Rise of the Mughal Empire and the Reign of Akbar the Great DOCUMENTARY

[StormBreaker]

ULTIMATELY THE MUGHAL ARE ANCESTORS of the modern day Uzbeks and Turkmeinstan people.

They have no relation to most Pakistanis WHO are Punjabis in majority

AS THE VEDIO suggest Mughals CAME FROM CENTRAL ASIA

Actually, No.

Mughals interbred with locals and hence we have hybrids residing in masses amongst us.

MIRZA ASLAM BAIG

 

[Asian.Century]

For an Indian Hindu, just in past 1200 years history, since Muslim rule over the entire region from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan to whole of India and Bangladesh, it was one Muslim ruler fighting to expand over other Muslim rulers, the Hindus and Sikhs were just not good enough to fight big Muslim Islamic armies, the Hindus were a side show fearful of getting looted, the India Hindu mind will stay stuck in its narrowness, defeatist mindset, it was not Paktoon Army, nor Punjabi Army, or nor Sindhi Army, or the Punjabi Greatest General of recent times COAS Raheel Sharif, who is now the boss of Arab armies. LoL, or Ayub Khan Pathan General, that these Hindu idiots will even consider, the fact is a Muslim is a Muslim belonging to one Islamic religion belief in Allah that ruled over in collective of 1000 years over you Indian Hindus, Sikhs etc, extending their Empires century after century, that amalgamation is a result of those is "creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan", and it was the same ISI which liberated the Central Asian States :

If it was an Hindu Indian, he would say Afghanistan had foreign invaders from Central Asia that ruled over Afghanistan for over 300 years, but for Muslim and Afghans, it is same one Ummah Concept that it the spread of Islam that matters, Empires come and go, just as Pakistan is a Nuke power holding the biggest and strongest Armies in Islamic World.

Like one big Muslim Army Empire fighting the other one big Muslim Army, looting the war bounties yes killing local Muslims along due to wars, but two big powers fighting for power, the little fearful Hindus, or Sikhs just watched the side show, and had no power to fight them and create huge empires and kingdoms. Infact Hindus could not ever come and rule over the current Punjab, KPK, Baluchistan etc.

 

[El Sidd]

Actually, No.

Mughals interbred with locals and hence we have hybrids residing in masses amongst us.

MIRZA ASLAM BAIG

Mughals were Turkmen, Turkish, Persian and Afghans.

They should be Afghanistan's, Central Asian States, Turkish and Iranian to discuss. None of them seem to care so to just drag the convo Pakistanis talk for the Mughals.

 

[Baghial]

This guy Akbar was the worst of all kings of Mughals, a traitor kind of personality, the person who damaged the interest of the Muslims of his kingdom the most. The only Mughal king who was worth of respect was Aurangzeb Alamgir, the true warrior and before someone says he did this or that to his family members, I don't give a **** about what he did to his family members, in old times when you were a King you had to do be tough and do some crazy things here and there to consolidate your power and prove your dominance over your rivals.

the only one worth was amir timur............

 

[StormBreaker]

Mughals were Turkmen, Turkish, Persian and Afghans.

They should be Afghanistan's, Central Asian States, Turkish and Iranian to discuss. None of them seem to care so to just drag the convo Pakistanis talk for the Mughals.

Mujhe ye Baig log ache nai lagte, Apas ki bat hai

 

[Robbie]

As if ythe marathas didn't make it hindu vs muslim as well, they even destroyed their own hindu temple, siringiri temple is an example of that, what about vijayanagar empire, who when invading the muslim kingdoms butchered muslims ruthlessly and destroyed their mosques.

regards

I think you're being a little adamant here and not grasping something that is, in essence, rather simple. As the largest empire in India at the time and for many generations before, Mughals were the pole against which other kingdoms competed and compared. What they did was visible and set the benchmarks. Because one ruler here or one ruler there did something else, did not matter and was not half as visible as what Mughals did.

Akbar understood the situation clearly and that is why he was, more or less, benign on religious issues and cemented ties with other kingdoms strategically. That laid the foundations of the longevity of the Mughals.

This part is important for you to understand: In times of, let's say, Akbar, a Hindu in Awadh most likely would not have supported someone opposing Mughals but Aurangzeb through his actions made sure that Hindus across the country knew that their religion was under persecution and so they had to support Shivaji. This is why Shivaji got support from Hindus bang in the middle of the Mughal empire - helped him escape, provided other support. This support led Aurangzeb to further persecute Hindus and temples which led to even more rebellions.

Even today, if you go to Kashi and many temple towns, the locals will share their ancestor's stories about how they built their houses and entire colonies so close to each other to the point that it's hard for one man to walk straight. Just so that Aurangzeb's army's horses, carriageways and soldiers could not pass through.

This is history and academics. There's no passion here, just reflection.

I don't care to indulge in labels of 'religious bigots' or anything of the sort. At the end of the day, Aurangzeb did not understand why Akbar did what he did. He went on a temple destroying spree and acted against Hindu holy places. He killed Sikh guru and waged war against the other kingdoms. Essentially his actions led to a consciousness amongst Hindus and Sikhs, across India, of the need to stand against the Mughals.

He changed the 'destroy temples because of war or politics' narrative of the Mughals to 'destroy temples because it's Hindu/Sikh' narrative and so laid the very foundations of why Mughals were eventually wiped out.

That is why I am perplexed on why Pakistanis adorn Aurangzeb so much when he led to the demise of the empire they are fond of. Perhaps, that admiration is what leads most Pakistanis to not realize that the political and religious landscape(or social contract) that Aurangzeb changed(relative to earlier Mughals) led to the demise of the Mughal empire in its entirety.

 

[El Sidd]

Mujhe ye Baig log ache nai lagte, Apas ki bat hai

asslame beg zinda hai?

 

[Pakistani E]

Practically no ruler of India has any connection with concurrent Pakistan. However, they do need to build some kind of mythology, so they borrow and try to claim Indians, Afghans, Central Asians, etc.

What are you on about? I thought Indians and Pakistanis are the same people and we all use to sing kumbaya together, around a fire circle, semi naked? Why can't we claim Mughals just like Microsoft tech support Arjun from Bengaluru can?

 

[Robbie]

What are you on about? I thought Indians and Pakistanis are the same people and we all use to sing kumbaya around a fire circle semi naked? Why can't we claim Mughals just like Microsoft tech support Arjun from Bengaluru can?

Ethnically? Yeah. Punjabis and Sindhis are the same. But India is a subcontinent - there are shared ethnic ties with almost all of our neighbours - from Myanmar to Pakistan. Arjun from Bengaluru can because he shares the same country even if he is not from the North Indian region. Its why a North Indian can claim the excellent Sangam literature in South India (Tamil Nadu).

The problem with claiming anything is that they never ruled from Pakistani territory or were of Pakistani origin. The logic is pretty straight forward and why Bangladeshis don't claim Mughals or Tipu Sultan or the likes. Its because they have heroes of their own. Pakistanis don't - thus the need to reference Arab, Central Asian or Indian figures.

 

[Pakistani E]

Ethnically? Yeah. Punjabis and Sindhis are the same. But India is a subcontinent - there are shared ethnic ties with almost all of our neighbours - from Myanmar to Pakistan. Arjun from Bengaluru can because he shares the same country even if he is not from the North Indian region. Its why a North Indian can claim the excellent Sangam literature in South India (Tamil Nadu).

The problem with claiming anything is that they never ruled from Pakistani territory or were of Pakistani origin. The logic is pretty straight forward and why Bangladeshis don't claim Mughals or Tipu Sultan or the likes. Its because they have heroes of their own. Pakistanis don't - thus the need to reference Arab, Central Asian or Indian figures.

You don't make any sense at all. Punjabis and Sindhis are the same ethnic group? Are you high? What ethnic ties does Arjun share with Aurengzeb?

Mughals didn't rule over any territory of modern day Pakistan? Have you heard of Lahore?

What is your logic?

 

[Robbie]

You don't make any sense at all. Punjabis and Sindhis are the same ethnic group? Are you high? What ethnic ties does Arjun share with Aurengzeb?

Mughals didn't rule over any territory of modern day Pakistan? Have you heard of Lahore?

What is your logic?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I said majority of Pakistanis (Punjabis, Sindhis) share ethnic ties with India. I did not say that Punjabis and Sindhis are the same ethnic group.

Arjun (from Bengaluru) is today in the same country that Aurangzeb ruled from (Delhi). Arjun, therefore, does have a right. Abdul from Rawalpindi does not. He fails the two tests:
1. Mughals rule from any part of what is currently Pakistan (note: I am saying rule from (i.e. capital) not rule areas of)
2. Mughals did not originate from any part of what is currently Pakistan

The only ruler Pakistan can legitimately claim is Ranjit Singh. No one else. It's the same logic that when Pakistanis say 'we' ruled Spain, the Arabs are perplexed about what the Pakistani is high on.

 

[Pakistani E]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I said majority of Pakistanis (Punjabis, Sindhis) share ethnic ties with India. I did not say that Punjabis and Sindhis are the same ethnic group.

Arjun (from Bengaluru) is today in the same country that Aurangzeb ruled from (Delhi). Arjun, therefore, does have a right. Abdul from Rawalpindi does not. He fails the two tests:
1. Mughals rule from any part of what is currently Pakistan (note: I am saying rule from (i.e. capital) not rule areas of)
2. Mughals did not originate from any part of what is currently Pakistan

If majority of Pakistanis share ethnic ties with India, then they can claim Mughals as their own, just like the Indians can, through shared history.

Lahore was for a period of time, the capital of the Mughal empire, and significant chunk of modern day Pakistan was a part of their empire. Again, you are not making any sense.

 

[Robbie]

If majority of Pakistanis share ethnic ties with India, then they can claim Mughals as their own, just like the Indians can, through shared history.

Lahore was for a period of time, the capital of the Mughal empire, and significant chunk of modern day Pakistan was a part of their empire. Again, you are not making any sense.

Just because they share ethnic ties does not mean they can claim Indian history or Mughals. If that were the case, then Myanmar can lay claim to Mughals or any Indian history because India shares ethnic ties with almost all neighbours.

Pakistanis can claim anything they want including (Ottomans, Spain or Tipu Sultan) and they frequently do. Whether any of those claims have legitimacy or not is a different question. The Mughal seat of power was not in Pakistan. The Mughals did not originate from Pakistan. Just because they ruled parts of Pakistan does not mean Pakistan can claim heritage from Mughals.

The point I was making was that since Pakistan lacks its own son-of-the-soil heroes, it needs to appropriate other's heritage to build its national pantheon and mythology. Others, like Bangladesh, have their own heroes so they don't need to resort to this.

 

[Pakistani E]

Just because they share ethnic ties does not mean they can claim Indian history or Mughals. If that were the case, then Myanmar can lay claim to Mughals or any Indian history because India shares ethnic ties with almost all neighbours.

Pakistanis can claim anything they want including (Ottomans, Spain or Tipu Sultan) and they frequently do. Whether any of those claims have legitimacy or not is a different question. The Mughal seat of power was not in Pakistan. The Mughals did not originate from Pakistan. Just because they ruled parts of Pakistan does not mean Pakistan can claim heritage from Mughals.

The point I was making was that since Pakistan lacks its own son-of-the-soil heroes, it needs to appropriate other's heritage to build its national pantheon and mythology. Others, like Bangladesh, have their own heroes so they don't need to resort to this.

So first you set up arbitrary "tests" that Pakistanis must meet before they can claim the Mughal empire, and then when these tests don't suit your needs you throw them away and invent new goal posts to make your point.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Like you said, Pakistanis have the right to take for heroes whoever they like. Why does it bother an Indian so much who Pakistanis take as heroes though?

 

[Robbie]

So first you set up arbitrary "tests" that Pakistanis must meet before they can claim the Mughal empire, and then when these tests don't suit your needs you throw them away and invent new goal posts to make your point.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Like you said, Pakistanis have the right to take for heroes whoever they like. Why does it bother an Indian so much who Pakistanis take as heroes though?

I don't believe I've changed anything. As to whether it bothers, it doesn't. I do explain to the Indian members about why Pakistan does what it does - many get confused on why Pakistan is claiming anything from India.