Mughal emperor Aurangzeb between Indian and Persian cultural identity

Babur was not a Uzbek. Lmao He was born there maybe.

Sephiroth said:

Babur was not a Uzbek. Lmao He was born there maybe.

Click to expand...

' Lmao ' ? How do you say he was not an Uzbek ?

Babur was a Timurid ergo a ‚Turco-Mongol‘ — are Uzbeks those? Also wasn‘t his mother a genghisid woman who would have looked like a Mongol?

rvsakhadeo said:

How do you say he was not an Uzbek ?

Click to expand...

Babur would have taken offense at being called an Uzbek, heck he might have have hanged you for that. The Uzbek tribes, united under Muhammad Shaybani Khan had invaded south from around the Aral sea into the Timurid heartland and were responsible for driving out the Timurids from Central Asia, they kicked him out of Samarqand more than once, forced him to hand over his sister in marriage etc and Babur identified himself as a Turk and a Timurid primarily.

In any case , he was a person with straight eyes , not a slant eyed ' Mongol ' .

Sephiroth said:

Obviously ppl like the Mongols were never overthrown or overtaken by the next tribe that came from the „wastelands“ unless you are referring to the Ming Chinese etc.

Click to expand...

Manchu Jangars would argue otherwise

songtsen said:

Manchu Jangars would argue otherwise

Click to expand...

No they wouldn‘t. His whole argument was about that those people would become sedentary and then get overtaken by other tribes from ‚wasteland‘ presumably meaning the steppes. Such a thing never happened obviously and Mongols reigned supreme since they had all. If the Qing or Dzungars took down Yuan dynasty for example, he would have a point.

rvsakhadeo said:

In any case , he was a person with straight eyes , not a slant eyed ' Mongol ' .

Click to expand...

No clearly from the painting he had „slanted“ eyes. it shows Babur and Humayun.
And also it should be noted that Shaybani Khan, leader of the Uzbeks was a Borjigin, Mongolian in origin.

Sephiroth said:

No they wouldn‘t. His whole argument was about that those people would become sedentary and then get overtaken by other tribes from ‚wasteland‘ presumably meaning the steppes. Such a thing never happened obviously and Mongols reigned supreme since they had all. If the Qing or Dzungars took down Yuan dynasty for example, he would have a point.

No clearly from the painting he had „slanted“ eyes. it shows Babur and Humayun.
And also it should be noted that Shaybani Khan, leader of the Uzbeks was a Borjigin, Mongolian in origin.

Click to expand...

I would agree with your statement if you put it this way

Sephiroth said:

And FYI I was directly responding to the post above. I didn‘t deem it necessary to quote it. And no this is apparently how Babur looked like:
View attachment 63923

He absolutely had ‚slanted‘ eyes.

Click to expand...

They claimed the lineage of Taimur and spoke Chaghatai Turkish. But Mughal means Mongols.

Sephiroth said:

And Babur also absolutely hated India and Indians. Don‘t know much about this Aurangzeb guy but looking at the responses Indians hate him so he probably also hated them.

Click to expand...

In India, we see Mughals as a foreigners and barbarians from Central Asia. Not Just Indians, even Afghans hate Mughals and hatred for Mughals inspired Pashtoon nationalism. During Jat Rebellion, grave of Mughal Emperor Akbar was exhumed and his bones were scattered here and there.

Babur was too pretty savage, he made the pyramids of skulls of Pashtuns when they resisted him. In India, under his rule The Ayodhya Temple revered by Hindus as a birthplace of Rama was destroyed in 1528 and a Mosque named Babri Masjid was erected over there. But among all the rulers, Aurangzeb was the most tyrant, his whole life was about destruction of Hindu temples and forced conversion of Hindus and Sikhs. His Deccan campaign against Shivaji Maharaja became too expensive and led to the destruction of the Mughal Empire. His opponent Shivaji Maharaja is highly revered by Indians for bringing back the native Indian rule in India after centuries of foreign rule of Turks and Mughals.

macaquerie said:

Dynastic power struggles and imposing jizya on non-believers was pretty standard practice across the Islamic world, it's a stretch to try and paint Aurangzeb as some kind of uniquely cruel monster just for doing that.

Click to expand...

macaquerie said:

If we had to cancel every historical figure who ever executed his enemies then we'd be at it for quite some time. I'm not sure why Indian nationalists are so keen to project this Hindu vs. Muslim clash of civilizations backwards into history, when the reality was a lot more muddled than that. Aurangzeb had plenty of Hindu allies and officials working for him, and at the same time made war on other Muslim sultanates.

And just in general, I don't really see any evidence that Muslims were any more cruel or persecutory in India than they were anywhere else. In fact, just the fact that India remains majority Hindu while other areas like Egypt, Iran, and Syria all saw near total conversion of their populations indicates that if anything, Muslims ruled with quite a bit of a lighter touch in India than elsewhere as they needed the cooperation of local elites to rule over such a large population.

And lest we forget, Aurangzeb was descended from Genghis Khan and Timur, both of whom killed far more people than he did without any overarching principle other than violence for violence's sake, whereas Aurangzeb only saw himself as fulfilling the duty of any pious Muslim ruler to spread the faith, punish idolaters, and enforce rightful religious practice. The fact that earlier Mughals neglected this was less a sign of their tolerant and benevolent nature and more indicative of their generally lazy and undisciplined attitude toward governance. Dara Shikoh lost the succession struggle precisely because he was a weak-minded fop who didn't have the gravity and seriousness of his brother.

Click to expand...

Arguing or implying that certain groups of people have no grounds to critique Muslim rulers just because other Muslim rulers throughout history were at least as bad/intolerant/bigoted is an extremely amusing argument (basically whataboutism). Surely the natural conclusion to draw is that all these rulers were intolerant and bigoted and that they should all be open to critique for being intolerant and bigoted? If some historical figure perpetrated a genocide, would you tell people who critique said historical figure for committing the genocide that they shouldn't do so simply because there were plenty of other genocides throughout history? Or would you agree the historical figure in question should be critiqued, along with all the others who also committed genocides?

The argument that Aurangzeb was at least better than his ancestors Genghis Khan and Timur despite his Islamic bigotry against non-Muslims, with the obvious implication that the meanie Hindus and Indians should suck it up, is likewise highly amusing. By this logic, Indians shouldn't criticize British colonialism in India because the British were at least not as bad as Hitler.

I suggest reading books on medieval Indian history, because your strange generalization that "The fact that earlier Mughals neglected this was less a sign of their tolerant and benevolent nature and more indicative of their generally lazy and undisciplined attitude toward governance" has no basis in reality. For example, Akbar was a highly successful general and administrator (arguably more than any other Mughal ruler) who was also tolerant and accommodating towards the majority Hindu population he ruled instead of treating them as ....., idol-worshipping savages like most prior Muslim rulers. There is also no evidence that Dara Shikoh was a "weak-minded fop who didn't have the gravity and seriousness of his brother" (another series of vague and inaccurate generalizations). You can argue that Dara Shikoh was a worse general and politician than Aurangzeb, but he was also an accomplished scholar.

I also fail to see how Aurangzeb viewing himself as a "pious Muslim ruler" spreading the faith, punishing the idolators, and enforcing righteous religious practices makes him a competent leader. It is extremely obvious that acting in such a fashion in a land populated by non-Muslims would not endear you to the majority of the population and risks threatening the stability of your rule. This is in fact what happened to Aurangzeb in numerous regions of the Mughal empire. Aurangzeb also engaged in prolonged, destructive, and expensive wars in the Deccan for decades, thereby directly contributing to the subsequent fragmentation of the Mughal empire. Does this demonstrate good leadership, "gravity", and "seriousness"?

EternalWay said:

I said political legitimacy and the desire to be considered of a higher status are intimately connected. This is a historical fact, no matter how many non sequiturs you utter.



This is the textbook definition of anecdotal evidence and establishes absolutely nothing. If it did, then I could counter with my own anecdotal evidence of interactions with several South Asian Muslims who indeed had a tendency to romanticize fair-skinned Turks, Arabs, and Persians and claim supposed partial ancestry from these groups due to their inferiority complex in being associated with South Asia.



Stop dodging my question and provide evidence that the historians Sekhar Bandyopadhyay and Satish Chandra are Hindu nationalists.



Prove to me that I claimed he represented all Indian Muslims.

Your "evidence" does not prove that most Indian Muslims do not consider him a Muslim. Provide surveys and quantitative estimates for this assertion.







I explicitly gave evidence that showed Islamic movements in Bengal displayed these very tendencies. All you need to do is acknowledge this evidence instead of bringing up irrelevant topics like the Partition to derail the conversation.

And please provide evidence that my sources were authored by Hindu nationalists.

Click to expand...

You have still not provided any actual evidence that Indian Muslims consider foreign ancestry to be of higher status?

There are many evidence to the contrary though

songtsen said:

Of course they could if they want to and they are free to do so. Few Hans have adopted Mongol ethnicity and vice versa. But nobody does that to scale south Asian muslims do. They have this toxic sense of inferiority with the Arabs and Turks unlike South East Asian Muslims. They adopt Arab names and create fake geneology. There are more descendants of prophet Muhamad in a Single state of india/pakistan than in whole Arab world. That's how insecure they are.

Click to expand...

Seems like you are just projecting inferiority onto others

Alexander the ... said:

Seems like you are just projecting inferiority onto others

Click to expand...

How so ? I am Tibetan ..identify as a Tibetan and proud of our history. We did not become mongols when mongols invaded and did not become Manchus when they were invited. In fact I am Khampa Tibetan and even mongols could not conquer us. We are still proud of pre Buddhist history even though I am a Buddhist. If I were named tsagan or nuharci ..or my surname was Khan .. then you would be right saying that I had Inferiority complex. But my name is pure Tibetan. Mongols and Manchus became Tibetans and adopted Tibetan names. My grandmas family used to be Kazakh. But in the end they all became Tibetans. Did not imitate Mongols/Manchus and did not adopt their culture.

But in South Asia it is a totally different situation. Muslims pretend to be something which they are not. They adopt Arabic/Turkic names and even Arabic dresses. They even pray in Arabic. Everything has to be Arabic/persian/turkic. They even claim their descent from them. Hindus are right to detest this pretend Arabic/Persian/Turkic and even Muslims nowadays are refraining from this stupid practice. Why not be south East Asians or modern Turks ?

songtsen said:

How so ? I am Tibetan ..

Click to expand...

Then how do you know?

songtsen said:

identify as a Tibetan and proud of our history. We did not become mongols when mongols invaded and did not become Manchus when they were invited. We are still proud of pre Buddhist history even though I am a Buddhist. If I were named tsagan or nuharci ..or my surname was Khan .. then you would be right saying that I had Inferiority complex. But my name is pure Tibetan. Mongols and Manchus became Tibetans and adopted Tibetan names. My grandmas family used to be Kazakh. But in the end they all became Tibetans. Did not imitate Mongols/Manchus and did not adopt their culture.

Click to expand...

Seems like you have a lot of inferiority complex

songtsen said:

But in South Asia it is a totally different situation. Muslims pretend to be something which they are not.

Click to expand...

Except i have just provided evidence that contradict this

songtsen said:

They adopt Arabic/Turkic names and even Arabic dresses.

Click to expand...

They don't. Some have

songtsen said:

They even pray in Arabic.

Click to expand...

And Hindus chant in Sanskrit

songtsen said:

Everything has to be Arabic/persian/turkic. They even claim their descent from them.

Click to expand...

Except they don't.

songtsen said:

Hindus are right to detest this pretend Arabic/Persian/Turkic and even Muslims nowadays are refraining from this stupid practice.

Click to expand...

Great way to justify Hindutva bigotry.

songtsen said:

Why not be south East Asians or modern Turks ?

Click to expand...

Because we are not them.

Alexander the ... said:

Then how do you know?

Seems like you have a lot of inferiority complex

Except i have just provided evidence that contradict this

They don't. Some have

And Hindus chant in Sanskrit

Except they don't.

Great way to justify Hindutva bigotry.

Because we are not them.

Click to expand...

What are you trying to say ? That I have a inferiority complex because I have a Tibetan name. That Mongols and manchus became tibetans makes me have inferiority complex? You don't make any sense.
South Asian Muslims have converted under turks and so have inferiority complex. Hindus don't. That is the problem.

Sanskrit have always been a sacred religious language. But there is no need for Sanskrit everywhere. You don't read bhagwat Geeta/buddhist scriptures in Sanskrit but in Hindi/tamil language. It is only Muslims especially of South Asian heritage which have to do everything Islamic in Arabic. Even Arab racism against South Asian Muslims is tolerated.

And how am I justifying hindutva? Read my previous posts ... I'm as against hindutva as I am against islamism or any supremacist ideology. Hindutva is just less stupid than Islamism and is reaction to it. You don't get to shout out your gods name everyday saying he is the real deal everyday without backlash.

And yes indians are not south east Asians. They don't pretend to be central Asians and Arabs.

Alexander the ... said:

You have still not provided any actual evidence that Indian Muslims consider foreign ancestry to be of higher status?

There are many evidence to the contrary though

View attachment 63956 View attachment 63957

Click to expand...

So far in this thread, I asked you the following:

1) Prove that the historians Sekhar Bandyopadhyay and Satish Chandra are Hindu nationalists.

2) Prove that I claimed Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan represented all Indian Muslims and provide quantitative data that "most Indian Muslims do not consider him a Muslim".

3) Acknowledge the evidence I provided in a previous post that "In Bengal for instance, of particular note are the divisions between ajlaf and ashraf Muslims and the attempts within various popular colonial-era Islamic reform movements there to jettison syncretic influences in favor of "purer" (i.e. Arab) forms of Islam and a tendency to emphasize foreign origins so the masses could connect themselves with the upper-class sharif Muslims"?

You failed to do so and instead resorted to screeching about Hindu nationalism and making strawman arguments. What exactly is your reason for engaging in this thread?

EternalWay said:

So far in this thread, I asked you the following:

1) Prove that the historians Sekhar Bandyopadhyay and Satish Chandra are Hindu nationalists.

2) Prove that I claimed Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan represented all Indian Muslims and provide quantitative data that "most Indian Muslims do not consider him a Muslim".

3) Acknowledge the evidence I provided in a previous post that "In Bengal for instance, of particular note are the divisions between ajlaf and ashraf Muslims and the attempts within various popular colonial-era Islamic reform movements there to jettison syncretic influences in favor of "purer" (i.e. Arab) forms of Islam and a tendency to emphasize foreign origins so the masses could connect themselves with the upper-class sharif Muslims"?

You failed to do so and instead resorted to screeching about Hindu nationalism and making strawman arguments. What exactly is your reason for engaging in this thread?

Click to expand...

You are the one who made false claims about Indian muslims about Indian muslims considering foreign ancestry of higher status and when I have given proof contrary to that then you are ignoring it.

songtsen said:

What are you trying to say ? That I have a inferiority complex because I have a Tibetan name. That Mongols and manchus became tibetans makes me have inferiority complex? You don't make any sense.

Click to expand...

You yourself wrote that you have inferiority complex regarding bring a Tibetian.

songtsen said:

South Asian Muslims have converted under turks and so have inferiority complex. Hindus don't. That is the problem.

Click to expand...

You still haven't gave any proof of your claims

songtsen said:

Sanskrit have always been a sacred religious language. But there is no need for Sanskrit everywhere. You don't read bhagwat Geeta/buddhist scriptures in Sanskrit but in Hindi/tamil language. It is only Muslims especially of South Asian heritage which have to do everything Islamic in Arabic.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Almost all Hindu prayers and mantras are in Sanskrit.

songtsen said:

Even Arab racism against South Asian Muslims is tolerated.

Click to expand...

Yes there is Arab racism against South Asians. But it is just victim blaming to say it is tolerated. Most South Asians are migrant workers in Gulf are poor workers and with little to no labor rights they can't do much against it without losing they jobs.

songtsen said:

And how am I justifying hindutva? Read my previous posts ... I'm as against hindutva as I am against islamism or any supremacist ideology. Hindutva is just less stupid than Islamism and is reaction to it. You don't get to shout out your gods name everyday saying he is the real deal everyday without backlash.

Click to expand...

By repeating the same old hindutva rhetoric without any proof

songtsen said:

And yes indians are not south east Asians. They don't pretend to be central Asians and Arabs.

Click to expand...

Who pretends to be Arab?

IMHO, I don't think that the majority of non-Arab Muslims - be they Muslims from birth or those newly converted - are really trying to be Arab or whatever.

OTOH, many if not most Muslims including Turks, Iranians, Pakistanis, Central Asians, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, even Europeans etc. have Arabic-derived first names just for keeping with tradition. Just like many Christians have European-derived first names.