Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Mughal Empire: Turkish or Indian?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Mughal Empire: Turkish or Indian?
    Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 19:36

Can someone provide me with some insight in regards to the Mughal Empire?

 

From what I know, the Mughals were not actually from Mongolia although "Mughal" is the Indian translation of "Mongol". The Mughals were in fact, Turks from Central Asia (modern-day Uzbekistan) who conquered, converted, and established an Islamic empire on the Indian subcontinent. During Mughal dominance, the official language of India was Persian (Farsi), the state religion was Islam, and the empire ruled in accordance with Shariat-e-Mohammed, and although the majority of the subjects were Indians, the ruling classes were wholly comprised of Turks, Persians, Afghans, and Arabs.

 

My query is as follows:

 

1. Would this quantify northwestern India, or rather, the last remaining remnants of Muslim dominance on the subcontinent, Pakistan, as a Middle Eastern nation due to cultural, religious, and historical factors?

 

2.  Since the economic attainments of the Mughal Empire were astronomical (the Mughal Empire generated yearly, 17 times the wealth in the entire British treasury, and the term Mughal or mogul in the West has come to signify enormous wealth and status), would this qualify the Mughal Empire as the greatest Turkish Empire in history or the greatest Muslim empire in history?

 

3. Is it rightly credited as an "Indian empire" even though it was actually a Turkish and Persian one (the Turkic rulers often took Persian wives, and the administrators and intellectuals were all Persian) or should it be rightly designated as a Turkish empire on Indian soil?

 

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 04:55
Without a doubt the Mughal's are an indian empire. A muslim indian empire. So were their predecessors in the Delhi Sultanate. Although the ruling class had turkic and persian origins, they were quickly and thoughly indianized.

1. Pakistan has always been on the border between the middle east and the subcontinent.

2. Greatest is an attribute that really shouldn't be given to anyway. The Mughal were certainly amoungst the great empires of the world.

3. No it is rightfully indian in my opinion.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 08:53
In my opinion both, although the Mughals were actually Timurids as it's founder was Babur, their aim was not "nationalist" or "colonialist". They were a muslim empire and did not try to assimilate or change the people's in the area, infact some Mughal leaders respected local traditions and culture alot. What happened was they didn't hinder or stop the indegenous culture. Elements of Turkic culture, language and so on naturally fused into the native one, also the rulers married local Princesses aswell, also Persian and Ottoman Princesses .

I think the main point it, they didn't try to change the local's, force them to assimilate or adopt a new language, didn't try to make them feel that their ways were wrong.

Here is an interesting article



CONTRIBUTION OF TURKIC LANGUAGES IN THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HINDUSTANI LANGUAGES
K.Gajendra Singh

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/turkish.html   
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
TheGame View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote TheGame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 12:53
The Mughals (Mongols in Persian) were originally Mongolians who adopted a Turkic language. The founder of the Mughals, Babur, spoke a Turkic dialect.

Other than that, the Mughals adopted Persian language and culture and that was the lingua franca of the court and empire.

So basically: Mongols who first adopted Turkic and then adopted Persian...

However, by location, it can be said that they were an Indian Empire, but otherwise, depends on which period of Mughal history you look at. Their origins are Mongol, the founder spoke Turkic, and for the rest of its history, it was Persian linguistically and culturally.

This would be an example of a Perso-Turco-Mongol Empire.




Edited by TheGame - 05-Jan-2007 at 12:55
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 16:28

Omar al Hashim - How can the Mughal Empire be considered "Indian" when the rulers, the administrators, the official religion, and the lingua franca were all foreign? Do we refer to the British Empire in India as "an Indian empire" or do we make reference to it as "British India" to denote the foreign influence? Then why not describe the Mughal Empire as "Turkish India" ??

Bulldog - Akbar-e-Azam or Akbar the Great (Turkish/Timurid father Nasiruddin Humayun, I believe his mother was Persian) was the only emperor he made an effort to respect the holy places of the Hindus. The other Mughal emperors were Islamists who promoted their faith vigorously, hence, the reason that so many South Asians are Muslim today.

 

The Game- The Timurids, were not ethnic Mongols. Timur the Lame falsely claimed descent from Genghis Khan on his mother's side to win credibility amongst his fellow Turks (and infamy amongst his rivals).

Isn't it an injustice to the Mughals to have their empire defined as "Indian" when they themselves did not identify as such? When they saw themselves clearly as Turks?



Edited by The Grim Reaper - 05-Jan-2007 at 16:31
Back to Top
TheGame View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote TheGame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 17:08
Originally posted by The Grim Reaper

 

The Game- The Timurids, were not ethnic Mongols. Timur the Lame falsely claimed descent from Genghis Khan on his mother's side to win credibility amongst his fellow Turks (and infamy amongst his rivals).


The Mughals were Mongols. We call them Mughals today because that is what the Persians called them during that time period. Mughal means Mongol in Persian.


They adopted Turkic, then Persian. But they were originally Mongolian.


And why would the Timurids call themselves to win credibility amongst Turks? Would they claim there are descendent's from Turks in order to win credibility amongst Turks?


What do Mongols have to do with winning credibility amongst Turks?


Originally posted by The Grim Reaper

Isn't it an injustice to the Mughals to have their empire defined as "Indian" when they themselves did not identify as such? When they saw themselves clearly as Turks?



Did they identify as Turks? As far as I know, Babur was the only one that mentioned anything of a Turkic background, but the rest of the monarchs spoke Persian and were Persian culturally.

The common notion is that the Mughals were Mongols (as the name Mughal implies), who adopted Turkic, but after founding their empire, became Persians (linguistically and culturally).



Edited by TheGame - 05-Jan-2007 at 17:09
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 17:27
Babur was a Timurid from Central Asia. He was an ethnic Turk.
 
 
"Babur, the founding Mughal, was a Central Asian by birth, and was a descendent of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan. The word mughal is a Persian variation of the word mongol and clearly chosen by Babur to emphasize his ancestry."
 
 
"Timur claimed direct descent from Jenghiz Khan through the house of Chagatai."
 
"The question of Timur's religion beliefs has been a matter of controversy ever since he began his conquests. His veneration of the house of the Prophet, the spurious genealogy on his tombstone taking his descent back to Ali ....."
 
As you can clearly see, Timur was very adept making false ancestral claims.
 
 
"While not descended directly from Genghis Khan, he married two of Genghis descendants, and regarded the great warrior as his spiritual ancestor."
 
The Mughals did not "adopt" Turkic customs, they were ethnic Turks.
 


Edited by The Grim Reaper - 05-Jan-2007 at 17:28
Back to Top
TheGame View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote TheGame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 20:21
None of your sources say that the Mughals were ethnic Turks. I do not know how you came to that conclusion...


Edited by TheGame - 05-Jan-2007 at 20:23
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 20:45
The Mughal emperors, military officers, and warriors were all descended from the Timurids and were Central Asian Turks.
 
The administrators, the intellectuals, and aristocrats were Persian.
 
Afghans flocked to the Mughal banner as mercenaries, and Arabs were traders and merchants.
 
Together, these groups were defined as "Mughal" but in their origins, they were no doubt, completely Turkic.
 
The native Hindus and Indian Muslims were viewed as being inferior, persecuted as such, and never considered "Mughal", rather, they were referred to as "the natives".


Edited by The Grim Reaper - 05-Jan-2007 at 20:46
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 21:25
TheGame
The Mughals were Mongols. We call them Mughals today because that is what the Persians called them during that time period. Mughal means Mongol in Persian.


This is a history forum but unfortunately when the topic's are not concerned with the West, it;s somehow acceptable to pass historical myth as historical fact.

The Mughals were not Mongol, this name is a mis-nomer, they never referred to themselves as Mongols, didn't speak Mongolian and never claimed to be Mongol's.

Babur the founder clearly stated in the Baburname what he was, I suggest you read it, it will stop such an argument immediately.


They adopted Turkic, then Persian. But they were originally Mongolian.


They didn't adopt Turkic, if your going as far back as Timur, he was originally from humble beginnings. As a pollitical stunt he married into a sub-branch of the Barlas who were of mixed tribal descent then claimed to be sucessor to Genghiz Khan. Timur was a protaganist, he was a devout muslim to the Ulema, a Basbug (Leader of Turks) to the Turks and also claimed legitamacy by claiming to be of Ghenghiz descent.




And why would the Timurids call themselves to win credibility amongst Turks? Would they claim there are descendent's from Turks in order to win credibility amongst Turks?
What do Mongols have to do with winning credibility amongst Turks?


You have to realise, that Central Asia had been conquered by the Mongols, the one's in charge were Mongol while the population was Turkic and Iranic. The Turks infiltrated the Mongol rule and took over from within. In order to do this they had to pull off pollitical stunt's like Timur did claiming legitimacy from Ghenghiz.

First of all Timur had to rise to the top which meant getting past the Mongol rulers, which he achieved through a number of pollitical maneuvers.


TheGr
From what I know, the Mughals were not actually from Mongolia although "Mughal" is the Indian translation of "Mongol". The Mughals were in fact, Turks from Central Asia (modern-day Uzbekistan) who conquered, converted, and established an Islamic empire on the Indian subcontinent. During Mughal dominance, the official language of India was Persian (Farsi), the state religion was Islam, and the empire ruled in accordance with Shariat-e-Mohammed, and although the majority of the subjects were Indians, the ruling classes were wholly comprised of Turks, Persians, Afghans, and Arabs.


Yes Babur was Andijani from Ozbekistan he wrote this in his autobiography.

The official language was Urdu, the language in the court was Persian and between the family Turkic.

There were Indians in the ruling classes aswell.

Akbar the great married Rajput princesses and contributed alot to Indian arts and culture. He encouraged and would organise debates between, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Christians to create inter-faith understanding and tolerance. He was quite advanced for the time period. In fact eight of the nine of Akbar's Navaratnas were Indian.

Jahangir's mother was a Rajput princess. Jahangir's son Shah Jahan was given birth by a Rajput princess aswell.

Apart from Aurangzeb most of them were pretty tolerant.

Also Bahadur Shah II was one of the great poets in Urdu.

I think it can be called a Muslim Indian-Turco Empire.




    
    

Edited by Bulldog - 05-Jan-2007 at 21:26
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 22:36

Bulldog -Thank you for your input. Insightful as always!

 

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564252/Mughal_Empire.html

 

"The Mughal ruling class was complex and heterogenous, but integrated into a single imperial service. At higher levels this class or nobles mainly the Central Asians (Turains), the Persians (Iranis), the Afghans, the Indian Muslims, and the Rajputs."

 

This showed a clear distincation between the Indian Muslim and the foreign conqueror (btw: What is the literal translation of "Turain"?)

 

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/mm.htm

 

'The term "Mughal" comes from a mispronunciation of the word "Mongol", but the Mughals of India were mostly ethnic Turks not Mongolians.'

 
^^^I hope this and Bulldog's post clear's up some of the confusion in Game's argument about the Mughals being "Mongolians" and not Turks.
 

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/analysis.htm

 

"Leadership as far as the Muslims are concerned did not develope in the Punjab because the Punjabi Muslim did not fit anywhere in the political expediency considerations of the Mughals. The Mughals perferred to recruit Muslims or Persian, Turk, or Afghan descent."

 

I also recall hearing from a British history professor (in an American university) that the Mughals did not identify themselves as Indians, and furthermore, viewed even the Indian Muslims with contempt and refused to intermarry with them, preferring instead, to solidify political ties by intermarrying Hindu princesses (Muslim princesses were never married off to Hindu rulers).

 

The Punjab borders Pashtunistan (what was then Afghanistan, and before that Iran, both within the Turkic sphere of influence) and the first line of defense (or rather, the first areas subjugated and converted by the Turks), and as is clear, the "Turains" (as MSN Encarta describes them) did not consider themselves "Indians", hence, I would argue that the Mughal Empire was a Turkish empire based in South Asia -just as the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish empire based in the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Middle East- and it's incorrect to label it as an "Indian" empire.
 
It couldn't have been a "Muslim Indian" empire, due to the separate class status of the Turks and their Indian Muslim subjects.
 
btw: I found this rather interesting ....
 
 
"Nizam of Hydrabad, Mukarram Jah Bahadur, must pay the money to the former Miss Turkey, Manolya Onur ..."
 
Is it a coincidence that a royal descendant of the Mughals was married to a Turkish woman, and now himself resides in Turkey??Wink
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by The Grim Reaper - 05-Jan-2007 at 22:38
Back to Top
TheGame View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote TheGame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 23:24
Yes, I have read the Baburnameh and as far as I know he just makes a reference to his tribe and language (which are both Turkic).

Anyway, like I said earlier, the Mughals are classified as a Perso-Turco-Mongolian empire or just a Turco-Persian empire...

I do agree that it is incorrect to call the Mughals an Indian Empire.

Also, there was no Turkish sphere of influence, as everyone was adopting the Persian language and culture at the time. There was more of a Persian sphere of influence that everyone became sucked into.

Regarding your question about the meaning of Turain:

Also, I assume Turain is Turan, which means the Dark land in Persian or the land of darkness. Its from the Shahnameh, in which Iran is the opposite of Turan, the land of light.

The Iranians were Iranics who were Zoroastrian (thus "light"), and the Turanians were Iranics who were not Zoroastrians (thus "dark"). There was a war and the Iranians won and converted the Turanians to Zoroastrianism.

The modern term Turan still stems from the Persian, but it was adopted in the 19th century to refer to Central Asia, and then in the 20th century by Turkic nationalists to refer to the land of Turks.

I believe this is correct. As far as I am aware.


Edited by TheGame - 05-Jan-2007 at 23:30
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 00:57
Depends on which era you were looking at. The six great Mughals could be called central Asian to a decreasing degree. But I doubt the latter Mughals were anything but Indian.
 
As for demarkation, for most of History Punjab (the Pakistani side) has been linked with Afghanistan. Many Punjabis have at least partial Afghan ancestry. Ahmed Shah Abdali was born in Multan.
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 13:03
GR
Leadership as far as the Muslims are concerned did not develope in the Punjab because the Punjabi Muslim did not fit anywhere in the political expediency considerations of the Mughals. The Mughals perferred to recruit Muslims or Persian, Turk, or Afghan descent."


The leadership actually included more Indians then anybody else.

As I mentioned earlier, Akbar the Great contributed alot to Indian culture and not by imposin foriegn culture on her. The Navaratnas as far as I know is an old Indian tradition? and it wasn't used for a long time? and he bought it back, eight out of the nine were Indian.

Infact, musical traditions like Qawalli and Hindustani Classical music recieved great investment and flourished during this era, Amir Khushruw, Miyan Tansen are pretty well known I think? also both the Maharaja and Nawab's were patrons of these arts and cultures which fused Indian, Muslim, Turkic and other cultures.



The_Game
The Iranians were Iranics who were Zoroastrian (thus "light"), and the Turanians were Iranics who were not Zoroastrians (thus "dark"). There was a war and the Iranians won and converted the Turanians to Zoroastrianism.


Doesn't Ferdovsi refer to the peoples of Turan as being Chinease and Turks.


TheGame
Also, there was no Turkish sphere of influence, as everyone was adopting the Persian language and culture at the time. There was more of a Persian sphere of influence that everyone became sucked into.


Actually this is incorrect, the Hindustani language was the main language and Indian culture was the main influence fused by some Turkic and Persian elements reflecting the population. Persian was used in the courts and Turkic between the ruling elite and family.

This is common to most Empire of the time, there would be a lingua-franca, then a courtly language which would be highly stylized or different to show their status and then the language of the ruling elite and family which would be even more highly stylized or different to show the difference. Saying this, the Mughal rulers would also learn Sanskrit and the Indian cultures.



    
    

Edited by Bulldog - 06-Jan-2007 at 13:03
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 16:50

Originally posted by Sparten

As for demarkation, for most of History Punjab (the Pakistani side) has been linked with Afghanistan. Many Punjabis have at least partial Afghan ancestry. Ahmed Shah Abdali was born in Multan.

Many Punjabis have partial Afghan ancestry? They certainly do NOT!

I would like to see some DNA or genealogical evidence to support this claim! The total Afghan population of Afghanistan and the Pashtun areas of Pakistan is around 50 million, whereas there are some 100 million Punjabi Muslims (73-80 million in Pakistan), Sikhs, and Hindus it is ludicrous to suggest that this latter population has significant Afghan ancestry.

This is a claim only Pakistani Muslims make and it is absurd because:

1.      Punjabi is derived from Sanskrit, whereas Farsi and Pashto are derived from Avestan.

2.      Punjabi culture is distinct from Afghan culture.

3.   There are stark differences between the physical characteristics of   Punjabis and Afghans the former are an Indic people whereas the latter are an Iranic people.

Originally posted by Bulldog

The leadership actually included more Indians then anybody else.

I must disagree with your assertion here. Historical accounts have proved that the Mughal rulers were composed largely of Turks, and their Persian administrators. Political alliances were made with Hindu Rajput rulers who governed small principalities, but it was an absolute monarchy and no one especially non-Muslims and Indian Muslims were able to question the authority of the sultan or badshah.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/mu/mughal_empire.htm

The Mughal ruling class were Muslims, although most of the subjects of the Empire were Hindu.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564252/Mughal_Empire.html

The Mughals' close relations with prominent ruling Rajput families were intended to ensure political stability and to reinforce the legitimacy of their power. Furthermore, at lower levels the administration was largely in the hands of the Hindu officials. As a result, it was not only the local ruling aristocracy who allied with the Mughals but also a considerable portion of the urban Hindu clerical and trading castes.

 

It is due to this political class structure created by the "Turains":

  

1. Turks - rulers, nobles, high ranking military officials

2. Persians - intellectuals, administrators

3. Afghans, and other Turkic groups who came to India afterwards-

    soldiers, mercenaries.

4. Indian Muslims (perceived as inferior due to being recent converts)

5. Hindus and other non-Muslim Indians

 

... that I continue to argue that the Mughal Empire -her richness, her wealth, her glory -were Turkish (or at least, Turkic in order to avoid confusion with Turkey) and not Indian or Indic. 

 



Edited by The Grim Reaper - 06-Jan-2007 at 18:57
Back to Top
TheGame View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote TheGame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 18:56
Originally posted by Bulldog


The_Game
The Iranians were Iranics who were Zoroastrian (thus "light"), and the Turanians were Iranics who were not Zoroastrians (thus "dark"). There was a war and the Iranians won and converted the Turanians to Zoroastrianism.


Doesn't Ferdovsi refer to the peoples of Turan as being Chinease and Turks.


No, not that I am aware of. The term Turan referring to Central Asia was adopted in the 19th century, and the term Turan referring to Turkic peoples was first used in late 19th century and 20th century, during the time of Turkish nationalism.

However, like I said, I believe this analysis is correct, due to the bit of reading I did on the issue. However, I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Bulldog


TheGame
Also, there was no Turkish sphere of influence, as everyone was adopting the Persian language and culture at the time. There was more of a Persian sphere of influence that everyone became sucked into.


Actually this is incorrect, the Hindustani language was the main language and Indian culture was the main influence fused by some Turkic and Persian elements reflecting the population. Persian was used in the courts and Turkic between the ruling elite and family.

This is common to most Empire of the time, there would be a lingua-franca, then a courtly language which would be highly stylized or different to show their status and then the language of the ruling elite and family which would be even more highly stylized or different to show the difference. Saying this, the Mughal rulers would also learn Sanskrit and the Indian cultures.


I'm talking about the royal courts and the ruling families. The culture and languages most kingdoms and empires adopted and also promoted were Persian. Many of these kingdoms and empires preferred to have Persians as their officials. This was especially true of the Turkic nomads, who preferred to run the military while allowing the Persians to be administrators and officials.

The same with the Abbasid Caliphate.


As for the ordinary people on the streets, they spoke whatever language they were born into most of the time.



Join the:


Iranian History Forum


Everyone is welcome.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 13:15
The_Game
I'm talking about the royal courts and the ruling families. The culture and languages most kingdoms and empires adopted and also promoted were Persian. Many of these kingdoms and empires preferred to have Persians as their officials. This was especially true of the Turkic nomads, who preferred to run the military while allowing the Persians to be administrators and officials.

The same with the Abbasid Caliphate.

As I stated the ruling family spoke Turkic with each other. The culture adopted was the local one and this was the one promoted, this can be seen in the development of Hinudstani Classical music and Qawalli etc etc
 
Persian was a courtly language and it was also used in administration, it was the European equivalent to Latin or French untill they put these two aside and focused on their own languages.
 
The Abbasid Caliphate spoke Arabic and was Arabic in administration, when they employed the Turks to protect them. Mahmud Kasgari wrote a huge literary work in which he included a Turkic-Arabic dictionary and this was presented to the Caliphate so they could understand the Turks better.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 23:41
Originally posted by The Grim Reaper

[QUOTE=Sparten]As for demarkation, for most of History Punjab (the Pakistani side) has been linked with Afghanistan. Many Punjabis have at least partial Afghan ancestry. Ahmed Shah Abdali was born in Multan.

Many Punjabis have partial Afghan ancestry? They certainly do NOT!

I would like to see some DNA or genealogical evidence to support this claim! The total Afghan population of Afghanistan and the Pashtun areas of Pakistan is around 50 million, whereas there are some 100 million Punjabi Muslims (73-80 million in Pakistan), Sikhs, and Hindus it is ludicrous to suggest that this latter population has significant Afghan ancestry.

This is a claim only Pakistani Muslims make and it is absurd because:

1.      Punjabi is derived from Sanskrit, whereas Farsi and Pashto are derived from Avestan.

2.      Punjabi culture is distinct from Afghan culture.

3.   There are stark differences between the physical characteristics of   Punjabis and Afghans the former are an Indic people whereas the latter are an Iranic people.

Clearly you have never visited the Punjab. Punjab as with all border regions has been influenced by its immdiet neighbours. I'll agree the influence decreases as you go east, but the North West of the Punjab, (the Potohar) and the areas west of the Indus, such as Mianwali or Attock are more Afghan oriented then anyother. ALso you have had centuries of settlements from Afgaanistan into what is now Punjab.
 
 
And piece of advise, never call Pakistanis Indic.
 
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 02:09
Originally posted by TheGame

The Mughals (Mongols in Persian) were originally Mongolians who adopted a Turkic language. The founder of the Mughals, Babur, spoke a Turkic dialect.

 
Babur was a descendant of Tamerlane and Tamerlane was Turkic.
 
He was born under the rule of a Mongolian dynasty, the Chaghatai dynasty of the Mongolian Empire, but most of the population of Chaghatai dynasty was Turkic, as well as Tamerlane.
 
So, the ruling dynasty is Turkic. But the folk was Indians & Muslims(Today's Bangladeshi&Pakistanis, as well as Muslims living in India)
 
 
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 16:30

Originally posted by Sparten

Clearly you have never visited the Punjab. Punjab as with all border regions has been influenced by its immdiet neighbours. I'll agree the influence decreases as you go east, but the North West of the Punjab, (the Potohar) and the areas west of the Indus, such as Mianwali or Attock are more Afghan oriented then anyother. ALso you have had centuries of settlements from Afgaanistan into what is now Punjab.

 

And piece of advise, never call Pakistanis Indic.

 

I am fully aware of Punjab's geographical proximatey to the Iranian (or Aghan) Plateau, and the history of incursions, invasions, and settlement of foreigners into that region, however it is simply ludicrous to suggest that the "majority" or even "many" Punjabi-speakers from Pakistani Punjab experienced a permanent change in their gene pool by the Pashtuns and/or other Afghans and Central Asian peoples. The scientific and historical evidence simply does not back up your claim. Furthermore, Pakistani Punjabis still speak and Indic language (Punjabi), bear a resemblance closer to their kinsmen across the border in the Indian state of Punjab, practice pre-Islamic Indic traditions, i.e. the caste system, food, wearing of a red wedding gown by a bride instead of white as other Muslims do, etc.,

 

Obviously, you have not ventured into the 55% of Pakistan that lies on the Iranian Plateau Northwest Frontier Province, Balochistan, and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas where the people follow Afghan customs, speak Iranian languages, and most closely resemble their kinsmen in Afghanistan and Iran, rather than their countrymen in Kashmir, Punjab, and Sindh!
 
btw: Plenty of Pakistanis of Indian descent do not have a problem referring to themselves as "Desis", but you'll never get a Pashtun or Baloch or Afghan to say they're "Desi" -so what's the big idea of denying your Indian/Indic  heritage?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.