If Mughals did not loot India, what exactly was their contribution to India?

[Chhatrapati]

Honey Akbar was the perversion not Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb only tried to save the empire using religion as a last resort. It went all downhill after that.

You are reading propaganda material and too out loud.

Question to you however is: Why is it relevant in 2019? Any chance you Moslem?

Today he is the perversion for Islamist coz he is an apostate in a way. But Akbar had the most stable empire so far among Mughals. While Aurangazeb led his empire to doom. We have a free internet it bypass any propaganda.

 

[El Sidd]

Today he is the perversion for Islamist coz he is an apostate in a way. But Akbar had the most stable empire so far among Mughals. While Aurangazeb led his empire to doom. We have a free internet it bypass any propaganda.

Honey Akbar slaughtered like crazy and out of fun till a Muslim told him to stop and listen to your subjects.

And its not about today dear thats why i asked if you are a muslim and from south. Muslims invalidated his perversion on the same day he started going retard.

So instead of clinging to the past and hoping for its repeat. Evolve otherwise humans will leave you behind

 

[Chhatrapati]

Honey Akbar slaughtered like crazy and out of fun till a Muslim told him to stop and listen to your subjects.

And its not about today dear thats why i asked if you are a muslim and from south. Muslims invalidated his perversion on the same day he started going retard.

So instead of clinging to the past and hoping for its repeat. Evolve otherwise humans will leave you behind

haha, I didn't say Akbar was an angel. I simply said, he had the most stable empire among Mughals. Later ones were short and was marred in internal power struggles, brothers killing each other etc...

It doesn't matter if I'm a muslim or not, this has nothing to do with my beliefs. My answer is to why Akbar is not as revered as say Aurangzeb, is because of his alleged apostasy. I simply tagged you because I read your previous posts about it, but you didn't mention it here.

 

[El Sidd]

haha, I didn't say Akbar was an angel. I simply said, he had the most stable empire among Mughals. Later ones were short and was marred in internal power struggles, brothers killing each other etc...

It doesn't matter if I'm a muslim or not, this has nothing to do with my beliefs. My answer is to why Akbar is not as revered as say Aurangzeb, is because of his alleged apostasy. I simply tagged you because I read your previous posts about it, but you didn't mention it here.

He had an expanding empire. So that made it stable i guess. War economy. As far as killing brothers is concerned, this was practiced during that time throughout the world. Selective much !!! Now throw in lack of modern communication.

Aurangzeb is revered by Muslims and they are a tiny majority in the sub continent now as well as they were back then.

Are you done?

 

[Tom M]

Sorry, I didn't bother to read the full article TBH.

But I think baring Babar and his followers, all other Mugals were very much Indian as all of them where born and brought up here and their contribution to Indian society especially north India is immense. Especially the architecture, culture and cusine. Akbar even found his own religion which was a revolutionary idea of the time but ill accepted I guess. So yes, they were very much Indian like our Martha's, Sikhs or even Sultan Tipu.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

@Retired Troll my friend,

Are you, by some design, trying to stop India becoming a Hindu democracy?

If it is so... surely it will fail. The new constituition of India is ready.

Will to Power... you should know your countryman said so...

Looking forward to your anthropological answer.

Mangus

 

[Chhatrapati]

He had an expanding empire. So that made it stable i guess. War economy. As far as killing brothers is concerned, this was practiced during that time throughout the world. Selective much !!! Now throw in lack of modern communication.

Aurangzeb is revered by Muslims and they are a tiny majority in the sub continent now as well as they were back then.

Are you done?

This is not a discussion about "The World". It's about Mughals, the discussion is selective, genius.

So is Shah Jahan, Jehangir. I didn't know Aurangzeb was your personal favorite.

Akbar even found his own religion which was a revolutionary idea of the time but ill accepted I guess.

You don't say

 

[El Sidd]

@Retired Troll my friend,

Are you, by some design, trying to stop India becoming a Hindu democracy?

If it is so... surely it will fail. The new constituition of India is ready.

Will to Power... you should know your countryman said so...

Looking forward to your anthropological answer.

Mangus

My countrymen have chosen Peace and they have chosen the path to Educate our Enemy.

We get to dictate the biggest democracy on the face of Earth.

Destiny however has chosen an implosion over explosion as beautifully documented in the Mahabharata.

This is not a discussion about "The World". It's about Mughals, the discussion is selective, genius.

So is Shah Jahan, Jehangir. I didn't know Aurangzeb was your personal favorite.

Honey personally to me all of them were invaders. But i will not pick and choose among them as favorites.

I am just defending all of them like i support all evil. Stated policy dear.

 

[Chhatrapati]

@Vapnope Mughals couldn't loot India, they were kings centered around India. They were not part of a foreign empire. Unlike the British. The thread/article title is stupid

 

[El Sidd]

Sorry, I didn't bother to read the full article TBH.

But I think baring Babar and his followers, all other Mugals were very much Indian as all of them where born and brought up here and their contribution to Indian society especially north India is immense. Especially the architecture, culture and cusine. Akbar even found his own religion which was a revolutionary idea of the time but ill accepted I guess. So yes, they were very much Indian like our Martha's, Sikhs or even Sultan Tipu.

So Mughals were Indian?

No wonder you built a library in Afghanistan.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Honey personally to me all of them were invaders. But i will not pick and choose among them as favorites.

I am just defending all of them like i support all evil. Stated policy dear.

The whole world is invaders from "somewhere from Africa".

Good for you.

 

[El Sidd]

@Vapnope Mughals couldn't loot India, they were kings centered around India. They were not part of a foreign empire. Unlike the British. The thread/article title is stupid

and they spoke fluent Sanskrit and dressed alike?

You are writing in English as an Indian. Why dont you just claim Mountbattens real name was MaruthiBaoUddin.

Gheez man !! have some self respect

The whole world is invaders from "somewhere from Africa".

Good for you.

If you start claiming every invader as Indian, why not just say Alexander was AlokSinha

 

[faithfulguy]

@Vapnope Mughals couldn't loot India, they were kings centered around India. They were not part of a foreign empire. Unlike the British. The thread/article title is stupid

Yes Mughals civilized India. Indians lost their culture and civilization.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Yes Mughals civilized India. Indians lost their culture and civilization.

I didn't know the exemplary works done to civilization. Could you elaborate?

and they spoke fluent Sanskrit and dressed alike?

You are writing in English as an Indian. Why dont you just claim Mountbattens real name was MaruthiBaoUddin.

Gheez man !! have some self respect

What are you trying to say R.Troll?

Mughals are basically Indian Kings. Are they not? Their forefathers may have been invaders, but there are no Mughal kingdom outside the subcontinent. I rest my case.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Okay. Okay. So in 2019 we struggle to document the Pakistani economy, nobody pays taxes as they hide their income, thus what exactly is size of Pakistan economy is open to debate. But this cnut knows exactly the size of the economy 1,000 years ago. Exactly where did he get that figure? Did he pull it out of his a*ss.

And wait a minute. Was there even a india in 1000 AD? Map below is capture of what South Asia looked like in 1000 AD. It's not even united into one state. There is no India. So this figure is it for Sindh? Malwa? Chola? Chandra? Solanki? Safarids? Chandela? Please somebody tell me where is this 'India' that apparently was 28.9% of the world economy? And exactly who did the enumeration? Was World Bank around then collating trade figures for all these entities?

Racists and regional supremacists like you are one of the biggest enemies of Muslims.

By your logic NO COUNTRY other than European nationalities ever existed. Even there Germany, France, Italy etc never existed. only Normandy., Flanders, Venezia, Bavaria etc did. Your logic dictates there was no Iran, just small tribes.

Ideology binds people. Islam bound a single nation together from Morocco to India. Regional differences are secondary and do not discount the formation of a nation.

I didn't know the exemplary works done to civilization. Could you elaborate?


What are you trying to say R.Troll?

Mughals are basically Indian Kings. Are they not? Their forefathers may have been invaders, but there are no Mughal kingdom outside the subcontinent. I rest my case.

Works of civilization?

How about monuments?

what monuments did Indians have before?
Art?
Science?
Weapons?
Technology?

How about social equity?
Women's rights?
peace?

I can go on and on.