Panipat: The rise of the Mughals • Hacker News Board

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#11

Post by alephnerd » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 1:48 PM UTC

hagbard_c wrote: post #2

A flowery description of conquest by the Islamic Mughals. Where is the indignation about the destruction of Hindu temples and idols, as documented in his memoirs, the Baburnama. About his disdain for indigenous religions which laid the foundation for Mughal atrocities continued under his successors? Imagine a similar description of conquest by, say, the Christian Spaniards in the Americas. The noble conquests of the…

Tbf, Babur was equally disdainful about Islam and would wax eloquently about getting drunk on wine and high off opium.

He was just a Chagatai raider who somehow ended up the ruler of a principality.

The actual empire was built by Akbar and Shah Jahan.

Political Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism only arose in South Asia in 19th century with the collapse of the Mughal, Maratha, and Sikh Empires and early British attempts at mass Christian conversion which led to political religious movements arise in the late 19th century.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#12

Post by FlyingSnake » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 1:57 PM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #9

FlyingSnake wrote: post #6

The unwavering focus on the Mughal empire by the West, is a curious phenomenon. Is it because they built highly visible monuments like the Taj? Mughals didn’t even reach their zenith until 1680s and were vastly reduced by 1730s. The Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagara were more relevant to world history in the 16th Century India. The wonders of Bijapur, Golconda and Hampi would put 16th CE Delhi to shame.

Even the Mughal focus is superficial in nature. There just aren't many serious historians about Indian history in the West in the same manner that Sinology developed. South Asia Studies in the West needs its John K Fairbanks, but that will not happen. Most India scholars who are decent end up returning to India where policymaking roles abound. It was the same with how China Studies was treated in the West until the l…

True that. There is no interest in objectively studying history in India. It is just a tool to further the agendas of various parties involved.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#13

Post by graemep » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

catlover76 wrote: post #8

HexDecOctBin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abrahamic societies will naturally be sympathetic to the acts of other Abrahamic peoples and antagonistic to pagan and polytheistic cultures, especially if the non-Abrahamic culture rejects the Abrahamic proselytising that purports to "civilise the heathens" as many Indic societies did. To expect anything else under some expectation of fairness or empathy is nothing but childish naïveté.

The ignorance of Western people to think "Abrahamic bad", "Eastern good" is very aggravating. Modern times have given us plenty of violent Bhuddist and Hindu extremism right before our eyes, for example. And it isn't the first time in history for either of those either. No religion ends up being special, because, unfortunately, humans are fundamentally misbegotten. Not to mention the ignorance in this thread of the b…

I very much agree with you: its not what westerners want to hear. The fact that you comment got downvoted to dead for no real reason rather proves that.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#14

Post by metalman » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

hagbard_c wrote: post #2

A flowery description of conquest by the Islamic Mughals. Where is the indignation about the destruction of Hindu temples and idols, as documented in his memoirs, the Baburnama. About his disdain for indigenous religions which laid the foundation for Mughal atrocities continued under his successors? Imagine a similar description of conquest by, say, the Christian Spaniards in the Americas. The noble conquests of the…

in those times religion was a scant sixth in order of reasons and rationalisations for conquest and empire, then as now it was a technological advantage, guns, and the rajputs didn't have them, mobility, the rajputs were agrarian, the mughals were mostly pastoralists and always on the move. but just so that you know, I have traveled through north west punjub, to muree, and lundi khotal, and there are ruins of stupas and things much much older that litter the landscapes, so to pick one particular starting point is disingenious, or worse.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#15

Post by alephnerd » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

FlyingSnake wrote: post #12

alephnerd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the Mughal focus is superficial in nature. There just aren't many serious historians about Indian history in the West in the same manner that Sinology developed. South Asia Studies in the West needs its John K Fairbanks, but that will not happen. Most India scholars who are decent end up returning to India where policymaking roles abound. It was the same with how China Studies was treated in the West until the l…

True that. There is no interest in objectively studying history in India. It is just a tool to further the agendas of various parties involved.

Read what I wrote, and reread it again. I don't think you understood what I said.

What I'm positing is that the crux of the issue with the Western crop of South Asia is that it is hagiographic in nature, not quantitative.

My argument is an institutionalist and political economy approach to studying historical and contemporary South Asia solves most of the problem.

This was what John Fairbanks argued back in the 20th century that China studies needed to be quantitative and testable in nature, as he was an Intel officer posted in China during WW2. This was not the mainstream view on China studies and China history in the west until the late 2010s.

That said, anyone with this muscle isn't going to teach history in the West in 2026 unlike those who did something similar for China in the 1980s-2000s who made a new generation of China scholars who returned to China.

There is a new generation of India scholars who specialize in this (a number of whom trained under economists like Arvind Subramanian, Raghuram Rajan, etc) but most of these scholars either return to India to take positions at INIs and are thus not visible to Western academia) or (and this is the more common route) end up in the Policy space as the newer crop of IAS, NITI Aayog staffers, World Bank or IMF staffers, India-specific VC/PE, or India specific think tanks.

Edit: can't reply

> why is the academic work being done in Indian institutions so inaccessible in the US and the rest of the anglosphere

Because they publish in Economics journals and work on Political Economy, not "History". This is what the best South Asia scholars in America (eg. Subramanian, Varshney, Rajan) do as well.

It's the same with China scholars - the best ones are economists and are quantitative in nature.

Turns out the skills needed to understand the political economy of the Bengal Subah or the incentive structures of coinage reform in Qing China are also useful to craft economic policy for contemporary countries.

Why work in underfunded and frankly low impact history when you can actually affect change (and make good money and a career) in the various applications of Econ.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#16

Post by keiferski » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:46 PM UTC

FlyingSnake wrote: post #6

The unwavering focus on the Mughal empire by the West, is a curious phenomenon. Is it because they built highly visible monuments like the Taj? Mughals didn’t even reach their zenith until 1680s and were vastly reduced by 1730s. The Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagara were more relevant to world history in the 16th Century India. The wonders of Bijapur, Golconda and Hampi would put 16th CE Delhi to shame.

As someone that’s studied the Mughals quite a bit, but hasn’t studied Indian history more broadly as extensively, here are a few thoughts:

- the monuments are obvious points; the Taj Mahal is probably one of the few buildings that the average Western person has heard of

- there is more of a connection, or appears to be, with other empires that Westerners are more familiar with. For example, the Mughals were functionally descendants of the Mongols (indeed the word itself came from it). They also were roughly contemporaneous with the Ottomans during key historical periods, so their categorization as a “gunpowder empire” along with Iran is a known thing.

The prestige languages of all three of these empires was also highly Persianized, which maybe made them more accessible to the West, which was familiar with the Arabic alphabet and Islamic civilization for a longer period than with India. IIRC a lot of foundational Indian works weren’t really translated from Sanskrit to western languages until the mid 1800s.

That is how I myself started reading more about the Mughals: via being interested in the Ottomans.

- And finally there are a number of unique Mughal figures that have managed to become well-known in the West. Akbar, Shah Jahan, etc. I’m sure there were equally interesting people from other Indian empires but they don’t seem to be talked about as much.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#17

Post by bvan » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #16

FlyingSnake wrote: post #6

The unwavering focus on the Mughal empire by the West, is a curious phenomenon. Is it because they built highly visible monuments like the Taj? Mughals didn’t even reach their zenith until 1680s and were vastly reduced by 1730s. The Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagara were more relevant to world history in the 16th Century India. The wonders of Bijapur, Golconda and Hampi would put 16th CE Delhi to shame.

As someone that’s studied the Mughals quite a bit, but hasn’t studied Indian history more broadly as extensively, here are a few thoughts: - the monuments are obvious points; the Taj Mahal is probably one of the few buildings that the average Western person has heard of - there is more of a connection, or appears to be, with other empires that Westerners are more familiar with. For example, the Mughals were functiona…

As someone interested in coinage, India is fascinating. Coins from the Sultanates and Mughal periods are just beautiful.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#18

Post by sheepscreek » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

FlyingSnake wrote: post #6

The unwavering focus on the Mughal empire by the West, is a curious phenomenon. Is it because they built highly visible monuments like the Taj? Mughals didn’t even reach their zenith until 1680s and were vastly reduced by 1730s. The Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagara were more relevant to world history in the 16th Century India. The wonders of Bijapur, Golconda and Hampi would put 16th CE Delhi to shame.

My very personal take (which can be completely wrong) is that few dynasties were comparable to the vastness of Mughals in this particular era. All the Indian princely states were a lot smaller by comparison, in this time period at least. One that stands out to me is The Sikh Empire 1799–1849 that managed to rule much of North India + current day Afghanistan and Pakistan but for a relatively short period of time. The British East India company were a challenging force to beat, some allied with them which stunted their own ambitions, others like the Sikh Empire lost to them eventually.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#19

Post by keiferski » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

bvan wrote: post #17

keiferski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that’s studied the Mughals quite a bit, but hasn’t studied Indian history more broadly as extensively, here are a few thoughts: - the monuments are obvious points; the Taj Mahal is probably one of the few buildings that the average Western person has heard of - there is more of a connection, or appears to be, with other empires that Westerners are more familiar with. For example, the Mughals were functiona…

As someone interested in coinage, India is fascinating. Coins from the Sultanates and Mughal periods are just beautiful.

Great to see a fellow numismatist! Old coins are on my bucket list of stuff to buy once I hit the lottery.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#20

Post by alephnerd » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:00 PM UTC

sheepscreek wrote: post #18

FlyingSnake wrote: post #6

The unwavering focus on the Mughal empire by the West, is a curious phenomenon. Is it because they built highly visible monuments like the Taj? Mughals didn’t even reach their zenith until 1680s and were vastly reduced by 1730s. The Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagara were more relevant to world history in the 16th Century India. The wonders of Bijapur, Golconda and Hampi would put 16th CE Delhi to shame.

My very personal take (which can be completely wrong) is that few dynasties were comparable to the vastness of Mughals in this particular era. All the Indian princely states were a lot smaller by comparison, in this time period at least. One that stands out to me is The Sikh Empire 1799–1849 that managed to rule much of North India + current day Afghanistan and Pakistan but for a relatively short period of time. The…

The Marathas, the Bengal Subah, Durrani's Afghanistan, the Hyderabad Sultanate, the Konbaung Empire, Mysore, and Thanjvur were contemporaries similar or larger in scope and size than the Sikh Empire.

And this is OP's point.

Most "India History" in the West has an extremely colonial British bias which only concentrated on Delhi and unpartitioned Punjab.