Mughal influence in India and Indian history

[Makaramarma]

And also we have few Muslim families of maldivean ancestry living around Trivandrum city...
Btw-Its not fair to tag all Indian Muslims as forced converts...Islam reached South India,specially in Kerala and Tamilnadu through peaceful means(barring some forced conversion during Tipu's reign)...

Open a new thread for that. Kapish ?

 

[Indian Patriot]

Once again 100% agreed, this is what happened

There was NO india it was different groups, kings etc and some jumped at the chance to ally with the big mughal power to dominate others

Kings allied with or against each other based on interests. Many small rajput kingdoms willingly became a part of Mughal empire because by doing so they were able to increase their wealth and prestige.

Concept of nation and nationalism did not exist then, for rajputs the Mughals and Marathas both were equally foreigners. A fort was a nation by itself, a larger geographical concept did not exist.

 

[Makaramarma]

Kings allied with or against each other based on interests. Many small rajput kingdoms willingly became a part of Mughal empire because by doing so they were able to increase their wealth and prestige.

Concept of nation and nationalism did not exist then, for rajputs the Mughals and Marathas both were equally foreigners. A fort was a nation by itself, a larger geographical concept did not exist.

LOL. Wrong again.

Most Rajput Kingdoms joined hands AGAINST the Mughals

 

[utraash]

They were Jihadis, not conquerors. Much hated Jihadis who tried to destroy Hindu civilization.

Akbar's Tower of Heads,

These sympathisers must appreciate the work of ISIS savages as they are also following same footprints of those Muslims invaders.... Lets wait few more generation when these sympathisers would leave no stone unturn to claim the contribution of isis savages to humanity ..... Wow ....

 

[Makaramarma]

These sympathisers must appreciate the work of ISIS savages as they are also following same footprints of those Muslims invaders.... Lets wait few more generation when these sympathisers would leave no stone unturn to claim the contribution of isis savages to humanity ..... Wow ....

For those spinning tales about Rajput slavery to Mughals, here is a reality check,

This treaty was agreed between Rana Amar Singh and prince Khurram in 1615.

• The Rana of Mewar accepted Mughal sovereignty.
• Mewar and the fort of Chittorgarh was returned to Rana.
• The fort of Chittorgarh could not be repaired or renovated by Rana.
• The Rana of Mewar would not attend the Mughal court personally. The crown prince of Mewar would attend the court and give himself and his army to the Mughals.
• It was not necessary for the Rana to establish a marriage alliance with the Mughals.

@Makaramarma might add why and how Muhammad bin Qasim met his end.

Was he a Mughal ?

 

[Indian Patriot]

Do you know why?

Because he claimed he was sending "virgins" to the caliph who later discovered to his horror they were not virgins. The girls alleged that they were raped by qasim. Folklore says that qasim did no such thing, the girls deliberately torn up their own hymens to put the blame on qasim.

The rest as I said, the caliph was furious and ordered qasim to be given a roller coaster ride inside a nail stuffed barrel.

These sympathisers must appreciate the work of ISIS savages as they are also following same footprints of those Muslims invaders.... Lets wait few more generation when these sympathisers would leave no stone unturn to claim the contribution of isis savages to humanity ..... Wow ....

And what about those sympathisers who are willing to justify and excuse the actions of those Indian kings who fought for mughals against Indian kings and watched as Hindu temples were destroyed? I am talking about those people who took up mansabdari and entered into matrimonial alliances.

You hate the Mughals but you justify the help given to the mughals by local kings.

 

[Makaramarma]

And what about those sympathisers who are willing to justify and excuse the actions of those Indian kings who fought for mughals against Indian kings and watched as Hindu temples were destroyed? I am talking about those people who took up mansabdari and entered into matrimonial alliances.

You hate the Mughals but you justify the help given to the mughals by local kings.

Like every other Hindu king under the Mughals, they bid their time when they could avenge themselves. Did not even take them 100 years

The enmity between Mewar and Mughals lasted for 88-year-long years, till the treat was signed.

 

[mooppan]

They are mostly in Gujarat, they were brought as slaves by the Gujarati sultans (non-Mughals). They are called siddis if I am not wrong.

Siddhis Muslims are there in South Indian state of Karnataka too..They were brought as slaves by the Portuguese from Africa..There are Christian/Hindu Siddhis too...

 

[Indian Patriot]

They were brought as slaves by the Portuguese from Africa..

I thought they were brought in by the Gujarati sultans.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Because he claimed he was sending "virgins" to the caliph who later discovered to his horror they were not virgins. The girls alleged that they were raped by qasim. Folklore says that qasim did no such thing, the girls deliberately torn up their own hymens to put the blame on qasim.

The rest as I said, the caliph was furious and ordered qasim to be given a roller coaster ride inside a nail stuffed barrel.



And what about those sympathisers who are willing to justify and excuse the actions of those Indian kings who fought for mughals against Indian kings and watched as Hindu temples were destroyed? I am talking about those people who took up mansabdari and entered into matrimonial alliances.

You hate the Mughals but you justify the help given to the mughals by local kings.

if might be that but let me share some information with you

Waleed Bin Abdul Malik was the caliph/ king when the Sindh conquest was planned. Qasim was his aspiring general (think of the movie Gladiator, beginning bit). and he was sent on the conquest.
Suleman Bin Abdul Malik was the crown prince. both were dating same woman I forgot her name. and Qasim had been bedding her already. Suleman saw him as a rival (both as politically and on the love side).
waleed passed out while Qasim was slaying and expanding his conquest.

obviously he was recalled, and some sham trial was made up and then there are different versions of tortures he suffered (tried and smoked in layers of date leaves etc) and eventually killed. obviously there was the issue of women as well. some Sindhis of today curse him for right or wrong reasons because he systematically destroyed the graves and tombs of Muslims saints who were revered by the local population, in short he did exactly something which brothers of his faith like TTP and ISIS are doing today, slaying, raping and blowing up shrines and other places of worship.

Was he a Mughal ?

I had to read twice until the penny dropped deleted my post now
sorry off topic post I got distracted by the question of the original poster.

 

[jaatram]

none taken and unfortunately it is true
nothing to be proud of.

the irony is. that it is claimed that he invaded Sindh

1. a captive Muslim girl sent a message to Governor Hijaj for help
2. Raja Dahir backed sea pirates were allegedly looting Muslim pilgrim ships


response to 1. : how did the message reached from the Muslim girl to Hijaj, did she text him, sent a pigeon or sent off a messenger? how many years ago did she send the message?

response to 2: not aware of any sea route of pilgrims going from India to Middle east to perform haj. so this claim is weak and bonkers.


re Hijaj, he was the Sadam of his time. with a history of brutal violence towards his subjects. I doubt if his heart melted over a cry of a woman captive when he had slain countless number of families himself.

you ahve quoted a very wrong person here. I rate Qasim same as I would rate any other raiders that looted India
there is nothing holy or saint about him. he came for political and economic reasons. just like Christian king Nijashi of Habsha gave refuge to Muslims in early times to save them from Mekkan persecutions. Raja Dahir also gave refuge to Muslim families that were persecuted , hunted and killed by the Muslim kings (called caliphs).

@Makaramarma might add why and how Muhammad bin Qasim met his end.


Do you know why?

Thank you for the detailed and informative reply.

 

[anonymus]

They were Jihadis, not conquerors. Much hated Jihadis who tried to destroy Hindu civilization.

Akbar's Tower of Heads,

Bottom one is of Allaudin Khilzi, not Akbar.

He bribed Brahmins to link his descent to the house of Mewar. He was a shudra originally.

He did not bribed any Brahmin.He was what we could call, an elevated Kshatriya.

In South India, most of Kshatriya clans are those which has been risen in caste due to their caste performing military service. If a caste (or before 1000CE , tribe) performed military service, that caste became Kshatriya. Caste system was frozen for an individual since 200BCE , but there was possibility of advancement of whole castes in caste system.

Pashtuns who converted to Hinduism are known as Rohilla Rajputs in India.

Did U understand what I said? I told Sindh Rajputs converted to Islam and the sizeable population of sindh refers to the fact

Majority of Sindhi and Baloch population at the start of millennium was Jat. Baloch, from whom province of Balochistan derives its name, started migration to Balochistan around start of millennium and that migration ended only 400 Years ago.

Rajputs were mainly feudatories of Gujara-Pratihars empire, therefore were concentrated in Rajasthan, but have substatial population in Gujarat,UP,Punjab,Jammu and MP too. Sindh had 20% Hindu population till Partition (even after being under muslim rule for 1200 Years ie longest in subcontinent), and there are no signs of Rajput converting en-mass there. Most of Muslim Rajputs were from Gujarat region.

While discussing demographics, changes due to migration must be kept in mind.

Rajputs after the fall of Delhi in 12 century were constrained to deserts of Rajasthan, It was Marathas who had the ambition to united all India. They might have fought Rajputs with this motive.

Marathas fought Rajputs when Rajputs were under Mughal banner. When Rajputs got independent after last few years/death of Aurangzeb, Marathas left them be except demand of chauth.

There is no instance of major war between Marathas and Rajput kingdoms who were independent.Though demand for tax did alienated Rajuts from Marathas.

There were NO Rajput in Akbars army when he attacked Chitor. His muslim commander killed 30,000 innocent men in one night. Surviving women sold to slavery.

Sikh pilgrims were captured by muslims too, not by Rajputs. Prove any of this IF you can.

Rajputs DID NOT convert, their women was taken to Akbar, but remained Hindus. It was Akbar who rejected Islam later on.

He+She could not prove anything.

RAjputs did fought a war against Marathas, but there is no genuine record of them fighting Sikhs. Only time Rajputs were ordered to march against sikhs, they marched so slowly that they arrived eight months late (After the war).

Even Sikhs do not blame Rajputs for any brutality against them. Sikhs of that era considered themselves to be another sect of Hindus. They become separate religion quite late.

RAJPUT-SIKH RELATIONS - In the times of Gurus [1469 - 1708]

 

[utraash]

A moron who claimed rajputs ruled India for 1200 years is by logic fake.

Even Mughals were not ruling entire northern India .... Many state were not conquered by these Muslim invaders ...

Read carefully n we are indebted to their sacrifices.....

Rani Karnavati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Garhwal Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Indian Patriot]

Even Mughals were not ruling entire northern India .... Many state were not conquered by these Muslim invaders ...

I will make it even easier for you. The Mughals never existed in India. The Taj Mahal is Tejo Mahalya, and Lal Qila is Lakshman Kriragarh.

 

[utraash]

Because he claimed he was sending "virgins" to the caliph who later discovered to his horror they were not virgins. The girls alleged that they were raped by qasim. Folklore says that qasim did no such thing, the girls deliberately torn up their own hymens to put the blame on qasim.

The rest as I said, the caliph was furious and ordered qasim to be given a roller coaster ride inside a nail stuffed barrel.



And what about those sympathisers who are willing to justify and excuse the actions of those Indian kings who fought for mughals against Indian kings and watched as Hindu temples were destroyed? I am talking about those people who took up mansabdari and entered into matrimonial alliances.

You hate the Mughals but you justify the help given to the mughals by local kings.

Just give me the name of one king who pillaged, created mountain of human skull or depopulated or desecrated the temples or took women as sex slaves after winning the territory from his rival king in battlefield?
Despite immense enmity among the hindu kingdoms local population was not massacred unlike the Muslims invaders including your barbaric Mughals ......
These heinous crimes were trademark of Mughals n co invaders.....
Btw in my eyes whoever helped were traitor of highest orders ....
Btw not every rajput clans helped Mughals to expand the empire..... Check the history before bracketing every rajputs into that category....
Before opening this thread you should be little ashamed of Mughals rampant barbarism .....
You can romanticize with such barbarians under the over glorified military prowess however any sane would say it is not important how the battle is won but how it is fought .... N same time you have lost any credibility to condemn the isis savages seeing overjoyed support to these moronic Mughals....