why would their general ignorance reflect our history?

The people of Pakistan have been here for thousands of years

The Indus valley civilization was here over 8000 years ago

Our people haven't moved, what connection beyond living in the same general part of a continent so we have with the gangadeshies from the east??


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

hussain0216 said:


> Why would their general ignorance reflect our history?
> 
> The people of Pakistan have been here for thousands of years
> 
> The Indus valley civilization was here over 8000 years ago
> 
> Our people haven't moved, what connection beyond living in the same general part of a continent so we have with the gangadeshies from the east??


 So which country was it?


----------



## hussain0216

Various territories, that's what all South Asia was

Sometimes one territory occupied another, or even a couple

But it was never one state, one people or a India


Even the idea of India is born in Pakistan, you lot were really just people east of what others considered India, which was little more then a geographic location again just Africa




Punjabi
Sindhi
Baloch
Pashtun
Kashmiri
And more


Our people have been on these lands for thousands upon thousands of years


We have little connection to the vast majority of the people to the east



Pakistani understand who they are, it's Indian obsession though trying to either co-opt history

Make up fantasy history

Or connect everyone




Even in matters if faith, the people here dumped Hinduism or anything else that came before, it means nothing to us, it's worthless, yet Hindus obsessed with trying to connect us to a system that we discarded

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Foinikas

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> What do they teach in Greece, Alexander invaded India. Yes?


What does Alexander have to do with the Mughals?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SIPRA

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> So which country was it?


There was no country, mairay Bhai.

Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi never attacked India; because there was no India, as a state, or a country. Yes, it was a region, as Europe, or Middle East, or South America is. He attacked different rulers, of that time, in this Subcontinent.



Foinikas said:


> What does Alexander have to do with the Mughals?



Alexander was the maternal uncle of Mughals.


----------



## AgnosticIndian

R2D2 said:


> It has been reported that the Mughal court used to start at 1 pm because the Emperer used to attend Mushaera until 6 am and then sleep


man that means I'm the real heir of Mughals

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Max

No, Mughals were Uzbeks and todays Pakistan can annihilate Uzbekistan on short notice. Just saying, meant no offense to any Uzbek here.


----------



## hussain0216

All Muslims of the subcontinent are the INHERITORS of the Muslim history of the sub continent


That's what's forged us into what and who we are

The Indians have this obsession to try to co-opt us, and just because, maybe once upon a time our ancestors worshipped idols or something daft that we should forever be trapped into worshipping stone idols or animal gods

Most of us come from a Muslim lineage that is hundreds of years old, even if it wasn't we embraced our faith



Do not in ignorance , forgot or give up our history, it's what differentiates us from these people

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## ummarz

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Alexander invaded a part of India which today is Pakistan. So India existed.


Historic India is not equal to modern India. The name India (or Hind) in history was attributed to the lands of modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and various other countries.

A word that correctly describes historic India is Indian subcontinent. Punjabis, or any Pakistani for that matter will gladly accept to belong to the Indian subcontinent. But not India.

Why?

Because, anybody who will call them selves as having an Indian identity today will automatically give the impression that they belong to modern day country of India which came into existence in 1947. Because few people in the world will care to know the history of the word it self. Even if a Pakistani says, that I belong to Pakistan but have an Indian identity will be taken as if they came from India, or this wording could be used to suggest that Pakistan broke away from a nation called India, which is not true. This wording could also be used to suggest that modern day Pakistanis and Indians are one people, which is also not true. So you see this brings confusion, and is very misleading.

Your statement is very confusing and can be misleading. Your statement plays on words, and uses the same word to describe historic India (a geographic area) and modern India (a nation state).


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

hussain0216 said:


> But it was never one state, one people or a India
> 
> 
> Even the idea of India is born in Pakistan, you lot were really just people east of what others considered India, which was little more then a geographic location again just Africa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punjabi
> Sindhi
> Baloch
> Pashtun
> Kashmiri
> And more
> 
> 
> Our people have been on these lands for thousands upon thousands of years
> 
> 
> We have little connection to the vast majority of the people to the east
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistani understand who they are, it's Indian obsession though trying to either co-opt history
> 
> Make up fantasy history
> 
> Or connect everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even in matters if faith, the people here dumped Hinduism or anything else that came before, it means nothing to us, it's worthless, yet Hindus obsessed with trying to connect us to a system that we discarded


India and Indian identity is ancient. The whole world knew it, including Alexander and the Greeks. He had come for revenge because your ancestors had been fighting for Persian Empire but he knew you weren't Persia.









Makkah’s historical mountains hold stories of past and present


MAKKAH: Makkah’s historical mountains are a window into the holy city’s beauty and grandeur as they overlook all aspects of the Grand Mosque, while also providing perfect locations for guides, photographers and researchers to document, present or learn more about Makkah’s stories from Prophet...




www.arabnews.com




"Another famous mountain was Mount Quaiqian, which is also one of the Al-Akhshabayn. It was known as Jabal Hindi."


----------



## hussain0216

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Another famous mountain was Mount Quaiqian, which is also one of the Al-Akhshabayn. It was known as Jabal Hindi.
> 
> India and Indian identity is ancient. The whole world knew it, including Alexander and the Greeks. He had come for revenge because your ancestors had been fighting for Persian Empire but he knew you weren't Persia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makkah’s historical mountains hold stories of past and present
> 
> 
> MAKKAH: Makkah’s historical mountains are a window into the holy city’s beauty and grandeur as they overlook all aspects of the Grand Mosque, while also providing perfect locations for guides, photographers and researchers to document, present or learn more about Makkah’s stories from Prophet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.arabnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another famous mountain was Mount Quaiqian, which is also one of the Al-Akhshabayn. It was known as Jabal Hindi."



So was Africa

There was no India

We are not you

Our people are not you


The Indus valley civilization was in what is today Pakistan, it expanded into some small parts of what is India but it has no connection to the majority of indians

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Foinikas

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> India and Indian identity is ancient. The whole world knew it, including Alexander and the Greeks. He had come for revenge because your ancestors had been fighting for Persian Empire but he knew you weren't Persia.


Alexander even treated Porus as an ally and by that time he had an army of Greeks,Persians and Indians.


----------



## hussain0216

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> You are not us. Indians liberated that area. We also liberated the same area from Mongol occupation. That area was in India and Indians existed there. Your ancestors did not identify as Indian is a different matter.
> 
> 
> Alexander didn't go beyond today's Pakistan.



There was no India, the people of the sub continent are as diverse as European's


This revisionist hindutva history of yours is a joke, it's a joke when you obsess over it in bakht forums but on here it's point blank retarded

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

There is no clear cut anser to this. The reality is far more nuanced. I don't think any one country is heir to the Moghuls. The legacy of Moghuls is diffused over a large geography.


Uzbekistan
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
etc
The Moghuls hailed from Central Asia, had Turkic heritage, used Persian and adopted high Persian culture, relied on Afghan soldiers, Pakistan was staging post *before* India was invaded. 

Meaning Moguls were in Pakistan before they set foot in India. But later after they conquered the teeming Ganga valley their power base shifted into the Ganga plains and over time became more 'Indian' so in the latter stages the Muslim bayyas of UP have greater claim. 

So we have a moving target that no one country can claim as 'heir'. Had Pakistan kept Farsi and Persian high culture then I think it could have come out as the more significant heir.

But as it is Pakistan's claim is no stronger then the rest of the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

hussain0216 said:


> There was no India, the people of the sub continent are as diverse as European's
> 
> 
> This revisionist hindutva history of yours is a joke, it's a joke when you obsess over it in bakht forums but on here it's point blank retarded


You are not Indian. This has nothing to do with Hindutva or Hindu-Muslim.


----------



## SIPRA

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> You are not Indian. This has nothing to do with Hindutva or Hindu-Muslim.



Do you want us to believe that India came into being just 5 microseconds after Big Bang?


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Foinikas said:


> Alexander even treated Porus as an ally and by that time he had an army of Greeks,Persians and Indians.


This may come as a shock to you but Alexander never set foot in India. He turned back as he approached the territory today known as India.

Saying Alexander conquered or fought Indians is like saying German Afrika Korps fought South Africa just because that country has the name 'Africa'.

Or Romanians claming they are Romans because of the name. Have a look at this map which details Alexander's movements in the region.







Detailed map of Pakistan with route of Alexanders march. Porus fought Alexander at Jhelum. I am pretty sure we will have PDF members from that district in Pakistan.






A more scoped map of Jhelum district in Pakistan where Alexander fought Porus. Clearly he was not a Gangu but a man from the Indus region.






I did a threa on this few years back.









When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.


In 326BC Alexander the Great with his Greek and Macedonian army invaded coterminous Pakistan. Our anscestors fought like lions and almost killed him in what is now Multan. By the time he left our land large part of his army was destroyed. So this thread is to celebrate our ancestors who fought...



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> He was Hindustani too.


LOL.

The Syed was dismissive, not you. Just making sure nothing is ambiguous.



Indus Pakistan said:


> This may come as a shock to you but Alexander never set foot in India. He turned back as he approached the territory today known as India.
> 
> Saying Alexander conquered or fought Indians is like saying German Afrika Korps fought South Africa just because that country has the name 'Africa'.
> 
> Or Romanians claming they are Romans because of the name. Have a look at this map which details Alexander's movements in the region.
> 
> View attachment 816502
> 
> 
> Detailed map of Pakistan with route of Alexanders march. Porus fought Alexander at Jhelum. I am pretty sure we will have PDF members from that district in Pakistan.
> 
> View attachment 816503
> 
> 
> A more scoped map of Jhelum district in Pakistan where Alexander fought Porus. Clearly he was not a Gangu but a man from the Indus region.
> 
> View attachment 816505
> 
> 
> I did a threa on this few years back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.
> 
> 
> In 326BC Alexander the Great with his Greek and Macedonian army invaded coterminous Pakistan. Our anscestors fought like lions and almost killed him in what is now Multan. By the time he left our land large part of his army was destroyed. So this thread is to celebrate our ancestors who fought...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


Good try, but no cigar. I have to vanish for a bit, but will explain in full on return. I am sure you will reject the explanation, but it will be there nevertheless.


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Indus Pakistan said:


> This may come as a shock to you but Alexander never set foot in India. He turned back as he approached the territory today known as India.
> 
> Saying Alexander conquered or fought Indians is like saying German Afrika Korps fought South Africa just because that country has the name 'Africa'.
> 
> Or Romanians claming they are Romans because of the name. Have a look at this map which details Alexander's movements in the region.
> 
> View attachment 816502
> 
> 
> Detailed map of Pakistan with route of Alexanders march. Porus fought Alexander at Jhelum. I am pretty sure we will have PDF members from that district in Pakistan.
> 
> View attachment 816503
> 
> 
> A more scoped map of Jhelum district in Pakistan where Alexander fought Porus. Clearly he was not a Gangu but a man from the Indus region.
> 
> View attachment 816505
> 
> 
> I did a threa on this few years back.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/when...almost-brought-him-down-to-his-knees.521716/[




This area was ancient India. The name India is based on the Indus. People originating from the area carried the Indian [Hindustani] identity to other parts of India.


----------



## Joe Shearer

B.K.N said:


> Mughals were full desis both by blood and culture. Akbar's maternal side were persian migrants and all mughal emperors after him were Indian from mother side. And I have read somewhere mughal kings Hindus ki tarah tilak bhi lagatay thay. Having farsi as sarkari language doesn't mean they were farsi speakers. Pakistans sarkari language jaisay English ha waisay unki farsi thi


We have it, however, on the report of the English Ambassador to the Mughal Court of Jehangir, that he earned a lot of goodwill by talking to the Emperor in Turkish, that he had learnt in Constantinople. 

As you know, Babar was a well-regarded author in Chaghatai Turkish.



Novus ordu seclorum said:


> This area was ancient India. The name India is based on the Indus. People originating from the area carried the Indian identity to other parts of India.


Site couldn't be reached. Sorry.


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Joe Shearer said:


> LOL.
> 
> The Syed was dismissive, not you. Just making sure nothing is ambiguous.


Don't know what you are saying. He was not dismissive of the Indian or Hindustani identity.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Don't know what you are saying. He was not dismissive of the Indian or Hindustani identity.


I suspect that the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Maybe we should drop it all together.


----------



## AgnosticIndian

Indus Pakistan said:


> This may come as a shock to you but Alexander never set foot in India. He turned back as he approached the territory today known as India.


Neither Alexander nor Porus seem to have differentiated between the kingdoms and areas they fought (in), and areas further into the Gangetic plains. according to Greek histories he fought a Indian frontier kingdom. 
strange.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

AgnosticIndian said:


> Neither Alexander nor Porus seem to have differentiated between the kingdoms and areas they fought (in), and areas further into the Gangetic plains


?


AgnosticIndian said:


> according to Greek histories he fought a Indian frontier kingdom.
> strange.


This depends on how you translate/transliterate those Greek histories. I don't think the name 'India' was even coined in 300 BC. How you translate/transliterate those Greek histories today is the point to look out for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Novus ordu seclorum

Joe Shearer said:


> I suspect that the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Maybe we should drop it all together.


Well, you mentioned him being dismissive of SDRE people [I don't think it is true], however, this has nothing to do with being in denial of ancient India as Pakistanis are. The map image is of Pakistan [posted by Indus Pakistan] which is ancient India. The whole world knows this.


----------



## itsanufy

M.AsfandYar said:


> There is a family in Lahore that is recognized as being direct descendant, don't know where they are know, the head used to be a judge or something, not sure though.


I actually know the direct descendants of Bahadur shah Zafar living in Kolkata in a very poor condition. 
They do thrive on a minimal pension provided by govt of India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ummarz

AgnosticIndian said:


> Neither Alexander nor Porus seem to have differentiated between the kingdoms and areas they fought (in), and areas further into the Gangetic plains. according to Greek histories he fought a Indian frontier kingdom.
> strange.


Because the word India carries a lot of baggage with it. Complicated history. Lets just say Alexander fought a Punjabi king, that's who Porus was. This is something both Indians and Pakistanis can agree on. Because otherwise its tough for modern day Indians to claim Porus as Indian. Porus was a Punjabi belonging to the area that is modern day Punjab, Pakistan. In the ancient past these 'lands' may have been called by the name India. But for this argument, has no connection to modern day nation of India or modern day Indians for that matter.

Reactions: Love Love:
2


----------



## Varunastra

ummarz said:


> Because the word India carries a lot of baggage with it. Complicated history. Lets just say Alexander fought a Punjabi king, that's who Porus was. This is something both Indians and Pakistanis can agree on. Because otherwise its tough for modern day Indians to claim Porus as Indian. Porus was a Punjabi belonging to the area that is modern day Punjab, Pakistan. In the ancient past these 'lands' may have been called by the name India. But for this argument, has no connection to modern day nation of India or modern day Indians for that matter.


People and culture move beyond the borders of today, a punjabi of ancient India(pakistan area) could very well have landed in UP in some generations. It isn't beyond scope of reality that one of Porus's descendents could very well be in modern day India and contributing to the nation. People claim association based on what they see as cultural/religious similarity.


----------



## hussain0216

The biggest thing Indians today get tripped on is that they see India as some sort of homogeneous state and identity

Which it NEVER was, India was a geographical area full of multiple people's, states, kings, empires etc and had differing histories

Indians today or the hindutva bakhts at least want to proclaim a eternal history and akhand Bharat which is nothing more then fantasy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ummarz

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> People and culture move beyond the borders of today, a punjabi of ancient India(pakistan area) could very well have landed in UP in some generations. It isn't beyond scope of reality that one of Porus's descendents could very well be in modern day India and contributing to the nation. People claim association based on what they see as cultural/religious similarity.


Uday you are clutching for straws. And what you end up with is conjecture.


----------



## Varunastra

ummarz said:


> Uday you are clutching for straws. And what you end up with is conjecture.


Fair enough, but for ancient history of such nearby regions it really goes both ways


----------



## ummarz

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> Fair enough, but for ancient history of such nearby regions it really goes both ways


Thats not how it works lol.


----------



## Varunastra

ummarz said:


> Thats not how it works lol.


Explain how it works if you will


----------



## ummarz

UDAYCAMPUS said:


> Explain how it works if you will


Uday you have not improved at all from the last time we chatted. This is very disappointing. I will help you out. This is an excellent book to start with, you will never see the world the same again. Its available on the kindle store too, so easy to get. Let me know once you have read it.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Menace2Society

Culturally yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Varunastra

ummarz said:


> Uday you have not improved at all from the last time we chatted. This is very disappointing. I will help you out. This is an excellent book to start with, you will never see the world the same again. Its available on the kindle store too, so easy to get. Let me know once you have read it.
> Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind​


Hey hey chill man, it's cool either way, we can't change our history in anycase, better look to the future

Ps - Sapiens has been in my bucket list for way too long  maybe it's time


----------



## Foinikas

Indus Pakistan said:


> This may come as a shock to you but Alexander never set foot in India. He turned back as he approached the territory today known as India.
> 
> Saying Alexander conquered or fought Indians is like saying German Afrika Korps fought South Africa just because that country has the name 'Africa'.
> 
> Or Romanians claming they are Romans because of the name. Have a look at this map which details Alexander's movements in the region.
> 
> View attachment 816502
> 
> 
> Detailed map of Pakistan with route of Alexanders march. Porus fought Alexander at Jhelum. I am pretty sure we will have PDF members from that district in Pakistan.
> 
> View attachment 816503
> 
> 
> A more scoped map of Jhelum district in Pakistan where Alexander fought Porus. Clearly he was not a Gangu but a man from the Indus region.
> 
> View attachment 816505
> 
> 
> I did a threa on this few years back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.
> 
> 
> In 326BC Alexander the Great with his Greek and Macedonian army invaded coterminous Pakistan. Our anscestors fought like lions and almost killed him in what is now Multan. By the time he left our land large part of his army was destroyed. So this thread is to celebrate our ancestors who fought...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


Pakistan anyway. It was considered India back then,wasn't it? Just like before the partition.


----------



## SuvarnaTeja

tower9 said:


> I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.
> 
> I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire?
> 
> Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy.
> 
> Agree or disagree?




Pakistan is the successor state and rulers of all Empires that ruled South Asia which include


Aryan Invasion (1500 - 300 BC)
Maurya Empire (322 to 185 BC)
Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BC - 10 AD)
Kushan Empire (30-375 AD)
Gupta Empire (320 to 550 AD)
Sindh Empire (550 -700 AD)
Umayyad Al Hind Empire (700-1000 AD)
Ghaznavid Empire (1000 - 1175 AD)
Ghurid Empire (1175 - 1206 AD)
Mamluk Empire (1206–1290 AD)
Khilji Empire (1290-1320 AD)
Tughlaq Empire (1320-1414 AD)
Sayyid Empire (1414–1451 AD)
Lodi dynasty (1451–1526 AD)
The Mughal Empire (1526 - 1857 AD)
British Empire (1858 and 1947 AD)


----------



## ummarz

SuvarnaTeja said:


> Pakistan is the successor state and rulers of all Empires that ruled South Asia which include
> 
> 
> Aryan Invasion (1500 - 300 BC)
> Maurya Empire (322 to 185 BC)
> Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BC - 10 AD)
> Kushan Empire (30-375 AD)
> Gupta Empire (320 to 550 AD)
> Sindh Empire (550 -700 AD)
> Umayyad Al Hind Empire (700-1000 AD)
> Ghaznavid Empire (1000 - 1175 AD)
> Ghurid Empire (1175 - 1206 AD)
> Mamluk Empire (1206–1290 AD)
> Khilji Empire (1290-1320 AD)
> Tughlaq Empire (1320-1414 AD)
> Sayyid Empire (1414–1451 AD)
> Lodi dynasty (1451–1526 AD)
> The Mughal Empire (1526 - 1857 AD)
> British Empire (1858 and 1947 AD)


The word successor is used to describe an entity that succeeds its predecessor. By your logic, the #16 on your list, The British Empire, would be the successor state of all previous ones...


----------



## SuvarnaTeja

ummarz said:


> The word successor is used to describe an entity that succeeds its predecessor. By your logic, the #16 on your list, The British Empire, would be the successor state of all previous ones...



Yes but British ruled India through Indian Nawabs, Nizams and Indian Muslim league.


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

lastofthepatriots said:


> Kanjaro, te tussi ek dujay di bund maran de chakar’an vich masroof’o.


Aaj Bakra nahi mila taskeen hasil kernay k lyay? Ya dog se kam chala liya


----------



## hussain0216

SuvarnaTeja said:


> Pakistan is the successor state and rulers of all Empires that ruled South Asia which include
> 
> 
> Aryan Invasion (1500 - 300 BC)
> Maurya Empire (322 to 185 BC)
> Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BC - 10 AD)
> Kushan Empire (30-375 AD)
> Gupta Empire (320 to 550 AD)
> Sindh Empire (550 -700 AD)
> Umayyad Al Hind Empire (700-1000 AD)
> Ghaznavid Empire (1000 - 1175 AD)
> Ghurid Empire (1175 - 1206 AD)
> Mamluk Empire (1206–1290 AD)
> Khilji Empire (1290-1320 AD)
> Tughlaq Empire (1320-1414 AD)
> Sayyid Empire (1414–1451 AD)
> Lodi dynasty (1451–1526 AD)
> The Mughal Empire (1526 - 1857 AD)
> British Empire (1858 and 1947 AD)




Not really,,. All Muslims of the sub continent have a right to the Muslim history of the sub continent

It's what forged our identity today

Any other pre Islamic history, for the people of Pakistan is only important if it happened within our land

We don't care what happened to the people east of us, they are not our people


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Peaceful Civilian said:


> Aaj Bakra nahi mila taskeen hasil kernay k lyay? Ya dog se kam chala liya



I thought you were in jail?








Taskeen nu chad, mobile kithon hasil kar lya?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Foinikas said:


> Pakistan anyway. It was considered India back then,wasn't it? Just like before the partition.


That is like saying Greece was part of Germany before the collapse of the Third *Reich*. Just to correct you we were part of British *Raj* which was dissolved in 1947.

Just like Third Reich was a imposition on various countries of Europe and North Africa, British Raj was also a imposition on various peoples in South Asia.

It emphatically was NOT India as in the meaning it holds today. This infographic should lay bare the actuall situation.

This is British Raj with British flag ruled by London.








These are the successor states of the Raj. From east Myanmar [Burma], Bangladesh, Indian Union and Pakistan.






or in another way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## mikkix

Afghanistan can claim that. Pakistan is just a western wing of gangadesh I would say except pukhtuns and balochis.


----------



## Foinikas

Indus Pakistan said:


> That is like saying Greece was part of Germany before the collapse of the Third *Reich*. Just to correct you we were part of British *Raj* which was dissolved in 1947.
> 
> Just like Third Reich was a imposition on various countries of Europe and North Africa, British Raj was also a imposition on various peoples in South Asia.
> 
> It emphatically was NOT India as in the meaning it holds today. This infographic should lay bare the actuall situation.
> 
> This is British Raj with British flag ruled by London.
> 
> 
> View attachment 816596
> 
> 
> 
> These are the successor states of the Raj. From east Myanmar [Burma], Bangladesh, Indian Union and Pakistan.
> 
> View attachment 816597
> 
> 
> or in another way.
> 
> View attachment 816598


I'm talking about back then,in the ancient times. It was more or less considered India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

Foinikas said:


> I'm talking about back then,in the ancient times. It was more or less considered India.



It WAS India

We are the land of the Indus


The people east of us were just nothing to us though

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SuvarnaTeja

Foinikas said:


> I'm talking about back then,in the ancient times. It was more or less considered India.



Correct. Historically Pakistan was called as India.



hussain0216 said:


> It WAS India
> 
> We are the land of the Indus
> 
> 
> The people east of us were just nothing to us though



People to the east of Pakistan were slaves and subjects of rulers who now live in Pakistan.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Well, you mentioned him being dismissive of SDRE people [I don't think it is true],


I'm afraid there are actual speeches of his where he says these things. Digging up one of his speeches is a tedious endeavour, otherwise I would have reproduced it for you.


Novus ordu seclorum said:


> however, this has nothing to do with being in denial of ancient India as Pakistanis are. The map image is of Pakistan [posted by Indus Pakistan] which is ancient India. The whole world knows this.


What I am going to point out to Indus Pakistan, for whom I have enormous personal respect, is that we find the envoy to the Maurya court, Megasthenes, writing about his embassy at Pataliputra, currently in the state of Bihar, as the Indika. There may have been a short, initial period when the Achaemenids referred to the west bank of the Indus River as India, as their three provinces in south Asia were located on that west bank, fairly close together, but that usage was confined to them, and both to the following Alexandrine Greeks as well as to the Bactrian Greeks, India was the hinterland as well.

The usage suggested by Indus Pakistan is one suggested originally by Aitzaz Ahsan, an understandable suggestion, but one conjured up to meet a specific ethno-national need. I am not interested in getting into a protracted wrangle about that, and about an apparent political coalescence over the centuries on the Indus Valley for marcher kingdoms.


----------



## Joe Shearer

hussain0216 said:


> It WAS India
> 
> We are the land of the Indus
> 
> 
> The people east of us were just nothing to us though


I have already answered this elsewhere. The people of the Indus did not define themselves as India; that was the name used initially by the Achaemenid Persians for three of their provinces that were located in the Indus Valley. Later Greeks - Megasthenes, for instance - were never in any doubt; Pataliputra in Bihar was India. At that time, or later, the people of the Indus Valley had no occasion to deal with names; after a brief interval in the north of rule by the Bactrian Greeks, following the fall of the Mauryas and the defeat of their weak successors, the Sungas, large swathes of territory were ruled by the Northern Satraps and by the Western Satraps. If you look up their territories, those Saka or Scythian dominions extended far beyond the Indus Valley, and were not centred on it either. The Western Satraps ruled right until the Gupta Empire, although they suffered their first setback from the Satavahanas, recovered, and were then wiped out by Samudra Gupta.

Just to round off the tale, the Sakas were succeeded by the Kushana, whose empire straddled a vast amount of territory right into Central Asia. They were certainly not Indus-centric. One branch of the extended Hun confederacy succeeded them, and their rule was interrupted by an expanding Gupta Empire.

The argument is simply not tenable. Not in the light of historical facts.



hussain0216 said:


> Not really,,. All Muslims of the sub continent have a right to the Muslim history of the sub continent
> 
> It's what forged our identity today
> 
> Any other pre Islamic history, for the people of Pakistan is only important if it happened within our land
> 
> We don't care what happened to the people east of us, they are not our people


If we take this logic to its fullest extent, all Muslims therefore have a right to the Muslim history of the extended rule of the Sultans who ruled Bengal and its neighbourhood, independently, for large periods of time. They were people quite a bit to the east of what seems to be imagined as the extent of Muslim rule.

These theories are born out of a poor knowledge of the history of the sub-continent. Even the slightest amount of information beyond what turns up on Internet arguments is enough to dissolve these theories.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

hussain0216 said:


> Not really,,. All Muslims of the sub continent have a right to the Muslim history of the sub continent
> 
> It's what forged our identity today
> 
> Any other pre Islamic history, for the people of Pakistan is only important if it happened within our land
> 
> We don't care what happened to the people east of us, they are not our people


If we take this logic to its fullest extent, all Muslims therefore have a right to the Muslim history of the extended rule of the Sultans who ruled Bengal and its neighbourhood, independently, for large periods of time. They were people quite a bit to the east of what seems to be imagined as the extent of Muslim rule.

These theories are born out of a poor knowledge of the history of the sub-continent. Even the slightest amount of information beyond what turns up on Internet arguments is enough to dissolve these theories.


Indus Pakistan said:


> That is like saying Greece was part of Germany before the collapse of the Third *Reich*. Just to correct you we were part of British *Raj* which was dissolved in 1947.
> 
> Just like Third Reich was a imposition on various countries of Europe and North Africa, British Raj was also a imposition on various peoples in South Asia.
> 
> It emphatically was NOT India as in the meaning it holds today. This infographic should lay bare the actuall situation.
> 
> This is British Raj with British flag ruled by London.
> 
> 
> View attachment 816596
> 
> 
> 
> These are the successor states of the Raj. From east Myanmar [Burma], Bangladesh, Indian Union and Pakistan.
> 
> View attachment 816597
> 
> 
> or in another way.
> 
> View attachment 816598



Perfectly true, as far as the interpretation of the British Raj goes, as far as the last use of India for a united political entity united by British domination goes. It does not apply to European usage through centuries previous to this, and in common use in a dozen European contexts for these centuries. 

Since India was a European - originally Greek, derived from Persian - usage, there is not much point in taking up the final 90 years and building a case going back to the 6th century BCE, the probable date of the incursion of the Achaemenids into south Asia. It doesn't compute.



mikkix said:


> Afghanistan can claim that. Pakistan is just a western wing of gangadesh I would say except pukhtuns and balochis.


While it may salve a few bruised egos, Gangadesh is a coinage fit only for Internet keyboard scholar-warriors.



Foinikas said:


> I'm talking about back then,in the ancient times. It was more or less considered India.


It was. not more or less, but precisely so.


----------



## kingQamaR

*Babur *and Humayun (1526–1556)

The Mughal Empire was founded by Babur (reigned 1526–1530), a Central Asian ruler who was descended from the Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur (the founder of the Timurid Empire) on his father's side, and from Genghis Khan on his mother's side.

answer is no we are not


----------



## sur

tower9 said:


> I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.
> 
> I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire?
> 
> Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


There's a saying that implies that we should stop bragging about our ancestors and start performing ourselves:

"پدرم سلطان بود"







This "*my father was a king*" attitude should have no place among us:









mikkix said:


> Afghanistan can claim that. Pakistan is just a western wing of gangadesh I would say except pukhtuns and balochis.


It has become a milk shake by now. They have all mixed up to great extent. Same in India, many previously pure races are now living in somewhat of a mixture.
The very advent of Urdu was the time such mixing started.
I would say south asia was world's first multi-cultural society. Loooooong before Amrika, or Canada etc. claimed to be multicultural. With a difference that we have become a milk shake and don't use terms like African-American, or white, etc. to describe people here in south asia.





By the way, below is my racial terminology, just for fun: 


sur said:


> New classification of colors,,, more accurate & reality based than based on superiority complex ...
> 
> *Previous ==== Now*
> Black ====> Brown
> White ====> Bleached
> Brown ====> Normal
> Yellow ====> White
> 
> 
> =
> =

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hussain0216

Joe Shearer said:


> If we take this logic to its fullest extent, all Muslims therefore have a right to the Muslim history of the extended rule of the Sultans who ruled Bengal and its neighbourhood, independently, for large periods of time. They were people quite a bit to the east of what seems to be imagined as the extent of Muslim rule



Sure why not?


----------



## Joe Shearer

hussain0216 said:


> Sure why not?


Oh, no reason why not; in fact, it would make sense. 

However, my reason for pointing this out is that it goes beyond your (broad) depiction - 



> Any other pre Islamic history, for the people of Pakistan is only important if it happened within our land
> 
> We don't care what happened to the people east of us, they are not our people



It is to be hoped that the point being made is clear from the citation.


----------



## Genghis khan1

Indus Pakistan said:


> There is no clear cut anser to this. The reality is far more nuanced. I don't think any one country is heir to the Moghuls. The legacy of Moghuls is diffused over a large geography.
> 
> 
> Uzbekistan
> Afghanistan
> Pakistan
> India
> etc
> The Moghuls hailed from Central Asia, had Turkic heritage, used Persian and adopted high Persian culture, relied on Afghan soldiers, Pakistan was staging post *before* India was invaded.
> 
> Meaning Moguls were in Pakistan before they set foot in India. But later after they conquered the teeming Ganga valley their power base shifted into the Ganga plains and over time became more 'Indian' so in the latter stages the *Muslim bayyas of UP have greater claim*.
> 
> So we have a moving target that no one country can claim as 'heir'. Had Pakistan kept Farsi and Persian high culture then I think it could have come out as the more significant heir.
> 
> But as it is Pakistan's claim is no stronger then the rest of the region.


Formation of permanent Muslim identity, language and cultures are all because of Mughals. Pakistan was the logical evolution of their rule. Now UP bayyas don’t have a country or administrative unit to claim cultural heritage, unlike Pakistan. 

As far as actual heir or someone wants to claim Royalty status of some sort, than he has to be Mughal first. Baig, chugtai, maldyale clan and so on.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

tower9 said:


> I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.
> 
> I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire?
> 
> Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


No, they were foreigners that conquered and occupied our lands. They formed their heartland in Hindustan (Delhi/UP region) and saw modern-day Pakistan as an over-taxed backwater to be exploited. 

We are instead heirs to Khushal Khattak, Abdullah Bhatti, Shah Inayat Shaheed, Pir Roshan, Muqarrab Khan and the many other natives of this land that stood against their rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

AsianLion said:


> Given Lahore City the huge Capital of Mughals for centuries, so many big forts, Tombs of Jahangir, and many Mughal leaders not just in Lahore City but everywhere in Pakistan, go to Peshawar, Go to Kandahar, Go to Multan, where from they ruled India for centuries and centuries are truly the heir to the Mughals.
> 
> Evidence is all thier to see in Pakistan and even Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.


Lahore was only the capital for a mere 30 years and was seen as a staging-grounds for what the Mughals considered their real prize: Delhi. 

Also the amount of Mughal structures (which they built for themselves by excessively taxing the locals) in Pakistan is only a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of Mughal structures in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Darth Vader

Does it matter.
Being Muslims faith connects us all no matter where someone is from.
And as one species we share history bad or good


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

According to the Pak national anthem she claims an ownership to whatever great stuffs the Muslim Empires of the past had done! Quite a claim for the heritage and legacy of the past Empires are mostly abandoned by other Muslims....

For example, Sherif Husein or Mujib (and their followers) gave a $hit to any such heritage of the Muslim Empires....

_Terjuman-I Mazi_....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

Lol some are desparate to distort history in here I see and as someone whos well versed in the History of the Mughal empire including the delhi sultanate..

I can confirm that Pakistan is the legacy of Muhammad of Ghor who even predates the Mughal era by couple of centuries the initial first incursion happened in the inner sub-continent in 1192 that is when India lost sovereignty to the ruling Islamic dynasties.

Today's Pashtuns and Punjabis were muslims and in his army that laid the charge into India and without these two the conquest of India wouldn't have been possible.

The islamic culture is a globalist culture hence you have people coming together an forming nations something akin to today's US but at a much lesser extent but nonetheless globalist society. The punjabis had been muslims for nearly 2 centuries when the battle of Tarain happened in 1192 AD meaning they were part of the invaders and the Pashtuns were muslims for 5 centuries at that point.

Hence you had a confederation melting pot of Pashtuns, Punjabis, Turkics, Arabs, Persians and Tajiks they themselves considered each other as one people for more then a 1000 years this was the true ground reality and inter-married because they were globalists and took even in any other converts in any part of the world that wanted to join them including Marathas etc etc Malik Kafur was Maratha example but mostly they were of these 6 ethnicties and they considered themselves 1 entity because they were globalists..

Despite being Pahstuns and Punjabis they are the people of Muhammad of Ghor because they gave him bayat meaning an oath of allegiance which is much more powerful then precieved kinship ties because giving bayat to someone it has divine connection meaning you gave that someone bayat for the sake of the heavens and acknowledging that person is doing god's work and the people of Pakistan has largely kept their oath of allegiance to Muhammad of Ghor to this day..

Muhammad of Ghor Tomb in Tehsil, Pakistan and the man solely responsible for the entire conquest of India.. 






He reigned over a territory spanning over parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Iran, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## El Sidd

Rana4pak said:


> Pakistan is heir of Indus Valley civilisation till modern day Islamic republic of Pakistan



It would be good if we can read what we wrote 4500 years ago. 

Pakistanis understand Mughals for what they were. An empire borne out of will of one man's ambition.

For modern day Indians and India, Mughals were a civilisation. Hence Bipins clash of civilisation.


----------



## SuvarnaTeja

Qutb-ud-din-Aibak said:


> Lol some Indians are desparate to distort history in here I see and as someone whos well versed in the History of the Mughal empire including the delhi sultanate..
> 
> I can confirm that Pakistan is the legacy of Muhammad of Ghor who even predates the Mughal era by couple of centuries the initial first incursion happened in the inner sub-continent in 1192 that is when India lost sovereignty to the ruling Islamic dynasties.
> 
> Today's Pashtuns and Punjabis were muslims and in his army that laid the charge into India and without these two the conquest of India wouldn't have been possible.
> 
> The islamic culture is a globalist culture hence you have people coming together an forming nations something akin to today's US but at a much lesser extent but nonetheless globalist society. The punjabis had been muslims for nearly 2 centuries when the battle of Tarain happened in 1192 AD meaning they were part of the invaders and the Pashtuns were muslims for 5 centuries at that point.
> 
> Hence you had a confederation melting pot of Pashtuns, Punjabis, Turkics, Arabs, Persians and Tajiks they themselves considered each other as one people for more then a 1000 years this was the true ground reality and inter-married because they were globalists and took even in any other converts in any part of the world that wanted to join them including Marathas etc etc Malik Kafur was Maratha example but mostly they were of these 6 ethnicties and they considered themselves 1 entity because they were globalists..
> 
> Despite being Pahstuns and Punjabis they are the people of Muhammad of Ghor because they gave him bayat meaning an oath of allegiance which is much more powerful then precieved kinship ties because giving bayat to someone it has divine connection meaning you gave that someone bayat for the sake of the heavens and acknowledging that person is doing god's work and the people of Pakistan has largely kept their oath of allegiance to Muhammad of Ghor to this day..
> 
> Muhammad of Ghor Tomb in Tehsil, Pakistan and the man solely responsible for the entire conquest of India



Even today Indians shiver when we hear the names of Pakistani kings like Muhammad Ghori, Muhammad of Ghazni and Aurangzeb

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

tower9 said:


> The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign.


The didnt come from Afghanistan..The then Afghanistan was just in the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

-blitzkrieg- said:


> The didnt come from Afghanistan..The then Afghanistan was just in the way.



They came from the ferghana valley which is weirdly situated in middle of 4 countries uzbek, afghan, tajik, and kyrgestan.. The Afghans were part of the Ghorids


----------



## Paitoo

SuvarnaTeja said:


> Even today Indians shiver when we hear the names of Pakistani kings like Muhammad Ghori, Muhammad of Ghazni and Aurangzeb


Nobody shivers at the names of 'Pakistani Kings' Ghori and Ghazni. For a change try to write something without the sole intention of provoking

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

B.K.N said:


> Fergana is 220 km from the northern most part of Afghani border and most of the area between Afghanistan and fargana is impassable tall mountains. If you travel from Afghanistan to fargana distance is many times higher



True but the ghurids were also in Afghanistan such as cities like Ghor


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Qutb-ud-din-Aibak said:


> They came from the ferghana valley which is weirdly situated in middle of 4 countries uzbek, afghan, tajik, and kyrgestan.. The Afghans were part of the Ghorids


Ferghana valley doesnt fall in present day Afghanistan









Fergana Valley


While today, the Fergana Vallley is administrated by three different countries: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. in the past in was one place and even the indpendent Kingdom of Fergana in the…




silkroadresearch.blog






Babur and his clan was turkic..he had nothign to do with afghan identity of past or today other than the fact he inducted afghans or pashtuns in his military upon taking over their land.


----------



## SuvarnaTeja

DrJekyll said:


> Nobody shivers at the names of 'Pakistani Kings' Ghori and Ghazni. For a change try to write something without the sole intention of provoking



That fact that you felt that my post was provoking itself confirms what I was saying. You are trying to cover your inferiority by claiming to be brave.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

B.K.N said:


> First they conquered Afghanistan later present day India which means we were never conquered is a lie. And babar ki army main Indians bhi thay he was invited by some relatives of lodhi ruler


Never said we werent ..He was invited by a lodhi to fight lodhis..Pakistan is heir to Lodhis as well however Lodhis were one of the worst administratively and therefore crumbled...Many Punjabis esp. ghakkar and rajputs intermarried among mughals.


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Novus ordu seclorum said:


> Alexander invaded a part of India which today is Pakistan. So India existed.


There was no india back then..


----------



## Paitoo

SuvarnaTeja said:


> That fact that you felt that my post was provoking itself confirms what I was saying. You are trying to cover your inferiority by claiming to be brave.



No I am not brave. I am just a keyboard warrior. One step below in the ladder of deceit from false flaggers and ten steps below LARPers.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

-blitzkrieg- said:


> Ferghana valley doesnt fall in present day Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fergana Valley
> 
> 
> While today, the Fergana Vallley is administrated by three different countries: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. in the past in was one place and even the indpendent Kingdom of Fergana in the…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silkroadresearch.blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babur and his clan was turkic..he had nothign to do with afghan identity of past or today other than the fact he inducted afghans or pashtuns in his military upon taking over their land.



They did not conquer Afghanistan but it was the Ummayyid who did but all the Ghazanvids, Ghurids etc etc were not conquerors in the area but Ghazanvids split from the abbasids in the areas they held hence no conquering they just ceded from Abbasid Caliphate (Afghanistan, Tajikstan, Ferghana valley, parts of Iran and parts of Pakistan).. Then 200 years later the Ghurids split from the Ghanavids on it's Afghan, Tajik and ferghana valley territories again no conquest? What does this tell you? they were one country for centuries.. Hence the Ghurids were local in Afghanistan... The ghurids later took the remaining Ghazanvid territories which was on Pakistan territories (punjab, kpk and sindh) to unify their country


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

B.K.N said:


> Aghwani internet warriors kehtay hain unka kaha ha


that takes us back to the original questions what 'heir' means exactly.
And my pov if you carry anything culturally/linguistically/religiously from them you can call yourself their heir..
there doesnt necessarily have to be one heir so afghans may equally claim on what Paksitan claims..Modern day states didnt necessarily have distinctive past.


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Qutb-ud-din-Aibak said:


> They did not conquer Afghanistan but it was the Ummayyid who did but all the Ghazanvids, Ghurids etc etc were not conquerors in the area but Ghazanvids split from the abbasids in the areas they held hence no conquering they just ceded from Abbasid Caliphate (Afghanistan, Tajikstan, Ferghana valley, parts of Iran and parts of Pakistan).. Then 200 years later the Ghurids split from the Ghanavids on it's Afghan, Tajik and ferghana valley territories again no conquest? What does this tell you? they were one country for centuries.. Hence the Ghurids were local in Afghanistan... The ghurids later took the remaining Ghazanvid territories which was on Pakistan territories to unify their country


But we are not talking about Ghurids we are talking about Mughals..
Alptegin and Sebktegin were outsiders to Afghans
Sebuktegin(father of Mahmud Ghazni and architect of the dynasty) annexed half of the present day Afghansitan from bost(lashkar gah) to zor shar(kandhar) .His master Alptegin conquered bamiyan ghazna and kabulistan defeating hindu shahi kingdom... They even attacked their own lands in transoxiana.

Even later Mongols invaded and ruled the then Afghanistan
Followed by Timur who again invaded and ruled the then Afghanistan
They it was passed to Mughals..However there were pockets of resistance, all over the kingdom.. Babur captured Kandahar in 1522 and even married an afridi woman.





Siege of Kandahar, 1520-6 September 1522


The siege of Kandahar of 1520-6 September 1522 was a major victory for Babur that removed the last major obstacle in Afghanistan to his planned invasion of Hindustan



www.historyofwar.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tamerlane

Biryani was invented By the Mughals. Those who want to have nothing to do with the Mughals need to stop eating biryani. 

Urdu developed during Mughal rule. Ban it. 

Eliminate all Persian and Arabic worlds from your vocabulary. Add Sanskrit. 

Burn the books about Muslim history in India. It’s not your history. Create a new history. 

Fair skinned Aryan Muslims are superior than dark Muslims. Create a cast system. 

Sounds exactly like what the Indian Hindus are doing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Mughal were just a family under power how can it even relate to anything in modern Pakistan ?


culture!


Hareeb said:


> No, but if so then Pakistan is an heir to Alexander the great too.


Alexander didnt leave his culture or bloodline here


Mirzah said:


> It's Pakistan cultural heritage, Mughals were the last Muslim dynasty before British usurped them. British still have royal family and crown, they celebrate royal weddings, royal births with huge fanfare, why shouldn't Pakistan at least recognize the present heirs and give them a ceremonial role?


British unlike mughals didnt assimilate with locals.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

-blitzkrieg- said:


> But we are not talking about Ghurids we are talking about Mughals..
> Alptegin and Sebktegin were outsiders to Afghans
> Sebuktegin(father of Mahmud Ghazni and architect of the dynasty) annexed half of the present day Afghansitan from bost(lashkar gah) to zor shar(kandhar) .His master Alptegin conquered bamiyan ghazna and kabulistan defeating hindu shahi kingdom... They even attacked their own lands in transoxiana.
> 
> Even later Mongols invaded and ruled the then Afghanistan
> Followed by Timur who again invaded and ruled the then Afghanistan
> They it was passed to Mughals..However there were pockets of resistance, all over the kingdom.. Babur captured Kandahar in 1522 and even married an afridi woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siege of Kandahar, 1520-6 September 1522
> 
> 
> The siege of Kandahar of 1520-6 September 1522 was a major victory for Babur that removed the last major obstacle in Afghanistan to his planned invasion of Hindustan
> 
> 
> 
> www.historyofwar.org


The Mughals had issues with the Afghans who also later ousted the mughals during the Sur dynasty who were Afghans and took over delhi for a short stint before the Mughals making comeback and they also had issues with the Deccan sultanates on the southern end but the Mughals won these intial conflicts but my point was that the Afghans were part of the common collective and perhaps I may have been off-topic but they were part of the Ghorids and Delhi Sultanate


----------



## Kambojaric

Joe Shearer said:


> That is stretching a point, but not beyond endurance



Claims of succession in my opinion are often times far fetched and stretched. Scottish nationalists for example see themselves as the successors to the Picts north of Hadrian's wall. Even the very name Scot is derived from a Celtic Gaelic tribe. However the vast majority of Scots speak and live a primarily Germanic life in the sense of Scots/English and few if any actually can speak any Gaelic. Culturally and historically they have more in common with their Anglo-Saxon neighbors to the South but that is how identity politics works. We make links even if they are tenuous in order to establish a semblance of order and stability for the modern state we reside in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## SIPRA

Kambojaric said:


> Claims of succession in my opinion are often times far fetched and stretched.



But, it is a good pastime, on social media. In Punjabi, we call it: "Mootar wichon machhiyaan taulna" (To probe fish in a piss pond).

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Kambojaric said:


> Claims of succession in my opinion are often times far fetched and stretched. Scottish nationalists for example see themselves as the successors to the Picts north of Hadrian's wall. Even the very name Scot is derived from a Celtic Gaelic tribe. However the vast majority of Scots speak and live a primarily Germanic life in the sense of Scots/English and few if any actually can speak any Gaelic. Culturally and historically they have more in common with their Anglo-Saxon neighbors to the South but that is how identity politics works. We make links even if they are tenuous in order to establish a semblance of order and stability for the modern state we reside in.


Very well analysed, dear Sir, and I note with the greatest respect that you are yourself a legatee of one of the most ancient of heritages. You bear the name of those who, as the remote tribe of the Uttara Kamboja, might be identified with the Scythians of the extreme north-east corner of the Achaemenid Empire of a millennium later - spread across the provinces of Sogdiana and Chorasmia (later Khwarizm), and of Sattagydians, Gandharans, Dadicae, Aparytae, of whom you might recognise the Dadicae, the Daradas, specifically identified with the Kamboja, living to the north and the north-west of the Kashmir Valley, roughly in Gilgit. I feel that it is difficult to separate them completely from the fierce cavalry mounted on magnificent horses that assisted the wrong side during the Mahabharata War, stopping Arjuna in his tracks on more than occasion with their slashing charges, and thus linking them with the Scythians of the Ferghana Valley whose horseflesh caused such heartburn among the Chinese. 

Some of the better known Pakistani cricketers of today and yesterday might identify with the Aparytae, but that is another story. 

As for the Scots, they really need to make up their minds. The Picts are not Gaelic, but the Scots were, and are identified with the ancient people of Ireland. They spread across the Irish Sea and formed the ancient kingdom of Dalriada, and from there, expanded slowly right through today's Scotland, ironically, uniting with the Picts after a disastrous defeat at their hands (together, they formed Alba). This was roughly during the end of the 8th century and beginning of the 9th century; the slowly expanding kingdom of the Scots, as the successor kingdom to Alba was called, coexisted with the Anglo-Saxons, fighting with the Northumbrians, and marrying into the Aethelings, until well into the 12th century, when with the Norman Conquest, there was a 'Europeanisation' of Scotland, and what you have described became the dominant social theme, an identification with the Anglo-French ruling class of England, leading to the Scots themselves being ruled by a race mixed between old Scottish stock, the ancient Mormaers of the 9th century onwards, who turned into the great Earls, and the Anglo-Norman kin of the Normans in England. 

Strange how identity politics goes. 

It is always a pleasure to read your posts; they strike sparks from the flinty stuff that some of us are condemned to carry between our ears.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## peagle

tower9 said:


> I have recently been watching documentaries about the history of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.
> 
> I was wondering if Pakistanis today consider their country to be an heir to the Mughal Empire?
> 
> Obviously I think between Pakistan and India, Pakistan is culturally the more legitimate heir to the Mughal Empire even though most of the great monuments of the Mughals are in and around Northern India from Delhi to Agra. However, under the BJP led India, I believe Hindutva is actively seeking to shred links and traces of the Mughal past. The Mughals came from around modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and controlled the territory of Pakistan for most of their reign. They fused Turkic/Persian with local South Asian cultures and are Muslim, so obviously Pakistan can be considered the most accurate modern heir of the Mughal legacy.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


It seems Americans seem to think so too.
Below is a picture from the book "Eating Grass, The making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Hassan Khan" from page 119.
The only authoritative book on this subject.

After the 1974 nuclear test, the US ambassador to India Patrick Moynihan said to Mrs Gandhi *"The Mughals next door are not going to sit idle."*
And, "Sooner or later, you will be condemned to [be] sandwiched between two nuclear neighbours, China and Pakistan." 
The Americans knew Pakistan will be a nuclear power the day India exploded it's bomb in 1974.

The Americans seem to think Pakistan considers itself as the inheritor, and they implicitly accept Pakistan as the heir of the Mughals. 
The ambassador felt comfortable enough to say it in a discussion with the prime minister of India, meaning he understood that India also internally accepts Pakistan to be the heir of the Mughals.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

Kambojaric said:


> Claims of succession in my opinion are often times far fetched and stretched.



It is not example remove one mann from the history books namely Muhammad of Ghor and you will end up with a completely different sub-continent because the mongols would have come thru and instead of Delhi Sultanate stopping them they would have taken the sub-continent as the locals were no match for them outside of Delhi Sultanate.. The population in the sub-continent would have been much lower around 300-400m due to mongol genocides and rampage it would have taken couple millions out of india which would have been significiant for India in the far future just removing 2-3m 800 years ago can reduce the current population to 300-400m..

The British would have not come because the reason they came were tales of wealth they heard during Delhi sultante and mughal era and also one of the reasons the native americans are called indians is because Columbus was looking for India. The tales of India was very famous in Europe and tales of gold and wealth plus Europe was largely poor at that time hence if you remove Ghori the British raj may have never happened either and India could have been majority buddists.. If Ghor didn't come this way where would have he gone?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## peagle

SIPRA said:


> We, people of Subcontinent, are strange creatures.
> 
> Khaanay ko roti naheen hae, aur koyi Chandragupta Maurya kay saath lataknay ki koshish ker raha hae, tau koyi Mughal Empire kay saath.
> 
> "Cheen o Arab hamaara, Hindustan hamaara
> Rehnay ko ghar naheen hae, sara jahaan hamaara"



I couldn't decide if I should show love or laugh like crazy. Decided to go with love for the insightfulness. lol

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

-blitzkrieg- said:


> culture!





-blitzkrieg- said:


> Alexander didnt leave his culture or bloodline here


What culture or bloodline did the Mughals leave here?




-blitzkrieg- said:


> British unlike mughals didnt assimilate with locals.


Mughals didn't assimilate with locals of modern-day Pakistan, they assimilated with locals of modern-day India.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> What culture or bloodline did the Mughals leave here?
> 
> 
> 
> Mughals didn't assimilate with locals of modern-day Pakistan, they assimilated with locals of modern-day India.



They assimilated across the board there was no modern day this or that the entire north including Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan were one country


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Qutb-ud-din-Aibak said:


> They assimilated across the board there was no modern day this or that the entire north including Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan were one country


What Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun or Kashmiri did they assimilate with?


----------



## Qutb-ud-din-Aibak

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> What Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun or Kashmiri did they assimilate with?



Even these people themselves have assimilate into each other to some degree but it may not be visible to you or should I say intermingled for 1000+ years

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Qutb-ud-din-Aibak said:


> It is not example remove one mann from the history books namely Muhammad of Ghor and you will end up with a completely different sub-continent because the mongols would have come thru and instead of Delhi Sultanate stopping them they would have taken the sub-continent as the locals were no match for them outside of Delhi Sultanate.. The population in the sub-continent would have been much lower around 300-400m due to mongol genocides and rampage it would have taken couple millions out of india which would have been significiant for India in the far future just removing 2-3m 800 years ago can reduce the current population to 300-400m..
> 
> The British would have not come because the reason they came were tales of wealth they heard during Delhi sultante and mughal era and also one of the reasons the native americans are called indians is because Columbus was looking for India. The tales of India was very famous in Europe and tales of gold and wealth plus Europe was largely poor at that time hence if you remove Ghori the British raj may have never happened either and India could have been majority buddists.. If Ghor didn't come this way where would have he gone?


An interesting observation. 

Not entirely balanced, suffers too much from a parochial point of view, but definitely interesting.


----------



## SuvarnaTeja

Tamerlane said:


> Eliminate all Persian and Arabic worlds from your vocabulary. Add Sanskrit.



Mughals were Turko-Mongols.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Joe Shearer said:


> Since India was a European - originally Greek, derived from Persian - usage, there is not much point in taking up the final 90 years and building a case going back to the 6th century BCE, the probable date of the incursion of the Achaemenids into south Asia. It doesn't compute.


I think you know I have a few loose screws in my head and one of the crippling effects is I always look at things differantly. My issue is not the existence of the name India through the centuries. This is not about a name or names. Rather the rendering of those names according to the reality as exists today.

It's like I see start imagining myself in historical works because i come across names that sound or are similiar to me.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Indus Pakistan said:


> I think you know I have a few loose screws in my head and one of the crippling effects is I always look at things differantly. My issue is not the existence of the name India through the centuries. This is not about a name or names. Rather the rendering of those names according to the reality as exists today.
> 
> It's like I see start imagining myself in historical works because i come across names that sound or are similiar to me.


You are quite incorrect to say what you have just said about yourself. Your analysis was very accurate, but I thought to correct those keyboard kiddies whose eyes lit up on reading you, and who then rode a cock-horse to Banbury Cross. 

Your last sentence is very close to reality. There are embellishments, but some other time.....

Rest assured, you are by yourself.

It is good to see you posting.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Joe Shearer said:


> It is good to see you posting.


Life continues. I am sat in my room with glorious snow falling on both sides - a view to put a smile on a wounded heart ...

See your phone!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Indus Pakistan said:


> Life continues. I am sat in my room with glorious snow falling on both sides - a view to put a smile on a wounded heart ...
> 
> See your phone!


Looking at it.


----------

