Panipat: The rise of the Mughals • Hacker News Board

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#31

Post by FlyingSnake » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:21 PM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #15

FlyingSnake wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ignoring your snark, I'm in agreement with what you said. It is indeed a complex topic and I see no John Fairbanks like figure championing the cause.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#32

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

19f191ty wrote: post #28

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.

One reason is financial. At its peak the Mughal empire was the largest economy in the world. Estimated to be about 25% of global GDP. That's close to the position US occupies in the modern world.

Yes but both the Maurya and Gupta empires have been estimated to have reached over 30% in their time.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#33

Post by anon291 » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:26 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…

I am of Indian Christian stock (which is only relevant because I have no religious or creedal stake in any of these sites) but I have noticed this bias as well. The destruction of classical North Indian temples or religious sites by invading islamists forces is met with indifference in most of the world while similar invasions by Christian forces in the Americas or Africa are properly criticized. We have endless critical scholarship on Columbus and the Spaniards (which there should be), but the moment anyone says anything about the somewhat contemporaneous Islamic conquests in Asia, suddenly you are accused of islamophobia. For example, I have seen people lamenting the destruction of the universities at Nalanda and Taksashila being accused of islamophobia because they point out that Islamic radicalism was the intellectual basis for the burning of these institution.

People should be free to criticize all of these events as they see fit.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#34

Post by newyankee » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:30 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…

Actually there are many more interesting people in Indian history. From Chandragupta Maurya, Kanishka to even Shivaji and others. Mughals are overglorified if anything and their own primary texts are ignored in this process.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#35

Post by newyankee » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:35 PM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #29

sheepscreek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 were much larger and in a lot of ways a lot more interesting than the Mughals for a variety of reasons. The fact that you believe that that Indian princely states were smaller is... Bizarre and ahistoric. England's rule over India only became a sure thing when England defeated the Marathas. Until then it was just piecemeal colonization. The fact that you are discussing the Raj without mention of the Mara…

Also when discussing Mughals the most important elephant in the room is ignored. Their intention to totally Islamise India. But this is more about Indian history being editorialised by few communists and others as they hate the notion of a caste system filled India and prefer the Mughal & British rule in their sanitised version. The historic animosity in different groups exists and persists to this day and is reflected in these perspectives. The atrocities of Mughals are not only glossed over, they are completely whitewashed, especially their demolition of 1000s of temples, subjugation of native population and many other crimes are painted as something normal in their time when reality is much more complicated. This is to not even speak of the over romanticisation of Taj Mahal as something 'Indian' while ignoring numerous other architecture that still survives to this day. When pointed out that many mosques were built on top of temples whose basement still survives to this day that part of history is conveniently ignored.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#36

Post by g8oz » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

newyankee wrote: post #35

anon291 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The marathas were much larger and in a lot of ways a lot more interesting than the Mughals for a variety of reasons. The fact that you believe that that Indian princely states were smaller is... Bizarre and ahistoric. England's rule over India only became a sure thing when England defeated the Marathas. Until then it was just piecemeal colonization. The fact that you are discussing the Raj without mention of the Mara…

Also when discussing Mughals the most important elephant in the room is ignored. Their intention to totally Islamise India. But this is more about Indian history being editorialised by few communists and others as they hate the notion of a caste system filled India and prefer the Mughal & British rule in their sanitised version. The historic animosity in different groups exists and persists to this day and is reflect…

>>Their intention to totally Islamise India.

Given their military superiority during their zenith, if they really wanted to do that, they could have. But we didn't see that happen even within their core territories.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#37

Post by anon291 » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

newyankee wrote: post #35

anon291 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The marathas were much larger and in a lot of ways a lot more interesting than the Mughals for a variety of reasons. The fact that you believe that that Indian princely states were smaller is... Bizarre and ahistoric. England's rule over India only became a sure thing when England defeated the Marathas. Until then it was just piecemeal colonization. The fact that you are discussing the Raj without mention of the Mara…

Also when discussing Mughals the most important elephant in the room is ignored. Their intention to totally Islamise India. But this is more about Indian history being editorialised by few communists and others as they hate the notion of a caste system filled India and prefer the Mughal & British rule in their sanitised version. The historic animosity in different groups exists and persists to this day and is reflect…

The British and Mughals were fine with the caste system. Caste is a pan Indian social phenomenon found even amongst Muslims and Christians (and Jews) of the subcontinent, as well as the dharmic religions. I agree that there's a bizarre desire to only acknolwedge the Islamic empires, but I'm not sure it's about caste.

Britain in particular was completely into the caste system and made huge lists of which caste ought to fill which roles in its government.

All of this is problematic of course. However while its fairly easy to criticize England in the Indian context, it is bizarrely difficult to criticize the Mughals because some people are offended should anyone in their religion ever be criticized

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#38

Post by anon291 » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

g8oz wrote: post #36

newyankee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also when discussing Mughals the most important elephant in the room is ignored. Their intention to totally Islamise India. But this is more about Indian history being editorialised by few communists and others as they hate the notion of a caste system filled India and prefer the Mughal & British rule in their sanitised version. The historic animosity in different groups exists and persists to this day and is reflect…

>>Their intention to totally Islamise India. Given their military superiority during their zenith, if they really wanted to do that, they could have. But we didn't see that happen even within their core territories.

like arguing Hitler could have killed all the Jews but was nice enough to let some escape

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#39

Post by hagbard_c » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

HexDecOctBin wrote: post #5

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…

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.

Western Christian public culture is anything but sympathetic towards the acts of Western Christian colonisers. There is sympathy towards other cultures, Abrahamic or otherwise but towards its own there is mostly atonement of sins and self-chastisement, at least outwardly.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#40

Post by ButlerianJihad » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 3:57 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.

The Mughals are known to me in two ways: even as a child, I heard the moniker “mogul” as a wealthy person who specializes in some industry or service. Most prominent is “Media Mogul” such as Ted Turner. A pundit on television or writing a newspaper article would often apply it.

Secondly, cuisine. At least one seminal Indian cookbook I owned had a section devoted to Mughal dishes and explaining how the Empire influenced the culture insofar as what people were permitted to eat, and what foods/ingredients were made available. The Muslim Mughal diet contrasts with the Hindu dishes, and the seafood of the coasts and Goa presents another dimension.