Sultana, a descendant of the Mughal emperor, wants ownership of the Red Fort

[SIPRA]

India is de facto, under a Hindu Raj, since 1947. Why would a Hindu Raj give a damn to the claims of a descendant of a Muslim ruler?

 

[Tshering22]

And she gets a mere 6000 rupees per month. Is it not funny?

Several Indians do.

They work hard, and yet keep their optimism up.

While I respect her for her age as is the culture of our land, she is not entitled to anything just because she descended from a bunch of colonizers.

As I said before, her son or caretaker is welcome to apply to a skill development program and get a decent job for better pay.

Nothing else.

All the princely/royal/imperial property of the country is owned by the Government of India.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Mughals were themselves foreigners (Chagatai Turks of current Uzbekistan) and were unwanted in the subcontinent. Mughals claiming properties in India, is like British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Japanese, etc. claiming their properties in the countries they colonized or occupied.

The world has moved on from the age of colonization and empires. Time to live in the 21st century and take it forward. Those who fail to come out of the past and adapt to the new ways, vanish into history.

The government at best can enroll her family members in some skill development scheme so that the younger ones can learn to work and earn their own living like honest people. If she wants to be treated like royalty, that is not happening.

90% of Mughal kings and thier bloodline looked like this woman though...
If she is a foreigner than so were those kings
@aryadravida and other two three banned Indian members liked my post calling them Hindustani Muslim empires not "Uzbek" empire or how they were not foreigner

But it seems Indians only like to claim Thier "good" parts but for the large part consider British and mughals to be the same thing

 

[bluesky]

India is de facto, under a Hindu Raj, since 1947. Why would a Hindu Raj give a damn to the claims of a descendant of a Muslim ruler?

But Indians regularly claim India is a highly secular country.

But anyway, Mughals were the sovereign of our three countries. All those so-called Nawabs and Rajas were under their sovereignty. In the1857 Sepoy revolt, the Muslim and Hindu leaders of the revolt accepted the suzerainty of the Delhi Mughal.

But the dynasty lost all its power to the rebels led by the British and was sent to Burma on a bullock cart and was forced to live on a Khatia in a cottage.

This family was not like others. Other Rajas or Nawabs were not sovereign but the Mughal was. So, there is a distinction between these two groups. This family must be compensated. Earnings from the Tajmahal should be awarded to them.

 

[Tshering22]

90% of Mughal kings and thier bloodline looked like this woman though...
If she is a foreigner than so were those kings
@aryadravida and other two three banned Indian members liked my post calling them Hindustani Muslim empires not "Uzbek" empire or how they were not foreigner

But it seems Indians only like to claim Thier "good" parts but for the large part consider British and mughals to be the same thing

Royal titles mean squat in today's society or era in our context. These descendants may have a lineage by blood, but they have no claim to the national properties of the erstwhile kingdoms and empires.

I don't know how it works in your country but here it is clear; all palaces, forts, etc. are a property of the government under the Archaeological Survey of India. And that is final.

What is the point of dragging this thread forward?

 

[bluesky]

Royal titles mean squat in today's society or era in our context. These descendants may have a lineage by blood, but they have no claim to the national properties of the erstwhile kingdoms and empires.

I don't know how it works in your country but here it is clear; all palaces, forts, etc. are a property of the government under the Archaeological Survey of India. And that is final.

What is the point of dragging this thread forward?

In Pakistan, there may be a few Nawab families. In BD, the lands belonging to the Zamindars who were the servants of the British were taken back but compensation was also given to them in lumpsum.

Why India does not respect its former sovereigns, why the Mughals are not compensated by the govt in Delhi?

 

[Maula Jatt]

Royal titles mean squat in today's society or era in our context. These descendants may have a lineage by blood, but they have no claim to the national properties of the erstwhile kingdoms and empires.

I don't know how it works in your country but here it is clear; all palaces, forts, etc. are a property of the government under the Archaeological Survey of India. And that is final.

What is the point of dragging this thread forward?

Are you ok mate - all the posters are saying that and it's a stance I can get behind - no issue but this is what I highlighted so this is what my post is about
"Mughals were themselves foreigners (Chagatai Turks of current Uzbekistan) and were unwanted in the subcontinent. Mughals claiming properties in India, is like British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Japanese, etc. claiming their properties in the countries they colonized or occupied."
Next time please quote it in context

 

[SIPRA]

But Indians regularly claim India is a highly secular country.

We Pakistanis don't accept their fake claim. It is essentially a country, under Hindu Raj, since 1947, and it has to be so. If India tries to become secular, in a real sense, it will balkanize, along ethnic lines; because it is being held together, primarily, by the Hindu identity, and a perceived threat to this identity.

 

[bluesky]

"Mughals were themselves foreigners (Chagatai Turks of current Uzbekistan) and were unwanted in the subcontinent. Mughals claiming properties in India, is like British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Japanese, etc. claiming their properties in the countries they colonized or occupied."

So, as I asked before. Was President Kennedy an Irishman? Is President Trump a German? Is the Queen of England also a German?

You are talking fuzzy thing. Someday you will come with the weird idea that all Pakistanis are African because all people went out from that Continent?

How about accepting it personally?

 

[Maula Jatt]

So, as I asked before. Was President Kennedy an Irishman? Is President Trump a German? Is the Queen of England also a German?

You are talking fuzzy thing. Someday you will come with the weird idea that all Pakistanis are African because all people went out from that Continent?

How about accepting it personally?

@Tshering22 said it not me
By his logic many Hindustani Muslims should become foreigners too, as they look like em, many Muslims follow the rituals of mughals in everyday life, some of thier customs
When they start calling mughals as a whole foreigners
It digs up/ takes away a big part of Hindustani Muslim identity and culture
Who they themselves and Thier ancestors have built over centeries

 

[Tshering22]

@Tshering22

Of course, by that logic, everyone is a human being. But then nation-states exist and that's today's reality.

Do former royalties in your countries (Pakistan and Bangladesh) own the properties of the erstwhile kingdoms?

Because here, we don't have such regulations as a republic.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Of course, by that logic, everyone is a human being.

Do former royalties in your countries (Pakistan and Bangladesh) own the properties of the erstwhile kingdoms?

Get it through your head please, this is not what people are quoting you for but for this highlighted part
" "Mughals were themselves foreigners (Chagatai Turks of current Uzbekistan) and were unwanted in the subcontinent. Mughals claiming properties in India, is like British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Japanese, etc. claiming their properties in the countries they colonized or occupied.""
I swear if you start again with this property rights shit am a loose it
Don't discuss your choice but stop these random quoting

 

[Tshering22]

Get it through your head please, this is not what people are quoting you for but for this highlighted part
" "Mughals were themselves foreigners (Chagatai Turks of current Uzbekistan) and were unwanted in the subcontinent. Mughals claiming properties in India, is like British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Japanese, etc. claiming their properties in the countries they colonized or occupied.""
I swear if you start again with this property rights shit am a loose it

Mughals were invaders just like the other empires eastern or western. They stayed because they stayed to continue enjoying the wealth of the lands that are today various countries of the subcontinent.

Is there anything abnormal about what I said?

I know you have this whole religion and identity thing with the Mughals, Turks, and Mongols, but we don't. Simple as that. Her claims are therefore as weird as Tom Alter claiming Kanpur Railway station just because his grandfather was granted the concession by the British back then.

 

[SIPRA]

Do former royalties in your countries (Pakistan and Bangladesh) own the properties of the erstwhile kingdom?

Yes, they did. Various erstwhile Princely States were merged into Pakistan through Instruments of Accession. To obtain these Instruments, negotiations were held between the then rulers of these states and Central Government. Under those agreements, many of these rulers were entitled to retain a part of their possessions, including palaces. Remaining properties were taken over by the government.

I believe something similar happened in India, as well.

But this case is different, because Mughal government was dethroned by the British themselves, and their all possessions were confiscated thereupon.

So, in a way, the descendents of those rulers, who fought with British, were left with nothing; but those who collaborated with them, still got a lot, even after the cessation of their rules. That is the irony.

 

[bluesky]

Mughals were invaders just like the other empires eastern or western. They stayed because they stayed to continue enjoying the wealth of the lands that are today various countries of the subcontinent.

Is there anything abnormal about what I said?

Please learn that in historical times dynasties expanded and then lost throughout the world. India is no exception. If you think Mughals and before them in Muslim time, the Turkic and then the Pathans from the west of India all were foreigners, then how about the Aryans who also came and settled in the north and NW India in scores?

So, being a Sudra Hindu yourself, are you going to call them foreigners? Please keep historical ups and downs in their proper perspectives and don't mix them with religion.

No Muslim Sultan/ Badshah was ever an Islamic preacher. They were rulers like others. But, the Aryan Hindus segregated the Hindu society and imposed JATPAT on the local Sudra inhabitants who were your forefathers.

And if you are from the NE, you can rest assured that the main Indian Hindu society takes you as lower than the lowest of Sudras living in the west of BD.