Do i even need to quote baburnama, what he says about indians and india? He mentions the poverty, backwardness and lack of gardens and proper infrastructure in india...he mentions that it is lagging behind afghanistan and that his mughal troops want to return back to afghanistan.
1. Babur was a Birlas Turk, who invaded India in order to seek refuge from his arch rivals, the Uzbeks from the North. He hailed from up north (lived in Samarqand, than ruled in Kabul, for some time in Herat etc) , hence was acclimatized to colder weather and a culture vastly different from those living in Indian subcontinent. Same was true for his troops, hence invading Indian subcontinent, and calling it home was not a picnic.
2.
Babur nama is kind of Babur's autobiography, dictated by himself and written by his appointed scribes. Hence,
Babur nama is not an independent, and unbiased/neutral historical account.
Babur nama shows you things from the perspective of a ruler, and not from the sight of a commoner. His dislike for India is understandable, especially in the context that unlike his predecessors, he did not invade India for mere looting and plundering, but to seek refuge, and to call it home against his will.
3. As mentioned above,
Babur nama is not an independent historical account, but even if we consider its accounts correct, the blame of poverty, backwardness, and lack of gardens, proper infrastructures goes to whom? Who was ruling the Delhi throne before Babur? It was Ibrahim Lodi. Lodis ruled Delhi sultante for the whole 75 years (1451-1526). Guess what, Lodis hailed from Afghanistan, and were Pashtoon.
4. You mentioned India lagging behind of Afghanistan... first of all, there is no historical proof (see points later in this post), but even if we agree on it for a while, question remains which Afghanistan? One that was ruled by the southern/south easterners (Pashtoon tribes) or the one ruled by the northerners (that include Uzbeks, Tajiks, Tatars, Mongols). Answer is, Afghanistan ruled by the northerners, who have always been more educated and civilized compared to southern/south eastern Afghans).
5. Historically, there is simply no comparison between the civilizations of the Indian subcontinent, and that of central Asia. Central Asians have produced great warriors, but no civilizations. They had a nomadic lifestyle, a hunter-gatherer society; hence they did not establish cities. There was only a brief period of time when Ameer Temur established his dynasty in and around Samarqand, and a civilization was born, which unfortunately lasted for less than 100 years. Civilizations come and go, but they leave behind great monuments, as evidence of their existence. Such monuments can be seen in Indian subcontinent, in Samarqand/Bokhara, in Persia, in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in South America, but not in Afghanistan.
6. Those such as in Bamian, are located in the Northern Afghanistan, and there exists nothing in the southern Afghanistan, where Pashtoons hail from. Which suggests that southern Afghanistan never had any civilizations, thanks to the inter-tribal, inter-clan rivalries, and their resistance towards education, and learning.
Where the hell have you been ? Unfotunately , lights gone !! Where do you live where one gets no Internet ?
