What's new

Mughal influence in India and Indian history

Not all Rajput kingdoms surrendered to the mughals. Some collaborated and some did not. I personally do consider Man Singh for example as a traitor.

All rajput kingdoms surrender. The Mughals did not physically occupy every fort. They let the rajputs keep their forts in exchange for tribute and servitude. The rajputs will have to be present in mughal court, obey mughal firmans and fight for the mughals when needed.
 
.
Rana sanga - Invites babur, a Mughal and foreigner to invade India. LOL!!

Rana Pratap - Flees from chittor leaving behind his subjects to die when Akbar lays down a siege. Pratap did not defend his fort for even one day. And again in haldighati pratap runs away from the battlefield leaving behind his men to die at the hands of the combined mughal+rajput army.

Some courage indeed.



LOL!! Amar singh surrenders to Shah Jahan?



How did he ensure the death of Mughals, by bitching and gossiping? Are you even conscious of what you are typing?



You are pathetic. Go and read history first.



The word harem may have been invented in mughal era. Don't tell me the Mauryas, Guptas etc. did not have a palace full of concubines.
rana Pratap fought for Chittor and he escaped at night after being cut off. As a guerilla leader that was his strategy.

No maurya or Gupta ruler built palaces to perpetuate an institution based on sexual slavery. That was through in throughout an Islamic phenomenon. Try harder to whitewash it next time.
 
.
Rana sanga - Invites babur, a Mughal and foreigner to invade India. LOL!!

Rana Pratap - Flees from chittor leaving behind his subjects to die when Akbar lays down a siege. Pratap did not defend his fort for even one day. And again in haldighati pratap runs away from the battlefield leaving behind his men to die at the hands of the combined mughal+rajput army.

Some courage indeed.

So now you are doubting the story of Rana Pratap ? :lol: ............. Why not read some history first ?

LOL!! Amar singh surrenders to Shah Jahan?


The surrender of Rana Amar Singh to Shah Jahan in 1614. We understand you are ignorant, but at least mak and attempt to sound informed. :P

2006bc7389_painting_submission.jpg


How did he ensure the death of Mughals, by bitching and gossiping? Are you even conscious of what you are typing?
You are pathetic. Go and read history first.

By surviving and ensure the Rajputs exited to protect Hinduism and Hindus. :coffee:
 
.
Personally only Akbar deserves my respect and Rest of Mughal Empire was the synthesis of Persian and Indian civilazion of thousands of years
 
.
Now this is borderline lunacy, and I have seen you throw a fit in most threads.

Do I know you?

If you lose a war, you do not have much of a choice. Barring a couple of loyal clans, Rajputs only stuck with Mughals as long as Mughals could overpower them.

They did not only stuck with the Mughals but they fought for the Mughals against other Indian kings.

And Farukhsiyar not only passed the firman but it was in effect as well. If you don't know history then ask rather than talking lies.
 
. .
All rajput kingdoms surrender. The Mughals did not physically occupy every fort. They let the rajputs keep their forts in exchange for tribute and servitude. The rajputs will have to be present in mughal court, obey mughal firmans and fight for the mughals when needed.
Nope. History fail there.
 
.
Namaste Levina Ji, aap kaisi ho? :D
doh-smiley.gif

This was your thread. I didnt realise. Lol
Religious intolerance erupted under Aurangzeb. The turks, afghans etc. had the same policy of jizyah for Hindus like the Mughals. In fact Akbar was the one who abolished jizyah.
To start with Babur was not a good muslim, as in he was a heavy drinker, and indulged in Hashish. Jahangir readopted Islam as the state religion and am sure there was a reason to do so. Jahangir provided the Sikhs with their first martyr when the guru Arjan was arrested (and tortured to death).
Then in 1632 Shah Jahan signaled an abrupt return to a stricter interpretation of Islam when he ordered that "all recently built Hindu temples shall be destroyed". Aurangzeb took religious intolerance to a new level.
I'm not saying Mughals did not contribute to India's culture and heritage, but the OP glorifies Mughals without touching the negative impact they had on India.
 
.
Truth about Fatehpur Sikri.

It has a massive defensive wall around it, enclosing redstone gateways and a majestic palace complex, explicitly in the Rajput style. It is the creation of these buildings and gateways that are accredited to Akbar. Fatehpur Sikri (or Fatehpur/Sikri) was an ancient independent principality before its occupation by the muslims. Testifying to this Todd says (p.240), " [Rana Sangram Singh] came to the Mewar throne in 1509 A.D. Eighty thousand horses, seven Rajas of the highest rank, nine Raos and 104 cheiftains, bearing the titles of Rawal and Rawut with 500 elephants follwed him into the field (against Babur). The princess of Marwar and Amber did him homage, and the Raos of Gwalior, Ajmer, *Sikri* ... served him as tributaries .." The above passage makes it clear that even during the reign of Akbar's grandfather Babur, Sikri was ruled by a "Rao", who owed allegiance to Rana Sangram Singh of Mewar. Another reference to Fatehpur Sikri is of the year 1405 (150 years before Akbar) when Ikbal Khan was killed and his head was sent to Fatehpur (E&D, p.40). Also it is stated (E&D, p.44) that Khizr Khan (the founder of Sayyad dynasty, 1500 A.D.) remained in *Fatehpur* and did not go to Delhi. Even Babur has stated that Agra and *Sikri* housed several palaces equally magnificent (E&D, p.223). These 15th century references will, for now, suffice to prove the existence of Fatehpur Sikri before even Akbar was born, and that the beautiful buildings were not built by Akbar.

The Red Fort of Agra, also originally of Rajput design and construction, was usurped by Akbar. However, an account says that Akbar demolished the fort in 1565, apparently for no reason, and constructed another in its place. Surprisingly, in 1566, Adham Khan was punished by being thrown down from the second storey of the royal apartments inside the fort! Keene (Handbook for Visitor's to Agra and Its Neighbourhood) quotes this rumour and casts a very pertinent doubt that is the fort was demolished in 1565, how is it possible for Akbar to stay there in 1566 and a man was flung down from the second story? Keene adds that even the foundation of the extensive fort could not have been complete within three years. Neither did Akbar demolish the fort, nor did he rebuild an entire structure. He simply comandeered the fort from its original inhabitants, and claimed to have been built by him.

Similarly, the palaces and mansions in Ajmer, Allahabad, Manoharpur and other townships were simply usurped by Akbar. He never ordered engineers and architects to build to build magnificent buildings. Testifying to this, Monserrate in his Commentarius (p.16) remarks, ".. musalmans whose nature is indeed that of barbarians, take no interest in such things (erecting massive and ornate buildings and townships). Their chronicles being scanty and unreliable and full of old wives tales..." The fraudulent claims that Akbar designed and built these monuments are fabricated stories written by muslim chroniclers toadying for Akbar's favours.
 
. .
So now you are doubting the story of Rana Pratap ? :lol: ............. Why not read some history first ?

So what does your history teach you, pratap fought to his last drop of blood at chittor and won the battle of haldighati?

The surrender of Rana Amar Singh to Shah Jahan in 1614. We understand you are ignorant, but at least mak and attempt to sound informed.

Other than the historically recorded fact of amar singh surrendering to Akbar.

Amar Singh, 1559-1620

Shah Jahan, 1594-1666

Did Amar singh surrender to a diaper wearing Shah Jahan?

By surviving and ensure the Rajputs exited to protect Hinduism and Hindus

The same Hindus that the rajputs were fighting against in the deccan and Assam? LOL!!

And how would the rajputs "protect" Hinduism by surrendering to Mughals? If Hindus exist in north India today then it is only because of Sikhs. The rajputs had converted to Islam en masse. Do you know who the founder of Pakistan is?
 
.
Still, coming from a family of no culture, born into a supremacist religion, it does take courage to do what he tried to do. His grandson Dara would be beheaded for that. Commendable.

His wives, slaves and harem girls were Hindus. So it was only natural that all that will rub off on him.

Hardly a credit to his intellectual integrity. He tried and failed.
 
. .
Do I know you?

You are a known clown on this forum. Your rantings in sport column are an testament to that.



They did not only stuck with the Mughals but they fought for the Mughals against other Indian kings.

And Farukhsiyar not only passed the firman but it was in effect as well. If you don't know history then ask rather than talking lies.

It is you who do not know much about history and braying like someone who is on periods. You did not even knew that that Firman was specifically for Bengal, not whole of India.

Farruksiyar gave a Firman, but that firman was not honoured by Mughal governor of Bengal (Murshid Quli Khan, Ever heard his name).I could give a Firman or a decree to walmart to open stores without paying any tax, it is not worth its weight in $hit, if I can't enforce it.
 
.
To start with Babur was not a good muslim, as in he was a heavy drinker, and indulged in Hashish. Jahangir readopted Islam as the state religion and am sure there was a reason to do so. Jahangir provided the Sikhs with their first martyr when the guru Arjan was arrested (and tortured to death).
Then in 1632 Shah Jahan signaled an abrupt return to a stricter interpretation of Islam when he ordered that "all recently built Hindu temples shall be destroyed". Aurangzeb took religious intolerance to a new level.
I'm not saying Mughals did not contribute to India's culture and heritage, but the OP glorifies Mughals without touching the negative impact they had on India.

Hindus were persecuted by Hindus as well. And I am not talking only about the Dalits.

Rajputs refused to send an envoy to attend Shivaji bhosale's coronation because for the rajputs Shivaji was a low-caste.

Yes the Mughals destroyed temples, but why were Hindu rajputs serving in the army of emperors who destroy temples? Why blame only mughals and give a clean chit to the rajputs who served the mughals loyally for so many decades?
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom