Akbar and other Mughals

[TopCat]

For starters, this whole division between "Dravidians" and "Aryans" was a misconception created during colonial rule. Recent studies have shown that most Indians have the same genetic makeup, and it is not possible to differentiate between "Aryans" and "Dravdians" on the basis of genetic analysis.

Read this:
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India

A certain percentage of the upper castes have greater genetic affinity with Europeans, but these people are present all over India. These may be the descendants of the migrating Vedic aryans that we keep obsessing about, but in reality have played a pretty minor role in Indian history.

LOL.
Well in eastern India, it was mix of Ariyan,Dravidian,mongoloid and austro asian genetics. They are all found here. So genetics of all race are here and we can see from face and skin color. Even they found African Negro genetics in Assamese Naga tribes which means they came from Africa.
So by just saying Ariyan Davidian a myth is just something I cant buy.

Another distinct features are language. Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Oria, Assamese all had the same root and we can understand each other in north. Again Tamil, Telegu, Kannada, etc had a complete different sect and nobody in North could understand a word of it.

 

[PostColonial]

Well sorry for my ignorance. Most of my hindu friends as well as some of the hindu historians that I read, says cast system was later introduced and people could not change cast and all which were very late introduction. Now you are saying something completely different.

Indian society was always divided into endogamous groups (which means groups that don't intermarry). Some people blame the decline of Buddhism and "Brahminism (ignoring the fact that Ashoka, the great patron of Buddhism, hired a Brahmin named Chanakya as his advisor)", some people blame the British, but the fact is that it has always existed.

Read:
Dravidians and Aryans have same genetic structure

 

[PostColonial]

LOL.
Well in eastern India, it was mix of Ariyan,Dravidian,mongoloid and austro asian genetics. They are all found here. So genetics of all race are here and we can see from face and skin color. Even they found African Negro genetics in Assamese Naga tribes which means they came from Africa.
So by just saying Ariyan Davidian a myth is just something I cant buy.

HYDERABAD: The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on
ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed ``fact'' that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.

``This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide,'' Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday.
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India

 

[TopCat]

HYDERABAD: The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on
ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed ``fact'' that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.

``This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide,'' Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday.
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India

I think the Ariyan Dravidian is a complete different issue which has merits to be discussed in a different thread. Lets get back to the topic where it started.

 

[eastwatch]

^Well Thank You Shah Jahan, for your amazing planning and vision to built a potential tourist trap that would earn profits after 400 years.

If by invaders you mean British, then yes I agree. But under Mughals this country (and that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh mind you) fell behind both Europe and China in development.

Yes Ashoka was buddhist. Your point?

I am surprised to see you are equating Mughals (read Muslims) with the British. British never made Hindustan their home, they came on certain missions ordered by their government and then went back to their HOME in England. They were colonial masters only and they did not belong to our land.

But, the Mughals immigrated to this land and made it their HOME. Hindustan was and is their homeland. Mughals were not the only outsiders who made Hindustan their HOME. There were many others before and after the Arya immigrants came in and settled in Hindustan. If these outsiders are Hindustani, then certainly other non-Hindu groups, who also came from the same land to which the Aryas belonged, cannot be regarded as outsiders. No distinction should be made because of religion.

 

[toxic_pus]

Its another matter that the charachters in Mahabharat were busy in fighting each others

Apparently the concept of 'good v/s evil' or 'right v/s wrong', the core theme of all epics, all religious texts, gets lost in the orgasmic urge to hit the reply button. A perfect Jana moment.

On another note it means once Bharat was always rules by outsiders right ?

Once Bharat was ruled by outsiders - YES
Always ruled by outsiders - NO

Didn't know that Indian history was rocket science. PHEW.

 

[eastwatch]

ehhh Nevermind. Its another matter that the charachters in Mahabharat were busy in fighting each others

On another note it means once Bharat was always rules by outsiders right ?

The way you have put the word 'outsider,' it is same as saying that England is always being ruled by the outsiders after the invasion from Nornandy by William I in the mid 11th century. It is also same as saying USA has always been ruled by europeans. Or it is same as saying USA is at present being ruled by an African outsider.

To make good relationship with the Hindus, we must not insult them with words like victor or vanquished. Specially it is no more applicable when both these two groups were vanquished at the hands of a few red-faced British. But, the sole responsibility of our being colonized by the whites lie with the Muslims, because they were ruling India at the time of British victories.

Until medieval times people used to migrate and move out seeking better pasture or agriculture lands. It was for survival. But, since survival is always for the fittest, these migrant people had to make incursion into a new land by the use of military force. Before the Muslims came, many others also came and subjugated the locals, but ultimately, they themselves became locals. Same thing happened to the migrant Muslims also.

It is same today, but now people move where they can find jobs. However, the basic remains same, i.e, survival. Thinking in that line, you cannot say Hindustan was ever ruled by outsiders, except during the short British period. Hindus and Muslims, we may quarrel and fight each other, but we are DESI and no one is outsider here in Hindustan.

 

[Spring Onion]

now do u want me it say we are forever indebted to mughal oh sorry muslims for ruling us. then u are wrong. because we consider them indians and they were one of us. .

so the Mughals who were the outsiders who were infact central asians were Indians ?????????????? how did i miss that nitesh


OMG

 

[Spring Onion]

I am surprised to see you are equating Mughals (read Muslims) with the British. British never made Hindustan their home, they came on certain missions ordered by their government and then went back to their HOME in England. They were colonial masters only and they did not belong to our land.

But, the Mughals immigrated to this land and made it their HOME. Hindustan was and is their homeland. Mughals were not the only outsiders who made Hindustan their HOME. There were many others before and after the Arya immigrants came in and settled in Hindustan. If these outsiders are Hindustani, then certainly other non-Hindu groups, who also came from the same land to which the Aryas belonged, cannot be regarded as outsiders. No distinction should be made because of religion.

the problem with the Hindu Indians is that they have some kind of complex. Those who invaded India were NEVER Indians or locals its another thing that many Indians trying to prove themselves the siblings of central asians lolzz


come on eastwatch i was not insulting them rather i am saying that those were outsiders NOT INDIANS

 

[third eye]

so the Mughals who were the outsiders who were infact central asians were Indians ?????????????? how did i miss that nitesh


OMG

Anyone who came to India and became one of us was / is an Indian. There are countless examples .. anglo Indians, parsis, french and so on. No country is an island and even Islands have all sorts of mixes.

We all are a mix of centuries of amalgamations. Even today traces of alexanders troops ( lineage ) are found in Pk. Wouldn't you consider them pakistanis ? Religion has no place in nationality.

 

[PostColonial]

the problem with the Hindu Indians is that they have some kind of complex. Those who invaded India were NEVER Indians or locals its another thing that many Indians trying to prove themselves the siblings of central asians lolzz

I'm afraid that its you who has some sort of complex regarding your views about "Hindu Indians".

come on eastwatch i was not insulting them rather i am saying that those were outsiders NOT INDIANS

People have migrated into Indians throughout history. First they migrated from Africa, then they migrate from Central Asia, then the vedic Aryans, the Hunas, Scythians, numerous Afghan, Persian and Turkic tribes, Mughals, Parsis, Syrian Christians etc. etc. You are conveniently labeling those migrants whom YOU identify with as "outsiders" to India.

Well let me tell you something Mr. Jana, and I'll be using YOUR LOGIC to prove my point. The whole ideology of Pakistan, Islam, is completely foreign to Pakistan. There's nothing remotely Pakistani about it. Those who brought this Islam to Pakistan were not only outsiders to Pakistan, but were among the most ruthless and violent men that ever existed. They looted, plundered and raped with abandon, and they destroyed the civilization that existed, replacing it with their own imperialist ideology. Ironically, you worship those very same people as the "bringers of civilization". What a sad tragedy.

 

[PostColonial]

I am surprised to see you are equating Mughals (read Muslims) with the British. British never made Hindustan their home, they came on certain missions ordered by their government and then went back to their HOME in England. They were colonial masters only and they did not belong to our land.

But, the Mughals immigrated to this land and made it their HOME. Hindustan was and is their homeland. Mughals were not the only outsiders who made Hindustan their HOME. There were many others before and after the Arya immigrants came in and settled in Hindustan. If these outsiders are Hindustani, then certainly other non-Hindu groups, who also came from the same land to which the Aryas belonged, cannot be regarded as outsiders. No distinction should be made because of religion.

You are right of course, but I was replying to the previous comment, which is why I stated "If by outsiders YOU mean the British...etc". I was simply interpreting the previous post, and not giving my own views regarding whether the Mughals were outsiders or Indians.

However, the Mughals were of course foreign conquerers when the first came. But what I fail to understand is that why some Pakistanis are so eager to point this out, when clearly, the Mughals were outsiders with respect to Pakistan as well. They defeated the armies in the region of Pakistan first, before moving into India, so if anything, Pakistanis should be ashamed of this history (going by their own logic)

 

[PostColonial]

Sadly, some Pakistanis prefer to believe in self-serving myths like "Mughals brought civilization to India" or that "Islam helped to eradicate the caste system" etc. in order to prove their superiority.

The facts of course are that India was among the most technologically advanced regions on earth before the arrival of the Mughals. However, by the end of the Mughal rule, it had become among the most backward regions on the planet, and although it was fairly prosperous, it was terribly weakened in comparison to the rising European powers.

 

[TopCat]

Sadly, some Pakistanis prefer to believe in self-serving myths like "Mughals brought civilization to India" or that "Islam helped to eradicate the caste system" etc. in order to prove their superiority.

The facts of course are that India was among the most technologically advanced regions on earth before the arrival of the Mughals. However, by the end of the Mughal rule, it had become among the most backward regions on the planet, and although it was fairly prosperous, it was terribly weakened in comparison to the rising European powers.

Mugal did not rule the whole India in their entire tenure. I did not see any little England in the southern part of India where there were no Moguls and were completley ruled by Hindus. Even at the end of mogul and early british rule the current day Maharastra and punjab was under maratta rule for more than 200 years. They took those area 1000 years backward and were subject to frequent famine and millions died out of hunger.

Fantasy is good but that must have a limit.

 

[Khajur]

Mugal did not rule the whole India in their entire tenure. I did not see any little England in the southern part of India where there were no Moguls and were completley ruled by Hindus. Even at the end of mogul and early british rule the current day Maharastra and punjab was under maratta rule for more than 200 years. They took those area 1000 years backward and were subject to frequent famine and millions died out of hunger.

Fantasy is good but that must have a limit.

Blamiing marathas for famine remains as ur favorite fantasy...sorry iajdani ,india didnt suffer any major famines anywhere neither during the Mugal nor the maratha rule.

All famine occured after british asendancy in Bengal with the British presidency from 1760 onwards.

See how britishers are responsible for catastrofic famine ....

Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia