Print Page | Close Window

The Mughal Empire: Turkish or Indian?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16931
Printed Date: 19-Oct-2017 at 16:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Mughal Empire: Turkish or Indian?
Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Subject: The Mughal Empire: Turkish or Indian?
Date 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?

 




Replies:
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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   

-------------
      ôWhat we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.ö
Albert Pine



Posted By: TheGame
Date 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.




Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Date 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?



Posted By: TheGame
Date 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).



Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 17:27
Babur was a Timurid from Central Asia. He was an ethnic Turk.
 
http://www.umdnj.edu/~humayun/mughals.html - http://www.umdnj.edu/~humayun/mughals.html
 
"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."
 
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml - http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml
 
"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.
 
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/armies/tamerlane.html - http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/armies/tamerlane.html
 
"While not descended directly from Genghis Khan, he married two of Genghisĺ descendants, and regarded the great warrior as his spiritual ancestor."
 
The Mughals did not "adopt" Turkic customs, they were ethnic Turks.
 


Posted By: TheGame
Date 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...


Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Date 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".


Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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.




    
    

-------------
      ôWhat we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.ö
Albert Pine



Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 22:36

Bulldog -Thank you for your input. Insightful as always! file:///C:/WINNT/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif - -

- - http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564252/Mughal_Empire.html - 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 - 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 - 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 ....
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5118720.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5118720.stm
 
"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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: TheGame
Date 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.


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
 


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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.



    
    

-------------
      ôWhat we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.ö
Albert Pine



Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Date 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 ľit 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 ľthe 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 ľespecially non-Muslims and Indian Muslims ľwere able to question the authority of the sultan or badshah.

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

 



Posted By: TheGame
Date 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:


http://www.freepowerboards.com/iranianforum/ - Iranian History Forum


Everyone is welcome.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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.


-------------
      ôWhat we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.ö
Albert Pine



Posted By: Guests
Date 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 ľit 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 ľthe 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.
 


-------------


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date 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


Posted By: The Grim Reaper
Date 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 ľNorthwest Frontier Province, Balochistan, and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas ľwhere 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?


Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 18:22
I consider them Indian, They mixed with indians as soon as they got the power. another branch of them rulling in Iran lost their turkic identity even faster. Timur himself helped too much to spread the Turkic languge, ( by mass killing of the locals) but his children became too Iranian and adopted the persian languge. They were not Turks anymore.Loosing the language can not keep you a Turk even you have a turkic blood.
I have a persian friend with a blond hair and blue eyes, he is from qajar family, when I said him his fathers were Turks and that's why he is white, he got surprised, because he even did not know Qajar were Turkic, and his great grand father were not speaking persian. in 80 years most  their family lost thier identity in 20th century, so imagin the medival time.


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2007 at 18:32
ya they became indian, i mean the first leaders of the empire might be turks but after they became indian.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 00:08
To put it in a short way, their rulers were of Turkic descent, but the folk was Indian.
 
I am unsure whether we shall call it a Turkic or an Indian empire...Something in between.


-------------
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


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 00:48
Not trying to make a point, but just want to state that Mughal Empire can be said to be a "descendant" Empire, since Bābur's mother was a blood relative of Genghis Khan.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 05:52
Originally posted by Penelope

Not trying to make a point, but just want to state that Mughal Empire can be said to be a "descendant" Empire, since Bābur's mother was a blood relative of Genghis Khan.
 
While he has a direct heritage connection with Tamerlane, his connection with Genghis Khan is still disputed.
 
But after all, I think Mughals cannot be shown as a "descendant" empire of anything, as the region they ruled was not ruled by any of the ancestors of Babur Shah before. Mughals have a totally different characteristic.


-------------
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


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 05:55
Originally posted by shinai

They were not Turks anymore.Loosing the language can not keep you a Turk even you have a turkic blood.
I have a persian friend with a blond hair and blue eyes, he is from qajar family, when I said him his fathers were Turks and that's why he is white, he got surprised, because he even did not know Qajar were Turkic, and his great grand father were not speaking persian. in 80 years most  their family lost thier identity in 20th century, so imagin the medival time.
 
Nice points.
 
Languages are the most important elements that keep people tight and give the feel of belonging.
 
Classification of the races today has much to do with language..
 
Was always important, will always be important.


-------------
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


Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 06:31

Umm.......

Mughal founder was Babur, King of Kabul, right?
 
The Kabulistan adventurers were a descendant heir of Mahmud of Ghazni, which conquer India in 8th Century.
 
Mahmud's Lieutenants and Generals are Seljuqs (Turkish). and they married Persian wifes, and those Sons were the Kabulistan adventurers, so.. The Mughals can be considered as a Persia-Turkish Empire.
 
But, their wealth wasn't great enough to make them the greatest Turkish or Muslim Empire, some reasons are:
 
1. Their position started at Southern Asia and Afghanistan, this is something disadvantaged them as their position was far from the Heart of Middle Ages.
 
2. They didn't conquered more Region, they never ever expanded to Iraq, Western Iran and even Bukhara and Samarkand was never touvhed by Mughal hands.
 
 
 
And something.... Is that, the Mughals are more considered as Persians more than Turkish (maybe they've more Persian blood).


-------------
"Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 16:39
Originally posted by Balian d'Ibelin

The Mughals can be considered as a Persia-Turkish Empire. 

And something.... Is that, the Mughals are more considered as Persians more than Turkish (maybe they've more Persian blood).
 
I've never heard of such a theory that Mughals were ever considered as a Persian Empire, not at least from reliable sources, and one more important thing is that, the paternal ancestral trace always has been the measure determining the ethnicities of royal families.


-------------
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


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 22:00
Mughal founder was Babur, King of Kabul, right?

Only after he captured it to give him a base to retake Samarkand and Ferghana.
The Kabulistan adventurers were a descendant heir of Mahmud of Ghazni, which conquer India in 8th Century.

No. The Ghaznavids were throughly defeated by the Ghurids in the 12th century. - and Mahmoud of Ghazni was in the 11th.
But, their wealth wasn't great enough to make them the greatest Turkish or Muslim Empire, some reasons are:

You realise that in the 17th century they were the richest and most powerful nation on earth by a long long way. The wealth of the Mughals was so legendary it filtered into the english language with the word Mogul.

MoĚgul ('gəl, mō-gŭl') pronunciation
n.
  1. also MoĚghul (mʊ-gŭl', mō-) or MuĚghal (mū-gŭl')
    1. A member of the force that under Baber conquered India in 1526.
    2. A member of the Muslim dynasty founded by Baber that ruled India until 1857.
  2. A Mongol or Mongolian.
  3. mogul A very rich or powerful person; a magnate.



-------------


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 00:39
Im Mughal. Family lineage, family tree.
 
Mughals were an invading Mongolian based people. However due to intermarriages and such, they became Turkic during Timur-Leng's rule. Finally they went to India, and Akbar had sex with native Indian women, Jahangir and Shah Jahan's marriages also diluted the Mongol gene pool.
 
PS - We were rich fool. 25% of worlds GDP. Out of all 3 Muslim Nations, Mughal Empire was richer then Ottoman Empire and Safavid Empire.
 
Mughal Empire 1526 - 1738 RIP: 212 years
 


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 05:13
Mughals were an invading Mongolian based people. However due to intermarriages and such, they became Turkic during Timur-Leng's rule. Finally they went to India, and Akbar had sex with native Indian women, Jahangir and Shah Jahan's marriages also diluted the Mongol gene pool.
As if a country's nationality could be defined by its leader's origins. By this standard France would be Hungary now. In many respects the Mughal empire  had a lot to do with the other small regimes in the Southern peninsula, while very little to do with the Ottoman, Just look at their army, their fiscal system or their commercial law.
 
I look turkic from my forehead and eyebrows, everything else looks ambigous.
lol 

We were rich fool. 30% of worlds GDP. Even America doesnt have that right now. Out of all 3 Muslim Nations, Mughal Empire was richer then Ottoman Empire and Safavid Empire.
I always found the GDP estimate very very fishy mostly because calculated by European's prices. 


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Lotus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 11:35
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.

Just to add to Bulldogs comment, I did a visit to the Mogul palace at
Fatehpur Sikri during my travelling days, one of the main forum areas was a large building called the Diwan I Khas that had a large central column.
I remember the guide telling us the emperor Akbar had the column carved in 4 distinctive styles, one for each of the great world religions. He would conduct religious debates within this building.


Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 04:05
Originally posted by Kashmiri

ya they became indian, i mean the first leaders of the empire might be turks but after they became indian.
 
Of all posts, yours is the most direct to the point and correct.  I commend you!  Clap
 
The Mughals were Indian in culture and they will forever be tied to India.  Like in Afghanistan, the administrative language was Persian (although most Pashtuns couldn't speak it) and yet the army comprised of Pashtuns, Uzbeks, and Qezelbash.   With all that variety, it is still considered an AFGHAN empire.
 
I heard somebody say here that they are a Indo-Perso-Turkic people....why don't they just call it MUGHAL?  That is what they are, their a empire built on the foundations laid down by their leaders and constituents. No one ethnic group can lay claim to it. 
 
And the gentlemen who said that Babur Shah is an heir to Mahmud Ghaznawi is not wholly wrong.  Mahmud Ghaznawi was the first emperor who made regular plundering excursions into India and the Ghorids, Babur Shah, Nadir Afshari, and the Afghans followed this custom of plundering Hindu riches.
 
 
 
 


-------------
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak


Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 15:31
Originally posted by The Grim Reaper

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?

No. Pakistan is not apart of the Middle East. The Middle East is a politically defined entity from Egypt to Iran that was conjured up by the British and popularized by the Americans. The Middle East was not defined based on cultural, religious or historical factors, which even if it were, would not include Pakistan since Pakistanis share only Islam with the peoples of the Middle East, but not culture, history or race.

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?
 
It doesnt matter how much wealth an empire aquired during its existence. What makes empires great are the influences and legacies they leave behind. To call the Mughals the greatest 'Muslim' empire would be laughable, because their subjects largely still remained as non-Muslims. So how can the Mughals be considered a great Muslim empire when they failed the most basic priority for a 'Muslim' empire and that was to spread Islam among their subjects? As for what you call being a "Turkish" empire, since the Mughals after Babur adopted Persian language and culture and fused this furhter into their Timurid heritage (which already had mixed Persian and Turkic cultures) the Mughals cannot be called "Turkish" in my opinion.

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?
 
No. The Mughal empire was not Indian. It was a Timurid empire. The last Timurid empire infact. After Babur the Mughals became culturally and ethnically close to the Persians, but i would still call them a Timurid empire (Not Turkish or Persian). After Aurengzeb you could argue that the Mughals became Indianized however, that much i might agree on. But i dont know much about the Mughals after Aurengzeb other than Nader Shah dealth them a serious death blow when he sacked and looted Delhi and massacred many of its people.


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 05:32

Indian. Indian. Indian.



Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 12:06
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by Penelope

Not trying to make a point, but just want to state that Mughal Empire can be said to be a "descendant" Empire, since Bābur's mother was a blood relative of Genghis Khan.
 
While he has a direct heritage connection with Tamerlane, his connection with Genghis Khan is still disputed.
 
But after all, I think Mughals cannot be shown as a "descendant" empire of anything, as the region they ruled was not ruled by any of the ancestors of Babur Shah before. Mughals have a totally different characteristic.
 
I thought amir Timur proclaimed himself or was refered to as gŘrkhan(son in law)?


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Efraz
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2008 at 13:55
Another origin debate.
We don't have to call Mughals neighter pure indian nor Turkic. Ottomans, Tumiruds, Seljuqs, Gaznavids,  Mamelukes, Safavids(and many other Iranian dynasties), Ayyubids etc etc. many islamic imperialistic states were a good mixture of many cultures: Turkic, Persian, Arabic and sometimes Kurdish as in Ayyubids...

Most cases Turkic was the origin of the dynasty and/or military heritage, Persian influenced the art strongly(sometimes language too),  Arabic ofcourse was the dominant global culture and dominated the religious life mostly in all areas.
And the ethnicity of the folks depended on the geographical location of the empire.

Even the lingusitics is a subject of debate. Most cases rulers, army and folks have spoken different languages and the official language was another matter :)

The true question is: was there ever a pure Turkic-islamic state in history? My closest answer is Kara-Khanids.  :) There are others ofcourse.


Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2008 at 15:50
I always thought of it as an Indian Empire with a Turkic ruling class, just an opinion.

Efraz:

There were quite a few relatively "pure" Turkic-Islamic states in history, the Golden Horde, the Crimean Khanate, the Uighur state, the Nogay, the Turkish Beyliks in Anatolia....Come to think of it they were mostly Kypchak Turks.

Timur was actually the worst thing that ever happened to Turks. I'm sorry if there's any Uzbeks reading this right now, but Timur was really useless.




-------------


Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 18:43

Before we can answer this questionů we need to define what is an Indian? For last I check there was no country or nation called India before British invasionůother then various different Rajaĺs and Nawabs and so onů.

The same hold for Turks..what is a Turk? Is it race?(is there such a race called Turkish race?) or language?(Turkish language group).



Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 04-May-2008 at 20:44
They were Turks by genotype, Persian and Urdu speakers (mostly Persian was the language of government and bureacracy and rich and educated/ Urdu was language of military), Indian in culture (the Mughal Emperors celebrated Hindu Festivals as national holidays, along with Nau Ruz), and finally totally Muslim who had an unspoken/spoken Muslim First policy.

There you go.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 19-May-2008 at 23:34
The Mughal Empire was established by Central Asians pushed out of there homeland and  set out and conquered South Asia, it is by no means an indian empire, in fact the Mughal empire conquered and wiped out several indian empires, enslaving them.
 
It was an empire founded by ''Turks'', ruled over by Turks, it did have a multicultural atmosphere (it would be akin to saying the Sikh empire was European or Panjabi since many Europeans where in the top ranks), but the ruling elite was always Turkish in the Mughal empire, wether they married here or there does not make a difference as Turkish and most societies, run on the father's blood line; and they married just about everyone, often having harems of more than 100 women!.  I never saw no indian ruling the empire at any point.
 
The Mughal empire was clearly a Central Asian Empire (Turk/Mongol).. that ruled and conquered india for over 200 years. 
 
 


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 24-May-2008 at 18:54
Originally posted by MarcoPolo

The Mughal Empire was established by Central Asians pushed out of there homeland and  set out and conquered South Asia, it is by no means an indian empire, in fact the Mughal empire conquered and wiped out several indian empires, enslaving them.
 
It was an empire founded by ''Turks'', ruled over by Turks, it did have a multicultural atmosphere (it would be akin to saying the Sikh empire was European or Panjabi since many Europeans where in the top ranks), but the ruling elite was always Turkish in the Mughal empire, wether they married here or there does not make a difference as Turkish and most societies, run on the father's blood line; and they married just about everyone, often having harems of more than 100 women!.  I never saw no indian ruling the empire at any point.
 
The Mughal empire was clearly a Central Asian Empire (Turk/Mongol).. that ruled and conquered india for over 200 years. 
 
 
 
Good point, it was definately not an Indian Empire. Also, each emperor continued to claim descent from Genghis Khan to the very end.


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2008 at 11:15
The kind of terror the Mughals used against the former Imperials to silent the local population and  to build up their empire in India they certainly can not be called an Indian Empire, since Indian a civilized nation and due the foundation of Mughal empire went 1000 years backwards otherwise India would have been a developed nation by this time.
 
During the Muslim invasions and later by the Britishers it had become a practice to kill Gujjars, to terrorise other populations of India, since it was considered best by them to beat the Imperials first and as a result others will start behaving obediently.

Here is one example how Babar terrorised the local populace of India by killing Gujjars. He captured so many Mandars ( mainly children and woman) and taken to Kabul and that is the reason many of the Mandars in Pakistan does not even know that they have Gujjar Pratihars Imperial Heritage since no male adult was left alive.

"It was said that when in the cold season of 1528-9 , the Mandahars (Also written as Mandar is a celebrated gotra of Gujjars who are said to be the direct descendent of Gujjar Pratihars of Mandwar or Mandor and you may find millions of Gujjar Mandahars in and around Delhi) of the area of north of Delhi plundered villages and then defeated BaburÔÇÖs forces to the number of 3000 men, a force of consisting of 4000 of cavalry and several elephants was sent against them, their settlement was razed to the ground.
According to Ahmad Yadgar ÔÇť the male Mandars were half buried in the ground and were shot to death to arrows.Abul Fazl quoted as a point about which both sound jurists and innovators are agreed , the opinion that the binding, killing or striking (of) the haughty and the chastising (of) the stiff necked are the part of struggle for empire."


Please the Page 10 of ÔÇťNaukar, Rajput & SepoyÔÇŁ The ethno-history of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850 by Dirk H.A. Koeff University of Leiden for further reading.

 

The Britishers also terrorised the Indian but used differeny methods.




See the fact recorded by Mr.H.C. Williams in the Gazetteer of Dehra Dun of 1890 that how the britishers targeted Gujjars to tell others to bahave.

During the erstwhile British regime. During the middle of the 19th century a Gujjar called Kalua of , whose had terrorised the British forces for years by his constant attacks upon them. He did not trouble the local Indians but was a constant threat to the British forces. Such was the fear the British had of him that when finally he was captured his head was severed and stuck on a pole outside the jail for a month as an abject lesson to the local population not to oppose their 'masters'. This was before the first war of independence or as the Britishers preferred to call it 'the sepoy mutiny'. As a matter of fact Kalua was one of the first freedom fighters of the country.


Note: Real name Kalyan Singh, one of the General of Gujjar Parmar kingdom of Landhora. The Legend Yog Raj Singh was his ancestor who chased Amir Taimur in 1398, up to Ambala and did not allow him to loot this part of country.
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 17:12

mughals faced stiff resistance from kings of north west india i.e., present day rajasthan during initial days of mughal empire . they wont have been able to rule a single day if these kings wont have aliegned with them but these kings were there only to protect hindu interests realizing that alone they wont be able to take the mighty mughal empire and looking at the fate of their predecessors who fought single handedly , they just to protect hindu interests led so many of mughal empire military expedition that it is unimaginable  for mughals to survive for a single day on their own,

                   and as soon as mughals lost the favour of rajputs as after jaswant singh's ,ruler of jodhpur death their downslide started . Durga das Rathore  gave such a fatal blow to Auranjeb that they were not able to stand on their  own after that.



Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 18:22
A reminder, the Gurjar-Rajput topic is allowed in the Minefield only. 

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 18:59
In response to some replies:
 
Yes Timur was descendant of Chingghis Khaan
Yes Babur was descendant of Chingghis Khaan
And yes Mughal emperors were descendant to the last end with Bahadur Shar
 
To be descendant of Chingghis means you are fit to rule the steppes, and hold a legitimate domain


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 05:21
I find Indians to be the most skewed when it comes to History. There is the "Indian Version" of history, and then the "Everyone Else's" Version of History.

So Mughals took India 1000 years back? Im sure the Vijayanagran Empire was doing an amazing job with India...

Without the Mughals, India would not have had Bollywood, because Bollywood uses Urdu and Urdu was invented under the Mughals. :)

On a more serious note, the reason India is so backward and poor is because of British Imperialism + Nehru's Socialism. British Empire took Indian wealth and transported it to Europe. Nehru was a fan of socialism, and thats how India's population went from 400 million in 1945 to 1 billion in 2005.

Lastly, Cultural Economics makes a difference. India has an Elitist Culture (Caste System) and it shows itself when you have 4/10 of the world's billionares in a nation that has the majority percentage of world's poor.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 07:30
Not only was that post historically incorrect. It is also rather disparaging. Consider this some good advice not to needlessly put down other nations.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 17:20
mughal empire was never an indian one, not only  in  its origin but rather in its spirit also . it took india 1000 years back . they were simple nomadics who wandered into india and took advantage of then split indian society.


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 06:34
What were the Mughals?

The Mughals were simply thus: Mongol-Turkic warriors who invaded Hind. They were slowly Indianized to the point that they fused Indian and Persio-Islamic culture to create a new Indian flavor. To this end, they subjugated all the native Indians as well as the previous Muslim left overs of the Delhi Empire.

As for the Indians, they were never truly united. Although, it can be said the South Asian Sub-Continent from Kabul to Bangkok and then Malaysia and Indonesia inclusive are under the realm of a distinct Hindic-Central mode of thinking (as N Korea, S Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Mongolia and China are in the realm of the Sinic World).

What can not be argued is that the Indians were ever one people. They considered each other different as Europeans today consider themselves different from one another. Even the ancient Indian Empires could never conquer all of India, perhaps because they never considered it all as "India" as we do today.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 19:26
the concept of akhand bharat , i.e., united india is a not a new one it dates back to 3000 years B.C .  so the question of indian empires considering themselves distinct from others doesn't arise .after all bharat word comes from King Bharat who ruled the whole of india during mahabharat.


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 15:02
Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

In response to some replies:
 
Yes Timur was descendant of Chingghis Khaan
Yes Babur was descendant of Chingghis Khaan
And yes Mughal emperors were descendant to the last end with Bahadur Shar
 
To be descendant of Chingghis means you are fit to rule the steppes, and hold a legitimate domain
 
Chingghis Khan was a Budhist and so his son grandson Halaku. Since Budhist religion originated from India the Mughal empire can be called an Indian empire.
 
But Mongols and Mughals were never true followers of their religion. The Budhist believe not to kill or harm any human being where Halaku, the grandson of Chinghis Khan is said to have killed 6 million Muslims in a single day while sacking Baghdad sometime in 13th. century.
 
Similarly Mughals never followed their Muslim religion except while it is used for their own gains. The Mughals never considered the Muslims equal to them and never married their daughters to anybody and many of Mughal females died unmarried.
 
Can anybody tell how the Mongols were converted to Muslim religion after the death og Halaku, the great conquerer?
 


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 17:18
and berke converted to Islam so what

The Mughals where muslims be4 they entered India since Mughals are a branch or succesor of the Timurids = Muslims.

Mongols who converted To Islam intermixed with the Larger Turkic groups

-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 17:55
not just mughals most of the foreign invaders from central asia were at some point of time originated from india who some how converted to islam . one of the facts supporting above point is that afghanistan was originally named as awa - gaman -ka sthan  ie., the point of entry to india. people guarding this point originally hindus some how started practising islam . and the same people when came back to their native place came to be known as mughals or so on.


Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 18:07
that sounds like revisionist history to me and doesnt make any sense?? 
 
this has nothing to do with hinduism, hinduism is a religion... there are hindus in Bali (indonesia) does it make them indian?? the answer is no!  there hindu's that live in Pakistan, does that make them indian?? again the answer is no!  There are Afghans who may follow hinduism as well.. the answer im sure you should know by now..
 
The Mughal empire was thru and thru, a Turkish based empire that ruled over a foreign land(india);  Ironically they went to war and conquered india from another foreign ruler, the Afghans who were then the rulers of the north west subcontinent.  In fact, a small minority of the decendents of the Mughals to this day,  still converse in their ancient Turkish dialect, a phenomenol sense of preservation considering they arrived in the region in 1526 and underwent considerable ''mixing''. 


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 21:38
As said: "There is the "everyone's" version of history, then the "Indian" version of history."

Its most closely like Afrocentric history (the ancient chinese were black!) except with an indian garb.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 21:55
Originally posted by AP Singh

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

In response to some replies:
Accept it. They werent Indian. But they were your masters for centuries. 
Yes Timur was descendant of Chingghis Khaan
Yes Babur was descendant of Chingghis Khaan
And yes Mughal emperors were descendant to the last end with Bahadur Shar
 
To be descendant of Chingghis means you are fit to rule the steppes, and hold a legitimate domain
 
Chingghis Khan was a Budhist and so his son grandson Halaku. Since Budhist religion originated from India the Mughal empire can be called an Indian empire.
 
But Mongols and Mughals were never true followers of their religion. The Budhist believe not to kill or harm any human being where Halaku, the grandson of Chinghis Khan is said to have killed 6 million Muslims in a single day while sacking Baghdad sometime in 13th. century.
 
Similarly Mughals never followed their Muslim religion except while it is used for their own gains. The Mughals never considered the Muslims equal to them and never married their daughters to anybody and many of Mughal females died unmarried.
 
Can anybody tell how the Mongols were converted to Muslim religion after the death og Halaku, the great conquerer?
 


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 21:57
They werent Indian, but they were your masters for centuries. Like the previous turkic states


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 20:07
mughals were never masters of indians . they simply were a makeshift type of arrangement.tehy were not able to take a simple step without help o findian states .  just because of their being so weak rulers , they could not leave any great impression on indian society .  moreover they took muslims back by thousands of years that mughal word has become synonmous with illetracy, barbarismand backwardness in india. .


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 21:38
they could not leave any great impression on indian society


But they left a great impression Indian geography and blessed it with one of the wonders of the world, the Taj Mahal - they put India on the map.  They were THE prime polity in India, they were the ones with whom all European powers wished to have good trading relations.  They dwarf in scale and magnificence all other Indian states in the last millenium, perhaps the last two millenia.


-------------


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 21:43
Originally posted by aditya

mughals were never masters of indians . they simply were a makeshift type of arrangement.tehy were not able to take a simple step without help o findian states .  just because of their being so weak rulers , they could not leave any great impression on indian society .  moreover they took muslims back by thousands of years that mughal word has become synonmous with illetracy, barbarismand backwardness in india. .


weak foreign overlords




-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 06:20
Aditya.

The word Mughal was transformed into the word Mogul in the English language, meaning someone who is in a high up position.
As in a Business Tycoon = Business Mogul.
So to make stupid statements will get you nowhere.

Since when the hell did Indians allow themselves to be ruled by foreigners? Oh, im sorry, i forgot the British Empire as well.

Krishna: You know what, I have an idea.
Dev: What idea Krishna?
Krishna: How 'bout we let these foreign Turks rule over us for 600 years?
Dev:Niiiiicccccccceeeeee. Good thinking. That way we can go "backwards" 1000 years, so everyone from Europe and China would want to visit us.

What can be summed up is that besides the Rajput and Jat tribes, Indians cant fight. The only way they know to fight is starve themselves to the brink of death in order to shame their overlords. ala Gandhi.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 15:12
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

They werent Indian, but they were your masters for centuries. Like the previous turkic states
 
Indians were also Masters of Central asia during the time of Kushans and theory of Aryan migration frokm India to Georgia and to Germany is true.
By the way who were eralier Turks?
Mahmud Gazni was never the emperor of India and took advantage of the infighting among the erstwhile fuedatories of Gurjar- Pratihar empire but certainly these Turkik slaves of earstwhile Baghdad Caliphate were having upper hand for certain period since they started uniting people of different tribes in the name of religion.
Ghori and for that purpose people of Ghor were Hindus at the time of the Gaznavi. 
I would like to know how the descendents of Gengis Khan and Halaku of Budhist religion embraced Islam?
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 16:55

Indians were masters of C Asia? In what LSD induced dream did that occur in?



-------------


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 18:09
Originally posted by Sparten

Indians were masters of C Asia? In what LSD induced dream did that occur in?



I second that.Wink


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 19:01
And to answer the topic question: Of course the Mughal empire was Indian (as in belonging to Indian culture), Turkey was not formed until the 20th century, so how could it be Turkish???  As for the Mughals dynasty, it can be said they had Turkic founders but they didn't exactly have Turkic culture when they settled in India proper.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 19:10
As I said before. It depend on when you ask about the dynasty. Babur was deinatly Turkic, as were his successors, though Farsi was their language this changed esp after 1736 and Nadir Shah's invasion. At the end it was clearly Indian.


-------------


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 20:20
hmm thats proably the fate of any Turkic Empire

they get assimilated into the local culture, well partialy

ps I want some of what Sighn is snorting

-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 03:07
Singh

Indians never "ruled" central asia, but their culture did mesh with local SE Asian cultures to create a Hindic culture in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, etc.
If anything, before Turkicization, India was Persianized.




-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 06:44
Originally posted by Mughal e Azam

Singh

Indians never "ruled" central asia, but their culture did mesh with local SE Asian cultures to create a Hindic culture in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, etc.
If anything, before Turkicization, India was Persianized.


 
During Kushan Empire the Indian extended their empire up Georgia. Kushan is a Gotra (clan ) Of Gurjars and are called Kasana now a days. They are said to descendents of Kush, the elder son of lord Rama.
 
The Gurjars  Kushans were defeated by the Huns and that time the Georgia and India ( of course undivided India and that was complete present day India, Pakistan and afghanistan)were isolated. In 8th. century the Gurjar Pratihars ( the descendents of Laxmana defeated the Hunas under Mihir Bhoja the Great and Huns were assimilated among one of the clans of Gurjara. ( see Gwalior inscription).
 
In the present day Uzbekistan also ( the motherland of Babar) you may still find places like Guzar and kasan. The Indian literature was destroyed later my Muslim invaders who were almost illiterate as compared to Indians who were good mathematicians even at that time and FYI the zero was invented in India during this Gurjara Empire. Had Uzbekistan not isolated from India due the invasions of Huns, the Babar and also Akbar would not have been illiterate human being? 
 
In Georgia there are still Shiva temples confirming the presence Indian Empire and also Gurjara in persian called Jujaria which is nothing but present Georgia and that was the route of Aryans migration  to Germany from India, which can be confirmed by influence of Sanskrit on German language and also the sign of Swastic used by Germans which is considered auspicious in India even today.   
 
 


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 06:50
^The Kushan Empire was founded by the Yuezhi a Iranian Tribe from Central Asia




-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 06:56
Originally posted by Suren

Originally posted by Sparten

Indians were masters of C Asia? In what LSD induced dream did that occur in?



I second that.Wink
During Kushan Empire the Indian extended their empire up Georgia. Kushan is a Gotra (clan ) Of Gurjars and are called Kasana now a days. They are said to descendents of Kush, the elder son of lord Rama.
 
The Gurjars  Kushans were defeated by the Huns and that time the Georgia and India ( of course undivided India and that was complete present day India, Pakistan and afghanistan)were isolated. In 8th. century the Gurjar Pratihars ( the descendents of Laxmana defeated the Hunas under Mihir Bhoja the Great and Huns were assimilated among one of the clans of Gurjara. ( see Gwalior inscription).
 
In the present day Uzbekistan also ( the motherland of Babar) you may still find places like Guzar and kasan. The Indian literature was destroyed later my Muslim invaders and that is the reason we have to depend on the named placed after the Indian Empires and the influence of their language and culture in those regions. Had Uzbekistan not isolated from India due the invasions of Huns and remained under control of Indians, the Babar and also Akbar would not have been the unfortunate illiterate people. 
 
In Georgia there are still Shiva temples confirming the presence Indian Empire and also Gurjara in persian called Jujaria which is nothing but present Georgia and that was the route of Aryans migration  to Germany from India, which can be confirmed by influence of Sanskrit on German language and also the sign of Swastic used by Germans which is considered auspicious in India even today.   
 


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 07:25
Even during the days of Gurjara Pratihars were in full control of Afghanistan. It was only after the Gurjar Chauhans, one of the their own clan of Gurjara- Pratihars asserted its own independence and captured the price Salwan of Delhi of another Gurjara clan Tanwar. It was in 954AD when the fight of these Gurjara clan started and Mahmud took advantage of these infightings to its full advantage and attacked shahi Khatana Jai Pal. Khatan in India was a name for place beyond Kabul and rulers of that place Khatanas. You will still find lot of Gurjara Khatans in present day pakistan and Afghnaistan.
 
Here is the historical record showing the Gurjara domination in the 10th. century an present day Afghanistan region.
 
 
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhrmi/ch2.htm

Arab travellers to India of the 10th century ´┐Żall speak of only two independent Arab principalities with Multan and Mansurah as their capitals´┐Ż. The Pratihara kings waged constant war ´┐Żagainst the Arab prince of Multan, and with the Mussalmans, his subjects on the frontier´┐Ż. Multan would have been lost by the Arabs but for a Hindu temple. Dr. Misra quotes Al-Istakhri who wrote about AD 951 that in Multan ´┐Żthere is an idol held in great veneration by the Hindus and every year people from distant parts undertake pilgrimages to it´┐Ż When the Indians make war upon them and endeavour to seize the idol, the inhabitants [Arabs] bring it out pretending that they will break it and burn it. Upon this the Indians retire, otherwise they would destroy Multan.´┐Ż Finally, he observes: ´┐ŻThus after three centuries of unremitting effort, we find the Arab dominion in India limited to two petty states of Multan and Mansurah. And here, too, they could exist only after renouncing their iconoclastic zeal and utilizing the idols for their own political ends. It is a very strange sight to see them seeking shelter behind the very budds, they came here to destroy


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 07:46
Originally posted by Mughal e Azam

Aditya.

The word Mughal was transformed into the word Mogul in the English language, meaning someone who is in a high up position.
As in a Business Tycoon = Business Mogul. 
 
But in the birth place of Babar the the word Mughal is still not used in that sence. They still use the Czar for that purpose which nothing but Gurjara. The Gurjara of Sanskrit in persian also called as Juzr which is further changed to Czar and it is further confirmation of Indian Gurjar Kushan empire on Central Asia. 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 08:11

I shudder to type this but, Singh Sahib, cite please?



-------------


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 08:55
Originally posted by AP Singh

Originally posted by Mughal e Azam

Aditya.

The word Mughal was transformed into the word Mogul in the English language, meaning someone who is in a high up position.
As in a Business Tycoon = Business Mogul. 
 
But in the birth place of Babar the the word Mughal is still not used in that sence. They still use the Czar for that purpose which nothing but Gurjara. The Gurjara of Sanskrit in persian also called as Juzr which is further changed to Czar and it is further confirmation of Indian Gurjar Kushan empire on Central Asia. 


Citation Plz.

I speak Persian and I know we call them Gujars and their state as Gujarat.
juzr is not persian.


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 09:31
Originally posted by AP Singh

Originally posted by Suren

Originally posted by Sparten

Indians were masters of C Asia? In what LSD induced dream did that occur in?



I second that.Wink
During Kushan Empire the Indian extended their empire up Georgia. Kushan is a Gotra (clan ) Of Gurjars and are called Kasana now a days. They are said to descendents of Kush, the elder son of lord Rama.
 
The Gurjars  Kushans were defeated by the Huns and that time the Georgia and India ( of course undivided India and that was complete present day India, Pakistan and afghanistan)were isolated. In 8th. century the Gurjar Pratihars ( the descendents of Laxmana defeated the Hunas under Mihir Bhoja the Great and Huns were assimilated among one of the clans of Gurjara. ( see Gwalior inscription).
 
In the present day Uzbekistan also ( the motherland of Babar) you may still find places like Guzar and kasan. The Indian literature was destroyed later my Muslim invaders and that is the reason we have to depend on the named placed after the Indian Empires and the influence of their language and culture in those regions. Had Uzbekistan not isolated from India due the invasions of Huns and remained under control of Indians, the Babar and also Akbar would not have been the unfortunate illiterate people. 
 
In Georgia there are still Shiva temples confirming the presence Indian Empire and also Gurjara in persian called Jujaria which is nothing but present Georgia and that was the route of Aryans migration  to Germany from India, which can be confirmed by influence of Sanskrit on German language and also the sign of Swastic used by Germans which is considered auspicious in India even today.   
 


1. Kushan were related to Tocharian not Indians.
2. They never ruled far than Afghanistan. (not Georgia for sure)
3. Persian name for Georgian is Gorji not Jujar or Gurjar. In Persian we do have G so we don't call Gurjara as jurjara or whatever you are trying to convince us.
4. The theory of migration of Indo-European from India is not acceptable outside of India and Indian history books.
5. Swastika is not an Indian sigh, but an Indo-European luck charm.
6. Please stop connecting yourself to germans by any nonsence Idea...I don't know why people want to be german by any chance.Wink 

This is an article about Kushans. They were defeated by Persians and their vassals Kidarites. Huns defeated the Kidarites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan

After the death of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasudeva_I - Vasudeva I in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/225 - 225 , the Kushan empire split into western and eastern halves. The Western Kushans (in Afghanistan) were soon subjugated by the Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_Empire - Sassanid Empire and lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria - Bactria and other territories. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/248 - 248 they were defeated again by the Persians, who deposed the Western dynasty and replaced them with Persian vassals known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushanshas - Kushanshas (or Indo-Sassanids).

The Eastern Kushan kingdom was based in the Punjab. Around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/270 - 270 their territories on the Gangetic plain became independent under local dynasties such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaudheyas - Yaudheyas . Then in the mid 4th century they were subjugated by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire - Gupta Empire under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samudragupta - Samudragupta .

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360 - 360 a Kushan vassal named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidara - Kidara overthrew the old Kushan dynasty and established the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidarite_Kingdom - Kidarite Kingdom . The Kushan style of Kidarite coins indicates they considered themselves as Kushans. The Kidarite seem to have been rather prosperous, although on a smaller scale than their Kushan predecessors.

These remnants of the Kushan empire were ultimately wiped out in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century - 5th century by the invasions of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Huns - White Huns , and later the expansion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam - Islam .




Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 10:01
WIKI is not an authentic source to quote and you may not get the same contents at the site in the evening today, which you have quoted in the morning. You may search Google by putting Gujjar, Kushans and General Cunnigham together and you will find enough details of Kushasn ( written as Yuechi in chinese) to be of Gurjara origin( written as Ku-chelo in chinese history).
In Persian history the Georgia is also written as Gorjistan which Gurjarsthan in sanskrit and hence Georgia is named after Gurjara Kushans. I dont know abcd of persian language but one thing is sure that every language changes its shape and character if you walk 10 kilometers away from one place to another and you can not say that persian languange remained constant allover.
We are not connecting with the Germans but even today there is lot of research going on on Sanskrit language in German finding their roots. The Swastika sign is still must in all the Hindu Pujas in India and you may see it even on the clothing used by priests in all the temples.
 
The Kushan Empire was destroyed by the Huns who more barbaric like Mongols, in a similar fashion the Baghdad caliphate was sacked by Halaku, the grandson of Gengiskhan, a mongol. Even on Mogols you can not deny the Indian influence since till the time of Halaku, they were of Budhist religion otherwise Halaku would not have killed 6 millon muslim scholars in a single day at the time of sack of Baghdad. I would not like to write again that the Budhist religion originated and spread all over from India only.
 
Probably, the Mughals were also barbaric since they inherited the genes from the invading Mongols since it is well known fact Mongols raped  a large number of  women during their  winning conquests.
 
The similarity of Gujjars and Mongols are that both of these warriors had best of cavalry. The historians today became habitual to read and write the history in the perspective seen today write both of these tribes as sheperds but to take care of animals horses , to train them and to have a good uderstanding animal-man relationship was part of cavalry. In todays world also one has to see and study the lifestyle of these tribes and many of the descendents of these tribes are still surviving on their livestock and taking best out of the traning given to them by their ancestors. That is the reason the complete milk supply of China is from Mongolia, and in India and Pakistan is from Gujjar dominated areas.
 
The Gujjars were not civilised being an Indian tribe and were not barbaric like Huns and Mongols and that where they were defeated since they never expected that kind of treatment from any human race, which was sure inhuman.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 10:35

The Mongols were'nt alone in celebrating their victory with the local fauna. Lots of others did that as well until the 20th century. Which is why conscription had to be introduced no doubt, half the attraction was gone.

 



-------------


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 10:42
Ruling line descended from the http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/654618/Yuezhi - Yuezhi , a people that ruled over most of the northern Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia during the first three centuries of the Christian era

After the rise of the S─üs─ünian dynasty in Iran and of local powers in northern India, Kush─ün rule declined.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325483/Kushan-dynasty
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/654618/Yuezhi -
I am sorry to disappoint you about connection between Gurjars and Georgian. It is not related because there is no document or artifact which support your Idea. Beside Georgian call themselves Kartvili not Gorji.

About the thread question: I think the Mughals were Turkic at least at the beginning (Babur, his son and grandson)


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 10:53
Originally posted by Sparten

The Mongols were'nt alone in celebrating their victory with the local fauna. Lots of others did that as well until the 20th century. Which is why conscription had to be introduced no doubt, half the attraction was gone.

 

 
We have to take these kind of celebrations in comparative terms. For example the British troops are said to be most desciplined than others in Iraq a few years back. We could not expect the same from the army of Mongols and Mughals. The Indians princes since olden days were educated on the the subject that how to treat the defeated armies.
 
even during the Mughal era Shivaji's general captured some women for Shivaji and was expecting some good prizes from the king like in manner it was given in the areas ruled by Mughal empire but Shivaji in fact punished the General and returned those muslim women with respect and safty to the place of their manfolk. This is the reflection of Indian culture.
 
In a similar fashion Sher Shah Suri punished his own son who disrespected some brahmin woman during his rule but unfortunately he could not rule India for longer period and could renovate only Grand Trunk Road ( Even toady called Sher Shah Suri Marg in India) because he was Indian since afghanistan was part of Indian Empires earlier. Unfortunately the destiny of India was written to be ruled by the illiterate Mughals who never built anything on their own but renovated the existing buildings by removing all the wall stone of the existing buildings and installing the same in reverse manner to hide the truth.
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 11:28
AP Singh, the above theorys detract from the purpose of this thread.It is now clearly an Alternative History thread. And their it shall be moved.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 16:26
[[/QUOTE]
 
Chingghis Khan was a Budhist and so his son grandson Halaku.  
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
 
No, they were Tengrist.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 17:52
When you call Kushuns Tokharians it must be noted that the Persian name for the region of Balkh and to the north was Tokharistan, so it does not mean that they were related to the people of the Tarim basin especially if they were Iranic proper speakers.

-------------


Posted By: sourjya9007
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2014 at 06:37
The Mughal Empire is absolutely an Indian Empire. To explain my stand we need to first define what "Indian" and India refers to.
The Vedic Culture, which we generally denote as the original Indian culture was not developed by the aboriginals of the subcontinent, but by Aryans who drifted from central Asia around 4000 BC.
Similarly the Mughals had arrived from India from central Asia/Afganisthan (not very clearly stated in history).
The basic difference between the British and the Mughals is that the Mughals stayed in India. They ruled India from India and not from London. The Mughals generated wealth and they used it solely on their territory in India and did not send any proceeds to Persia or Arabia.
British India is a colony rather than a continuous empire. Britain used most of the money/resources generated from India to meet the needs of Britain, like to fund the world wars. As a result Britain and India have two different cultures. They have influenced each other but never had there been a merger between the two like that of the Mughals.
In its essence, the difference between Mughal rule and that of British rule is basically the difference between an empire and a colony.
 


-------------
sourjyadutta


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2014 at 00:44
Too all posters here, I have seen a map, wherein the printing of the letter "N" (as in Indian) is sometimes reversed, as in a mirror image.

Were these letters sometimes done so just for fun? Or did the reversal actually serve some other purpose?

Ron

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2014 at 17:16
Originally posted by opuslola

Too all posters here, I have seen a map, wherein the printing of the letter "N" (as in Indian) is sometimes reversed, as in a mirror image.

Were these letters sometimes done so just for fun? Or did the reversal actually serve some other purpose?

Ron


We'd need to know what language the map was in. Some alphabets do use a reversed 'N' as a regular letter (Russian, for example).


Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2014 at 13:49
i dont think the uzbeks would be happy to hear your opinion

-------------
yomud are free people


Posted By: astrigun
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2016 at 02:42
Does anyone know if ther are any recent descendants of Babur / Timurids living in India or Pakistan?


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 11:37
Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 11:47
Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.
 Tarihsel ger├žekler kimseyi de─či┼čtirme hakk─▒na sahip olamaz, bu ┼čekilde oldu─ču anlam─▒na gelmez (Mugal) ├ž├╝nk├╝ i┼če yaramaz, T├╝rklerin devlet kurma gelene─či inkar edilemez.Historical facts can not have the right to change anyone, it does not mean this way (Mughal) because it does not work, the tradition of the Turks to establish state can not be denied.


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 11:53
Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.
 Tarihsel ger├žekler kimseyi de─či┼čtirme hakk─▒na sahip olamaz, bu ┼čekilde oldu─ču anlam─▒na gelmez (Mugal) ├ž├╝nk├╝ i┼če yaramaz, T├╝rklerin devlet kurma gelene─či inkar edilemez.Historical facts can not have the right to change anyone, it does not mean this way (Mughal) because it does not work, the tradition of the Turks to establish state can not be denied.
I have even done research to make sure that this is a Turkish empire, an unquestionable fact.Yes AK─░F 


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 11:55
Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.
 Tarihsel ger├žekler kimseyi de─či┼čtirme hakk─▒na sahip olamaz, bu ┼čekilde oldu─ču anlam─▒na gelmez (Mugal) ├ž├╝nk├╝ i┼če yaramaz, T├╝rklerin devlet kurma gelene─či inkar edilemez.Historical facts can not have the right to change anyone, it does not mean this way (Mughal) because it does not work, the tradition of the Turks to establish state can not be denied.
I have even done research to make sure that this is a Turkish empire, an unquestionable fact.Yes AK─░F 
If the British know history, Turks write history.


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 12:07
Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.
 Tarihsel ger├žekler kimseyi de─či┼čtirme hakk─▒na sahip olamaz, bu ┼čekilde oldu─ču anlam─▒na gelmez (Mugal) ├ž├╝nk├╝ i┼če yaramaz, T├╝rklerin devlet kurma gelene─či inkar edilemez.Historical facts can not have the right to change anyone, it does not mean this way (Mughal) because it does not work, the tradition of the Turks to establish state can not be denied.
also  You can see the enemies of Turks in the dumps of history.


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 12:25
Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.
 Tarihsel ger├žekler kimseyi de─či┼čtirme hakk─▒na sahip olamaz, bu ┼čekilde oldu─ču anlam─▒na gelmez (Mugal) ├ž├╝nk├╝ i┼če yaramaz, T├╝rklerin devlet kurma gelene─či inkar edilemez.Historical facts can not have the right to change anyone, it does not mean this way (Mughal) because it does not work, the tradition of the Turks to establish state can not be denied.
also  You can see the enemies of Turks in the dumps of history.
 http://www.allaboutturks.com/mughal-empire/reign-of-babur/


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 12:42
Please note that this thread is old, and the folks involved haven't been active in some years.





-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Akif
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 12:55
Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Akif

Originally posted by Bulldog

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   
~Registered as a Turkish empire in India on the flag of the Republic of Turkey.the British are talking idly, struggling to erase the Turkish name from that region. So a Turk-India Empire. You can say.This is a definite knowledge, you can not call a Turk a mongol.
 Tarihsel ger├žekler kimseyi de─či┼čtirme hakk─▒na sahip olamaz, bu ┼čekilde oldu─ču anlam─▒na gelmez (Mugal) ├ž├╝nk├╝ i┼če yaramaz, T├╝rklerin devlet kurma gelene─či inkar edilemez.Historical facts can not have the right to change anyone, it does not mean this way (Mughal) because it does not work, the tradition of the Turks to establish state can not be denied.
I have even done research to make sure that this is a Turkish empire, an unquestionable fact.Yes AK─░F 
If the British know history, Turks write history.
 Download [PDF]
The Babur-nama in English (Memoirs of Babur) - Rare Book Society of India


Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2017 at 13:44
Name Turkish ??? There is just Turkic in that period. 

so true terminology is Persian-Turkic



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com