What's new

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

SecularNationalist

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 21, 2015
7,064
-7
11,128
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Zahid Hamid is a Pakistani politician and has nothing to do with the Mughal dynasty. His family was as good a Mughal subject as was mine. Can I also claim a part of Red Fort or TajMahal?

Only the descendants of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar can claim anything that belonged to that family.
No no I think you got confused with the Zahid Hamid who was minister in noora government.
Search lal topi on Google to get the true claimant of red fort :lol:
 

Tshering22

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 19, 2010
18,433
4
21,605
Country
India
Location
Canada
Please learn that in historical times dynasties expanded and then lost throughout the world. India is no exception. If you think Mughals and before them in Muslim time, the Turkic and then the Pathans from the west of India all were foreigners, then how about the Aryans who also came and settled in the north and NW India in scores?

So, being a Sudra Hindu yourself, are you going to call them foreigners? Please keep historical ups and downs in their proper perspectives and don't mix them with religion.

No Muslim Sultan/ Badshah was ever an Islamic preacher. They were rulers like others. But, the Aryan Hindus segregated the Hindu society and imposed JATPAT on the local Sudra inhabitants who were your forefathers.

And if you are from the NE, you can rest assured that the main Indian Hindu society takes you as lower than the lowest of Sudras living in the west of BD.

Eh... Sudras? What?

Bruh... :what: . I think you are really mixed up about different here.

What has Sikkim or the entire NE got to do with this post? Why the hell are you digressing?

Look, like I said before, you guys have some identity thingy with the Mughals because they converted your ancestors. Your problem. Not ours.
We were never a part of the Mughals and our ancestors gave them that piece of mind every time they crossed the plains & tried to step into the hills and mountain kingdoms. So we have no kinship with them of any sort except as enemies. That's about it. Also, you can clearly see from the post of other Indian members of all hues here,that even they are not thrilled about these invaders either.

Coming back to the point of this post, As per the Indian laws, this woman whether she is a descendant of Mughals or not, gets nothing. The same way as hundreds of ex-royals of India get nothing today except whatever immediate businesses they run.

If you are so keen to give her something, please help her out in your own good capacity.
 

Comrade bhartiya

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jul 8, 2021
88
0
76
Country
India
Location
India
we owe her a pension and good cloths( she is a old woman , that's why ) under vriddh pension yojna , and medical care under ayushman Bharat yojana other than that nothing .
K
But Indians regularly claim India is a highly secular country.

But anyway, Mughals were the sovereign of our three countries. All those so-called Nawabs and Rajas were under their sovereignty. In the1857 Sepoy revolt, the Muslim and Hindu leaders of the revolt accepted the suzerainty of the Delhi Mughal.

But the dynasty lost all its power to the rebels led by the British and was sent to Burma on a bullock cart and was forced to live on a Khatia in a cottage.

This family was not like others. Other Rajas or Nawabs were not sovereign but the Mughal was. So, there is a distinction between these two groups. This family must be compensated. Earnings from the Tajmahal should be awarded to them.
Kek ,, I agree
Even Maratha keep the mughals titular heads for the brief period they ruled over North
 

Tshering22

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 19, 2010
18,433
4
21,605
Country
India
Location
Canada
we owe her a pension and good cloths( she is a old woman , that's why ) under vriddh pension yojna , and medical care under ayushman Bharat yojana other than that nothing .
K

That's what I keep telling here. I don't know what's some of the members' problem here. They have been bringing up everything from AIT to northeast, to Sudra and whatever in between, making an argument that Mughals were Indians.

Kek ,, I agree
Even Maratha keep the mughals titular heads for the brief period they ruled over North

We have had thousands of royals that are descended from ancient dynasties today. Despite explaining a dozen times that all royal properties are under Government of India, they don't understand. To them secular = hand over the country to Mughal descendants. :lol:
 

Tshering22

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 19, 2010
18,433
4
21,605
Country
India
Location
Canada
They had all the money, they enjoyed life you see .
To read more about luxurious life of the mughals
Read the book " The mughal empire at war ".
M

Mugahls were indianised , kek
Look at their faces of rulers , you will see stark difference between early mughals and later mughals
Akbar had thin moustache while aurnagzaib had beard
I visited the grave of aurnagzaib few years back in khuldabad Maharashtra

It's a sobering experience , you see
The man ruled length and bredth of the subcontinent , now lays in a grave , simple as it can get
Such a pity you may feel , atleast he lays with his son azam and favorite concubine also whose tombs are nearby.

Fun fact: They never ruled the Northeast or the mountain kingdoms in the region nor several parts of the country down south. So they had nothing to do with us mountain folks, except as enemies long time ago.

Apart from that you can love whoever you want. Not modern India's concern.
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
15,006
0
16,319
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
No no I think you got confused with the Zahid Hamid who was minister in noora government.
Search lal topi on Google to get the true claimant of red fort :lol:
I have checked and found nothing of that sort of relationship with the Mughals. However, anyone related to that dynasty may take part of the compensation. I have read that there are some others living in India whose ancestors just left the Palace before the British troops arrived.

They are better off than Bedar Bakht and his son who are the direct descendent of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. All the descendants win if the Supreme Court verdict is in favor of Sultana Begum.

I personally would be happy if the GoI paid them a little monetary compensation.
 

Warking

FULL MEMBER
Aug 12, 2021
214
0
211
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Mughals deserved this for their ignorance and pleasure seeking. She shouldn't be treated like royalty lmao.
 
Last edited:

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
15,006
0
16,319
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
Mughals deserved this for their ignorance and pleasure seeking. She shouldn't be treated like royalty lmao.
Did our forefathers had lost the war of independence in 1857 only because the very old Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was womanizing at the age of 82?

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

1641162392819.png
 

Azadkashmir

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 10, 2012
8,697
-2
10,760
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
These people only understand the language of power. Period. That is their fundamental psyche, since centuries.

it is their stupidity that is to be feared they like to blame all their downfall on others without looking internally for failures, for e.g cow dung urine drinking etc, worshiping cows etc yet treating them like kings when they can treat the animal good and eat it too. They blame muslim for beef eating etc but india is the biggest beef exporter.
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,284
14
5,284
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Present-day India is the successor of British India. So, Delhi should pay the compensation.

I have to mention, I love your presence of mind in the conscious recognition of "successor of British India", making it clear there was no Indian nation before 1947, it only came into existence in 1947 as a creation of the British.
If there were no British, there would be no India.
 

KedarT

FULL MEMBER
Feb 25, 2021
522
-2
502
Country
India
Location
India
Present-day India is the successor of British India. So, Delhi should pay the compensation.

THE CONSTITUTION (TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1971

[28th December, 1971.]

An Act further to amend the Constitution of India.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:---

1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Constitution (Twenty-sixty Amendment) Act, 1971.

2. Omission of articles 291 and 362.-Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution shall be omitted.

3. Insertion of new article 363A.-After article 363 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted, namely:---

"363A.Recognition granted to Rulers of Indian States to cease and privy purses to be abolished.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution or in any law for the time being in force-

(a) The Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler;

(b) on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse.".

4. Amendment of article 366.-In article 366 of the Constitution, for clause (22), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-

`(22) "Ruler" means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler;'.
I have to mention, I love your presence of mind in the conscious recognition of "successor of British India", making it clear there was no Indian nation before 1947, it only came into existence in 1947 as a creation of the British.
If there were no British, there would be no India.
Point being?
I personally would be happy if the GoI paid them a little monetary compensation.
Maybe BD should invite her and her family, and then they can bring a re-emergence of the Mughal dynasty with the capital being Dhaka.

I'm surprised she and her family hasn't been invited to BD/Pakistan already since you believe that you are the successor states of Mughals? You can even ask Turkey to colonize your country to show your loyalty to the Turks.

And btw, there are so many errors in your previous posts that I don't even want to bother correcting them.
 
Last edited:

KedarT

FULL MEMBER
Feb 25, 2021
522
-2
502
Country
India
Location
India
Did our forefathers had lost the war of independence in 1857 only because the very old Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was womanizing at the age of 82?

Are not you living in a surreal world influenced by the Indians (read Hindus)?
Bahadur Shah Zafar was a good poet, a man of good taste in arts but wasn't a good leader. The rebellion was led by the sepoys and not by Zafar. The Mughals had surrendered to the British long before 1857
 

Comrade bhartiya

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jul 8, 2021
88
0
76
Country
India
Location
India
Bahadur Shah Zafar was a good poet, a man of good taste in arts but wasn't a good leader. The rebellion was led by the sepoys and not by Zafar. The Mughals had surrendered to the British long before 1857
Suck up to them , good for you
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom