Historical folk tales in Pakistan And India.

[Zob]

@vinod

ok firstly ayaash YES never denied the fact moghuls were ayaash! not going to deny they destroyed temples....and i don't know what made you assume that i was actually saying TARTARS WERE GOOD! they were BARBARIANS like i said!

but i still hold today when people all over the world talk about indian sub continent they refer to it as a moghul dynasty! i have personally met people who talk about taj mahal or chicken curry and moghulai kadahi!

didn't ever hear an ordinary common man talk about rajputs or marhatta's or the great sikhs that ruled india! CULTURE & CIVILIZATION was brought to india by the moghuls! and like i said yes moghuls were ruthless but then so were the hindu KINGS the only difference being moghuls were lesser evil of the lot!


as for me rejecting hadith well i will have to go back and read what you talk about before i comment......so hold on...

[Zob]

No period in Indian history has drawn as much attention and scholarly research as has the period in Indian history that corresponds with Mughal rule. Western and many Indian historians alike have focused on the reign of the Mughals almost to the point of total neglect and exclusion of other periods in Indian history. In-depth investigation of other ruling dynasties whether subordinate to the Mughals (such as the lesser-known Rajputs or Bundelkhandis) or preceding them (such as the Parmars, Kakathiyas, or Sharqis) or their southern contemporaries (such as Tamil Nadu's Pandyas) has rarely attracted the scholarly attention of influential historians, and often their role in Indian history has been seen as peripheral to that of the Mughals, or their contribution to Indian civilization seen as tangential and marginal.

While the romance of the Taj Mahal (and other such grand monuments) and the extraordinary brilliance of Mughal artifacts might partially justify and explain the special attention Western and Indian scholars have paid to the Mughal courts

This is not to say that there weren't important distinctions. Unlike many of the earlier invaders, the Mughals were relatively more conscious of being in a foreign land, andin his memoirs Babar spoke very deliberately of the need for conducting a secular policy in a country that was predominantly non-Islamic. In this respect, the Mughals were much more aware of the need to gain legitimacy and to win political allies in an alien land.

Their taste for the fine things in life - for beautifully designed artifacts and the enjoyment and appreciation of cultural activities also distinguished them from other interlopers who were skilled at war-making and little else. But it should be noted that the reigns of Akbar and Aurangzeb in particular, were marked by a shrewd (and sometimes ruthless) approach in the conduct of their political and military strategies.

During Akbar's reign (and to a much greater extent during the reign of Jehangir), trade activities were further facilitated by the construction of numerous caravansarais (inns) and hospitals along the Grand Trunk Road, especially in Punjab. State-owned karkhanas (factories) were commissioned so as to produce high-quality luxury goods for use in the courts and for export.


The militarist character of the Mughals was not entirely unexpected since had they not been seeped in the tradition of warfare, they would have never attempted to conquer Northern India and extend their control over the rest of the Indian subcontinent in the first place.


SO yes moghuls were ruthless but compared to similar conquerers they were less EVIL!!!

[vinod2070]

I won't like to get into circular arguments and repeat what I have already said. Those facts still stand and have not been countered.

Let me now reiterate an earlier post and one can relate it with the material already presented.

LETTER FROM LONDON: Demons from the past —Irfan Husain

Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens

In a tranquil place like St Andrews, there are not many distractions, so I have been reading lots of history and trying to reflect on its lessons. For some time now, I have been interested in the dynamics of Hindu-Muslim relations, and the impact of ancient enmities and grievances on current Indo-Pak relations.

We have forgotten much of our past, but it nonetheless affects our daily lives.

For instance, when we now think of the Afghan city of Kandahar, we equate it with the Taliban. But its original name was Gandhara, and it was a part of the ancient Buddhist civilisation with its capital city in Taxila. Swat, Peshawar and the Kabul Valley were all included in this thriving, peaceful community that had absorbed Mediterranean culture brought to the subcontinent by Alexander, and before him, by Greek mercenaries and traders.

While it was no utopia, it was a stable, prosperous civilisation that threatened none of its neighbours, and has bequeathed us a wealth of artefacts that attest to its high level of cultural development.

The reason I mention this period of history is to try and understand the bitterness that must exist in many Hindu minds over the Muslim conquest of their country. In his Story of Civilisation, Will Durant writes: “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in history”. While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enouh to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.

These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. When the British exposed the decadence of the Moghuls and seized power, the Muslims — especially the aristocracy — tried to cut deals with the new rulers to ensure that they would be treated differently from the Hindus.

It has been argued by some historians that Pakistan was really created to ensure that the Muslim ruling class would not be subject to Hindu rule in an undivided India. But having created Pakistan, the ruling elites promptly started lording it over the Bengalis of East Pakistan. What, after all, is the point of being descendants of Tughlak, Aibak and Mahmud if there is no under-class to persecute and exploit?

This, then, is the Hindu perspective of the Muslim invasion of their country. After centuries of first Muslim and then British rule, they are finally in charge of their destiny. For the first time in modern history, Indians feel that they can play a role on the world stage in keeping with their numbers and the size of their country.

Pakistan, especially its establishment and military, is smarting from successive military defeats and the steady diminishing of its international image. Due to their long domination of much of India, the Muslim elite in Pakistan feels it has some kind of divine right to be treated on a par with India.

With this psychological and historical baggage, both sides are unable to engage constructively with each other. Many Hindus feel they have centuries of humiliation to avenge. And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus.

One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors.

This reality makes the Hindu-Muslim divide all the more bitter, for it pits brother against brother. And as students of Moghul history are aware, this is perhaps the bloodiest kind of conflict. By ties of consanguinity, culture, geography, and history, there is far more that unites than divides Indian Hindus and Muslims. But the politics of self-interest, too often garbed in the banner of faith, has pushed them far apart.

Why resurrect these ghosts from history? Because until we have confronted the demons from our past, we cannot understand the dynamics of contemporary events. As India and Pakistan go through the intricate steps of peace talks, each side needs to know what makes the other tick.

Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens.

A study and understanding of the past will promote better understanding between the two communities. It is important that Hindus grasp the central fact that their Muslim neighbours cannot now be held responsible for the persecution of their ancestors, and Muslims must face the fact that they are not the political heirs of the emperors Babar and Akbar.

Time is a great leveller; it is also a great healer.

[vinod2070]

And for the last time, just think if the Mughals "brought civilization" to India, they must have had it in their own places in the first place! And it must be a great one as there were many more of them in their own places than in India.

Do tell us something abut that great civilization that they "brought" to India. Did all those great buildings, scriptures like Vedas, sciences, maths, philosophy and thousands of crafts that were developed in India much before the coming of Islam do so without civilization!

You should know that the Mongols did not even have writing when they conquered China. So much for their civilization. I assume the Tartars were not much better.

And you claim that they "brought civilization" to India, the home of civilization!

Just try to think and not write what you have always heard and accepted without questioning.

[Zob]

ok before we go further!!! what i said in my last post do you agree with it or disagree with it? because you are right we both agreeing with each other on certain issues but still arguing!!

& yes please in order to "open my mind" please show me how india was a progressive nation before the arrival of the moghuls! what artifacts or culture did the earlier dynasties have ?

Moghul taste for the fine things in life - for beautifully designed artifacts and the enjoyment and appreciation of cultural activities also distinguished them from other local rulers who were skilled at war-making and little else. Moghuls were ruthless like all kings!!! YES no doubting that but their overall invasion had a positive affect!

and which ruler was kind and just EVER IN HISTORY!!! NONE! and moghuls were no different! BUT moghuls were not as bad as HINDUS would have us believe!