The Glory of the Mughal Empire

[Trichy]

The Mughals brought Culture, Architectural Beauty, Mughal Cuisine and Poetry to the Sub Continent.

They definitely improved the Quality of Life in Indian Sub Continent.

ha ha ha its the greatest comedy ever i heard.... even my language with its poetic scripts have been more then 2000 (Correct years unknown) years older. before the world knows about yours or before the creation of muslims and their language ever evolved...

 

[sahaliyan]

@Chak Bamu
When talking about Aurangzeb , I just wanted to point out that many analysts have talked about the wars between him and the Muslim Shia sultanates of the extreme-south that imbalanced the empire. There is a lot of propaganda against the mughals from butt-hurt people , Sir, and you can be sure that I ain't buying it lol.
And you're very right that they were very open-minded when it comes to cultural administration. The views regarding Aurangzeb annexing the south are not MINE but of the analysts that I've read.

@sahaliyan

We have a manchu brother on . . How strong is machu identity in China? I'm guessing that there's a lot of intermarriage between manchus and other ethnicites. Are some manchus semi-nomadic in China?

@Nihonjin1051

Brother, if you're interested in the history of sub-continent, then you have to read about Porus, a punjabi raja who fought against Alexander and his army of Greeks/macedonians. There's a town in Punjab, Pakistan called phalian . Alexander's horse is putated to have died there .Historic scene from those battles is on youtube.

[youtube]

@Alienoz_TR

It's said that the language 'chagatay turkic' is extinct but I would assume that it was relatively similar to current-day uzbek or Turkmen. Interesting that you can read Baburnama and understand some of it

Most Manchus know their family history,that's all,we speak Chinese,but we still remember the history we are descendants of bannermen of Imperial Qing.And you know,in Qing dynasty,we Manchus intermarried with other bannermen such as the Mongol bannermen(not the Mongols of Inner and Outer Mongolia,but the Mongol bannermen,their descendants are also known as ethnic Manchus in China) ,the Han Chinese bannermen(such as the emperor Jiaqing's mother),the Xibes,the Daurs(the empress of emperor Xuantong was a Daur from the Gobeir clan) and the Evenks,but we don't mix with non-bannermen such as the most Mongols,most Hans,the Huis,the Uyghurs and the Tibetans.
I myself have the Mongol and Han bannermen blood as well,most Manchus are also same with me.After the Xinhai revolution,we start to marry other ethnic groups,and maybe in the future,our children will lost their machu identity,sad but it seems it will became true.

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

@sahaliyan
Thanks for the response brother . In terms of physical anthropology, can you tell manchu people apart from Han? And yeah it's sad that you'll loose the manchu identity. Are there manchus somewhere in China who might still have nomadic lifestyle and who don't mix with anybody else? Maybe that way, the population can go on living and thriving (even if there's a couple of thousands living that life-style)

Manchu archers

 

[sahaliyan]

@sahaliyan
Thanks a lot for the response brother . In terms of physical anthropology, can you tell manchu people apart from Han? And yeah it's sad that you'll loose the manchu identity. Are there manchus somewhere in China who might still have nomadic lifestyle and who don't mix with anybody else? Maybe that way, the population can go on living and thriving (even if there's a couple of thousands living that life-style)

Manchus are not Nomads,and our ancestors were hunter-gathers and farmers,one inportant fact,we raise pigs and eat pork,the nomads didn't do that,because they should move,and pigs are not easy to move.The Xibes and Daurs are farmers too,the Evenks are Nomads in Hunlunbuir,the Evenks and Daurs were known as Solons in Qing dynasty.

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

@sahaliyan

Thanks for the response. Very interesting.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

@Alienoz_TR

It's said that the language 'chagatay turkic' is extinct but I would assume that it was relatively similar to current-day uzbek or Turkmen. Interesting that you can read Baburnama and understand some of it

I am proficient at Turkish, Tatar and Ottoman, have knowledge of Arabic script. As long as written in Turkic, i do understand.

I have also read Abulgazi Bahadur's Shajara-i Turk and utemish Hadji's Genghisnama both in Chagatai Turkic but doesnt have Persian poems.

 

[sahaliyan]

The Daurs,they speak a Mongolic language,but they are farmers,when the Russian cossacks met them,the Russians find the Daurs were farmers,and were already the subjects of Manchu emperor.

General Changshun,who is the great-grandfather of Wanrong,the last empress of China(and Manchukuo)

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Manchus are not Nomads,and our ancestors were hunter-gathers and farmers,one inportant fact,we raise pigs and eat pork,the nomads didn't do that,because they should move,and pigs are not easy to move.The Xibes and Daurs are farmers too,the Evenks are Nomads in Hunlunbuir,the Evenks and Daurs were known as Solons in Qing dynasty.

Do you consider Qara-Qitais as ancestors of Mongols or ancestors of Manchus?

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

I am proficient at Turkish, Tatar and Ottoman, have knowledge of Arabic script. As long as written in Turkic, i do understand.

I have also read Abulgazi Bahadur's Shajara-i Turk and utemish Hadji's Genghisnama both in Chagatai Turkic but doesnt have Persian poems.

Thanks for the response .
Gotta say that's very impressive. It seems like Tatar as a linguistic classification would have a lot of breadth to it.

 

[sahaliyan]

Do you consider Qara-Qitais as ancestors of Mongols or ancestors of Manchus?

They are Mongolic people,their descandants are Kharchin Mongols,some Manchus(the Shumuru and ilari clan) and some Han Chinese.
There are Khitay tribe in Kyrghizstan and Karakalpakstan

The famous writer of Kyrghizstan Chyngyz Aitmatov is from the Kitay tribe
Chinghiz Aitmatov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aepsilons]

Manchus are not Nomads,and our ancestors were hunter-gathers and farmers,one inportant fact,we raise pigs and eat pork,the nomads didn't do that,because they should move,and pigs are not easy to move.The Xibes and Daurs are farmers too,the Evenks are Nomads in Hunlunbuir,the Evenks and Daurs were known as Solons in Qing dynasty.

@sahaliyan and @mughal arslan shah mirza ,

What is interesting about the Manchus is that sometimes history incorrectly does not give them credit for their civilization. Historians usually claim that they only rose to preeminence in the late 16th century and during the early 17th century during the waning years of the Ming Dynasty, which would be replaced by the Qing Dynasty (a Manchu Imperial Dynasty). However, that's not the case. In fact, the Manchu are a Tunguisic people, and are descendents of the Jurchen peoples. The Jurchens were actually the overloards of the Mongols; the biographers of Genghis Khan mention this so. The Jurchens, who are the same ethnic group as the Manchus, were the ones that established the Jin Dynasty, and thus had already adopted some court life rituals as well as agricultural trademarks from neighboring powers. These people (Jurchen / Manchu) were in heavy contacts with Gogoryeo (a Korean kingdom in present day North Korea) , as well as with Chinese dynasties further to the south. What i also find interesting is that the Manchus used the now-extinct Khitan language script, which was used by the Jurchens and other Tunguisic peoples of North East Asia. The later Manchus eventually adopted the Manchu alphabet, which are also closely related to Mongolian alphabet. That said, Manchus were an active civilization as early as the 12th to 13th century AD, but largely operated in North East Asia, alongsides with the Korean kingdoms and the Mongols. It was much later when the Manchus would expand further than their traditional spheres of influence, and create designs for the entire China , and other nations in the west and south.

That said, @sahaliyan ,

I no doubt have supreme awe and respect for history of all Tunguisic peoples: Jurchen, Manchu, and Mongols. These indigenous inhabitants of North East Asia would have the greatest impact in civilizations throughout Asia , Middle East and Europe. Out of them, would be birthed the greatest empires and military machines the world has ever seen.

1) Jin Dynasty
2) Yuan Dynasty of Chinese Empire
3) Golden Horde
4) Safavid Empire
5) Timurid Dynasty
6) Mughal Empire
7) Qing Dynasty of Chinese Empire

and the list continue on..

 

[Chak Bamu]

I would disagree. Akbar, except for his very early years, was the only one who could be truly described as truly tolerant. Jahangir showed some strains of it at times but from him onwards, the Mughals were an intolerant bunch, Aurangzeb being the worst. Rajputs had a very uneasy relationship with Auragzeb, not liking him but generally not too keen on risking their kingdoms without more direct provocation. They did, however, encourage Aurangzeb's son Muhammad Akbar to revolt against his father precisely because they didn't care for Aurangzeb's intolerance by suggesting that he could be more like his great Mughal namesake rather than his bigoted father (that was defeated by an act of astonishing cunning by Aurangzeb where he arranged for a spy to be caught by the Rajputs carrying a "message" to Akbar congratulating him on tricking the Rajputs to come, "as arranged". The Rajput army disappeared by the next morning & that was that).

It is important to understand history in its context, there is no point in looking at people in another age through the prism of the values (secular, communal)of 20th-21st century. Everyone but Akbar was normal for the age, though those succeeding Akbar did have someone who showed a different path. Akbar was great because he was different. It is precisely because of that , he remains one of only two kings in Indian history to have the "great" attached to him, the other being Asoka who lived nearly 1800 years before him.

I think I need to explain a bit. Statecraft under Mughals was practically secular. One sees how positions were given on merit without any consideration to religion. This was the rule, not the exception. In such decision-making closeness of kin was important, but even such positions were given based on demonstrated capability. Asif Jah is an example in this case. Many Hindus rose to prominence, in civil administration as well as Army.

Ahkamat-i-Alamgiri is a short book written by a vizier of Aurangzeb after Emperor's death dealing with his decision-making. It recounts a number of anecdotes. A Muslim belonging to a prominent family pleaded to Aurangzeb to post him on a vacant spot - and cited his religion as a positive. Upon his letter of application Aurangzeb wrote that religion had no bearing when making decisions about matters of state. The applicant was refused.

My personal favorite report in this book is of Aurangzeb returning from a campaign. At the gates of Delhi, he was told that the Reporter from the Iranian frontier has reported that the Shah of Iran had moved East with his army ostensibly on some campaign. At learning this, Aurangzeb commanded that the accompanying army be camped outside of Delhi and then he himself proceeded there without entering Delhi. Somebody advised that the Emperor could visit Delhi before heading out. At this Aurangzeb testily answered that the news is so many days old. For all he knew the King of Iran could have moved close to the frontier by now. Aurangzeb put his comfort aside and left to join his army in the camp. Compare that with the attack of Nadir Shah Durrani and the then Mughal emperor's response - Dilli hanooz Dur Ast (Delhi is yet far) which then became a popular saying that is still a part of Urdu language.

I understand your concerns and I know the sort of 'bad press' Aurangzeb has received. But that should not take away from his outstanding personal qualities that won him the empire and ensured that he ruled it very effectively until his death. No Emperor of India ruled the extent of territory that he did. If one person is responsible for ensuring that India developed a conscience of itself as ONE country, it is Aurangzeb in my opinion. British like to take credit for this and come up with various reasons. But the fact remains that they could not emulate the extent of his dominion and their project was dominance of the dominion that he had established.

He ..he..The mughals tried to conquer the north east many times.It was only the ahoms with the help of many of it allied tribes that stopped the mighty mughals in their track.But then what would pakistanis know about defending themselves,they just have showed their backsides to every invader as long as anyone can remember.Insignificant? my ***.

You could find out what Alexander had to say about the inhabitants of the area that is Pakistan. I do not know what you wished to say with your trolling and you can not answer because you are banned for reaching your limit of warnings. But do remember that making stupid comments like this does not get you anywhere. Maybe you should join some other forum populated with trolls like yourself with whom you can be happy. But here "there be monsters" - we know how to respond and do that well.

thats a wrong pic....mughal were never in the south...

Read neutral history books, not doctored ones. The extreme tip of Indian peninsula was not under the Mughal Empire. But aside from that very small kingdom, most of South India was ruled by Mughals - particularly Aurangzeb.

So these -
i. Fathullah Shirazi built the volley gun.
ii. Administrative reforms in the agricultural sector.

Yup - great technological progress indeed.

Like other oriental cultures, physical sciences were not a priority. Among European nation-states the internal stability was conducive to such development. But under Mughals, where one or another rebellion was always occupying attention of the court, there could only be this much. When it came to technology though, Mughals patronized gun-making and siege warfare. Ship building seems to have received some attention as well, but still no match for Portugese, etc...

 

[Aepsilons]

@sahaliyan
Thanks for the response brother . In terms of physical anthropology, can you tell manchu people apart from Han? And yeah it's sad that you'll loose the manchu identity. Are there manchus somewhere in China who might still have nomadic lifestyle and who don't mix with anybody else? Maybe that way, the population can go on living and thriving (even if there's a couple of thousands living that life-style)

Manchu archers

Definitely I agree with you.the government of China needs to preserve their ethnic and linguistic integrity. Their heritage is not only for China, but for the entire region.

I think I need to explain a bit. Statecraft under Mughals was practically secular. One sees how positions were given on merit without any consideration to religion. This was the rule, not the exception. In such decision-making closeness of kin was important, but even such positions were given based on demonstrated capability. Asif Jah is an example in this case. Many Hindus rose to prominence, in civil administration as well as Army.

Ahkamat-i-Alamgiri is a short book written by a vizier of Aurangzeb after Emperor's death dealing with his decision-making. It recounts a number of anecdotes. A Muslim belonging to a prominent family pleaded to Aurangzeb to post him on a vacant spot - and cited his religion as a positive. Upon his letter of application Aurangzeb wrote that religion had no bearing when making decisions about matters of state. The applicant was refused.

My personal favorite report in this book is of Aurangzeb returning from a campaign. At the gates of Delhi, he was told that the Reporter from the Iranian frontier has reported that the Shah of Iran had moved East with his army ostensibly on some campaign. At learning this, Aurangzeb commanded that the accompanying army be camped outside of Delhi and then he himself proceeded there without entering Delhi. Somebody advised that the Emperor could visit Delhi before heading out. At this Aurangzeb testily answered that the news is so many days old. For all he knew the King of Iran could have moved close to the frontier by now. Aurangzeb put his comfort aside and left to join his army in the camp. Compare that with the attack of Nadir Shah Durrani and the then Mughal emperor's response - Dilli hanooz Dur Ast (Delhi is yet far) which then became a popular saying that is still a part of Urdu language.

I understand your concerns and I know the sort of 'bad press' Aurangzeb has received. But that should not take away from his outstanding personal qualities that won him the empire and ensured that he ruled it very effectively until his death. No Emperor of India ruled the extent of territory that he did. If one person is responsible for ensuring that India developed a conscience of itself as ONE country, it is Aurangzeb in my opinion. British like to take credit for this and come up with various reasons. But the fact remains that they could not emulate the extent of his dominion and their project was dominance of the dominion that he had established.



You could find out what Alexander had to say about the inhabitants of the area that is Pakistan. I do not know what you wished to say with your trolling and you can not answer because you are banned for reaching your limit of warnings. But do remember that making stupid comments like this does not get you anywhere. Maybe you should join some other forum populated with trolls like yourself with whom you can be happy. But here "there be monsters" - we know how to respond and do that well.



Read neutral history books, not doctored ones. The extreme tip of Indian peninsula was not under the Mughal Empire. But aside from that very small kingdom, most of South India was ruled by Mughals - particularly Aurangzeb.



Like other oriental cultures, physical sciences were not a priority. Among European nation-states the internal stability was conducive to such development. But under Mughals, where one or another rebellion was always occupying attention of the court, there could only be this much. When it came to technology though, Mughals patronized gun-making and siege warfare. Ship building seems to have received some attention as well, but still no match for Portugese, etc...

Excellent post, my friend! Have you taken advanced studies of Mughal History , or are you merely an admirer of Emperor Aurangzeb? The description of his Imperial reign, namely his wars for consolidation of the Empire , reminds me of the life and story of the first Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang-di .

 

[Bang Galore]

I think I need to explain a bit. Statecraft under Mughals was practically secular. One sees how positions were given on merit without any consideration to religion. This was the rule, not the exception. In such decision-making closeness of kin was important, but even such positions were given based on demonstrated capability. Asif Jah is an example in this case. Many Hindus rose to prominence, in civil administration as well as Army.

Ahkamat-i-Alamgiri is a short book written by a vizier of Aurangzeb after Emperor's death dealing with his decision-making. It recounts a number of anecdotes. A Muslim belonging to a prominent family pleaded to Aurangzeb to post him on a vacant spot - and cited his religion as a positive. Upon his letter of application Aurangzeb wrote that religion had no bearing when making decisions about matters of state. The applicant was refused.

My personal favorite report in this book is of Aurangzeb returning from a campaign. At the gates of Delhi, he was told that the Reporter from the Iranian frontier has reported that the Shah of Iran had moved East with his army ostensibly on some campaign. At learning this, Aurangzeb commanded that the accompanying army be camped outside of Delhi and then he himself proceeded there without entering Delhi. Somebody advised that the Emperor could visit Delhi before heading out. At this Aurangzeb testily answered that the news is so many days old. For all he knew the King of Iran could have moved close to the frontier by now. Aurangzeb put his comfort aside and left to join his army in the camp. Compare that with the attack of Nadir Shah Durrani and the then Mughal emperor's response - Dilli hanooz Dur Ast (Delhi is yet far) which then became a popular saying that is still a part of Urdu language.



I understand your concerns and I know the sort of 'bad press' Aurangzeb has received. But that should not take away from his outstanding personal qualities that won him the empire and ensured that he ruled it very effectively until his death. No Emperor of India ruled the extent of territory that he did. If one person is responsible for ensuring that India developed a conscience of itself as ONE country, it is Aurangzeb in my opinion. British like to take credit for this and come up with various reasons. But the fact remains that they could not emulate the extent of his dominion and their project was dominance of the dominion that he had established.

I think you have a rose tinted view on Aurangzeb, I don't. Aurangzeb, by any standards was a religious bigot & there are innumerable acts of temple destruction to cite. Nor was his administration as good as you might wish to believe. He had a pretty poor control of administration, mughal control was very lax in distant areas. As far as your option that he was responsible for the country developing a conscience of itself as a country, I would have to disagree. He was probably the worst example because very soon after his reign, the whole empire simply collapsed. Hardly a mark of someone who created some sort of nationalistic conscience. There is a reason he remains despised the most of all of the Mughals. He was simply not a patch on Akbar.

I leave it here because I can see that you have a particular vision of him, there is no point labouring on the opposite. We will have to agree to disagree. Will just leave this with a bit of history.

The first recorded temple destruction by Aurangzeb was when he was a prince of 17. He demolished (On Shah Jahan's orders) the great temple built by Bir Singh at Orchha and erected a mosque at that very site. Ten years later, when he was governor of Gujarat he himself said that he had temples destroyed "by my order". In the deccan, during his second governorship, he boasted of destroying a hill top temple near Aurangabad. During this time, he also had a brahmin revenue officer Chhabila Ram beheaded for supposedly uttering improper words with reference to the prophet & justified it by saying "It's proper for all Muslims to do their utmost to assert the rules of the prophet's religion".

During the first decade of his reign while he was still consolidating, he made no major moves against Hindus except for demolitions of temple now & then and issued orders that while new temples should not be allowed & should be destroyed, older temples must be left alone. That situation changed in 1668, when he decided to take a far more hardline approach because he deemed the continued proliferation & prosperity of Hindus even after 500 years of Muslim rule as an intolerable affront to the true faith and he decided it was his imperative obligation to harass Hindus. In 1669, he issued orders to all Governors to "destroy with a willing hand the schools & temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teachings & practicing of idolatrous forms of worship" (Mustaid Khan). It was then that the temple of Somnath, the Vishwanath temple at Varanasi, the great Keshave Rai temple at Mathura were all demolished among many others. In 1670, all temples around Ujjain were demolished, a decade later, temples were destroyed across Rajasthan beginning with Jodhpur from where "several cartloads of idols were taken to delhi to be cast in the quadrangle of the court & under the steps of the Jama Masjid for being trodden upon" (Mustaid Khan) Around this time over 300 temples were destroyed in and around Chitor, Udaipur & Jaipur. In 1687 aurangzeb ordered temples in Golconda to be destroyed, in 1698 the temples in Bijapur.

Even in his last decade, he wrote to the royal officers in Gujarat " The temples of Somnath was destroyed early in my reign....It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolators have again taken to worship of images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the building may be left & also expel them from the place"

The akbarat of 11th January 1705 (two years before aurangzeb's death) recorded that " The Emperor... ordered..to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there & slaughter cows in the temple....It was done"

Aurangzeb was the worst of the Mughals in his bigotry even if he was nowhere as intolerant as Muslim states in the Middles East & Central Asia. With reference to your point made earlier, he ordered in 1671 that revenue officers in crown lands must only be Muslims, hoping to induce conversions. Some converted, most did not, administration suffered & Aurangzeb had to modify the law by permitting half to be Hindus. Practicality was the problem for Aurangzeb's measures, he imposed a discriminatory customs duty on Hindus (they had to pay twice as much as Muslims) but greed being what it is, Muslim traders simply connived with Hindus to cheat the royal treasury. He put innumerable restrictions on Hindus & tried his best to induce conversions by many acts (favouring succession to disputed properties if converted, remission of prison sentences etc, Hindus not allowed to ride in a palanquin or an arab Horse without permission & not ride elephants).
These restrictions did not apply to Rajputs & other Hindu martial communities whose services were required by Aurangzeb. He was pragmatic enough to let expediency govern the scope of his theocratic regulations.(To an amir who complained about Shia persians he replied " what connections have worldly affairs with religion? and what right have matters of religion to enter into bigotry/ For you is your religion & for me is mine...(if your suggestion is accepted) it would be my duty to extirpate all the (Hindu) rajas & their followers. wise men disapprove of the removal from office of able officers")
Aurangzeb even issued directions "that the higher officers of the court who were Hindus should no longer hold their charges but into their places, Muhammadans should be put" (Manucci). Practicality however made such orders unimplementable.


Then there was of course, the matter of jizya. When faced with protests following its implementation (including from the court & by Jahanara), Auragzeb said "Think not I am like my grandfather, Jahangir........all my thoughts are turned towards welfare and development of my kingdom and towards the propagation of the religion of the great Muhammad" (Manucci)


Opposition to Aurangzeb's theocratic policies were more intense in south India than in the North. While temple demolitions had cause no major turmoil in the north, there was strong resentment against it in the south. F.Martin, the French diplomat in Pondicherry notes in november 1689 that the "Muslims, having set about to destroy a temple in the Karnatak, as ordered by the mughal, the Hindus rose to oppose it". The following month he noted that Lachmi Nayak, a local chieftain who had at one time joined the mughals, turned rebel on seeing the anti-Hindu policy of Aurangzeb and "wrote to all the hindu princes to unite against the enemy of our race & religion"

 

[Airboss786]

Bahadur Shah II, last Mughal Emperor of India (1838-1857). Painted by August Schoefft in 1854. Shah II was the last Mughal emperor and a member of the TiStatesmenmurid Dynasty.

The Moghuls of Hindustan and not 'INDIA' a word 'conjured up' by the Brits, gave 'pure prominence' to Hindustan.

They were master architects with a vision, excellent statesmen, generals, literary figures, developed a common lingo franca, Urdu to translate the Sanscrict. Which the local 'genre' of those time could not 'comprehend.
Don't forget the the 'cuisine' which the Indian so 'blatantly call as 'Indian'!
Well, it is totally 'Central Asian & Persian'!
The Concept of 'Ice' in sherbets & beverages for a Moghul concept, specifically 'Barbur'!

All in all The Mughuls brought 'Civilization' to Hindustan. Albeit, folks will say, thru 'subjugation'!

Well shit happens....!(Since 48 to 51% of Hindustanis or my bad, "Indians' are defecating' out in the open in this day and age)