What's new

Is Pakistan the heir to the Mughals?

Is Pakistan the heir to the Mughals?


  • Total voters
    92
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Mughal were just a family under power how can it even relate to anything in modern Pakistan ?
culture!
No, but if so then Pakistan is an heir to Alexander the great too.
Alexander didnt leave his culture or bloodline here
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.
 
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.
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
 
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.
 
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). :lol: :lol:
 
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.
 
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.

IMG_20220219_003054.jpg
 
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?
 
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. :p:

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

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

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom