Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#51

Post by ultratalk »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #27
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…

I have nothing against Mughals, they had a great impact on the subcontinent history esp during 17th century. However the center of gravity was the Indian Ocean Spice trade network which was the South. This is what the Portuguese and various EICs wanted to connect to. We have records of the vast riches of these Deccan cities from these travelers. > few dynasties were comparable to the vastness of Mughals The Mauryas p…

Yeah, the south was one of the most economically prosperous regions in the Indian subcontinent at the time. They were the centres of the spice trade, and a lot of colonial interest began there first. Because of the trade networks, a lot of outside cultural influence was part of the area's history. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all came to the Malabar and Konkan coast just a few decades or tens of decades after they starting gaining traction in the Levant and other Middle-Eastern areas. In fact, Islam's first contact with the Indian subcontinent was on the Malabar coast and near it [0]. Colonial trading posts were set up in cities on the Malabar coast like Kochi [1] first, before they were set up in the North. In fact, after he died, Vasco da Gama was buried in a church in Kochi, Kerala, for many years before his son dug him up and took him back to Portugal [2]. My point is, a lot of stuff happened outside of the Gangetic Plains area, and not much is known about it in contemporary Western historical discourse.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Early_history_o...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Emmanuel

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_da_Gama#Death

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#52

Post by ultratalk »

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.

Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions. But some societies are both very Christian and very anti-Islam, or vice-versa.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#53

Post by threecheese »

teleforce wrote: post #45

>Digging a ditch strengthened the forest cover for his flanks >The Mughal position was again fortified with a ditch and wagons linked by chains and the matchlockmen, placed in the front of the force, ‘broke the ranks of the pagan army with matchlocks and guns like their hearts’; they were black and covered with smoke. The Mughals had only about 12,000 troops at Kanua, whereas the Rajputs, allegedly, had 80,000 cavalr…

Thanks for the wonderful Wikipedia excursion I just enjoyed, I learned a lot.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#54

Post by FlyingSnake »

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…

May I ask what kind of study did you do on the Mughals? What stands out the most for you?

Fun fact: They called themselves "Gurkhaniye" and not "Mughals". It was a term mostly popularized by rivals like Marathas (which is also an exonym)

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#55

Post by FlyingSnake »

teleforce wrote: post #45

>Digging a ditch strengthened the forest cover for his flanks >The Mughal position was again fortified with a ditch and wagons linked by chains and the matchlockmen, placed in the front of the force, ‘broke the ranks of the pagan army with matchlocks and guns like their hearts’; they were black and covered with smoke. The Mughals had only about 12,000 troops at Kanua, whereas the Rajputs, allegedly, had 80,000 cavalr…

> Mughals palace households were mainly speaking Persian language

They actually spoke Chagatai Turkish in the households and Persian was the court language. Urdu developed independently, mostly outside the royal patronage, and much later.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#56

Post by fmajid »

HexDecOctBin wrote: post #24
catlover76 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "Abrahamic bad", "Eastern good" Is that what you read in my comment? Because that is not what I wrote. People sympathise with those who are similar to them. Europeans sympathise with Ukrainians, Muslims with Palestinians, Abrahamics with other Abrahamics. How you got from that to your "Abrahamic bad", I can't even fathom.

Jews probably have a very different view from yours as to how Christians expressed their Abrahamic solidarity during nearly two millennia of persecution in Europe.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#57

Post by alephnerd »

derektank wrote: post #26
alephnerd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In your view, why is the academic work being done in Indian institutions so inaccessible in the US and the rest of the anglosphere? Naively, I would have assumed a lot of this work would be conducted in English, or at the very least translated into English for the sake of international conferences, journals, etc.

> 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 departments 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

#58

Post by keiferski »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #54
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…

May I ask what kind of study did you do on the Mughals? What stands out the most for you? Fun fact: They called themselves "Gurkhaniye" and not "Mughals". It was a term mostly popularized by rivals like Marathas (which is also an exonym)

I mostly read a lot about Akbar, who was a fascinating figure. His “official biography” is really well written, as is his whole concept for creating a new religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i_Ilahi

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#59

Post by alephnerd »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #31
alephnerd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a community of those kinds of scholars now, but most of them are generally affiliated with Econ departments (eg. Subramanian) or Business Schools (eg. Rajan) and when given the opportunity, leave academia to take an Indian government position at the WB, IMF, NITI Aayog, or a national or state level economic adviser like Krishnamurthy Subramanian or Nirupam Bajpai.

I knew one back at my Alma mater who if they decided to remain in academia probably would have become a tenure track India studies professor, but he was given an opportunity to directly work on FDI and Tech Policy at PMO which was more exiciting, had more impact, and opened more doors.

> Ignoring your snark

My bad, been a long week.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#60

Post by anon291 »

hagbard_c wrote: post #42
anon291 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crit…

Yes, that is part of what I was getting at. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, if we're to criticise Christian conquest there is no reason whatsoever to refrain from criticising conquest under any other flag or religion, especially one like Islam which - not having undergone something like the Enlightenment - still has conquest of the world under Islamic rule as one of its basic tenets. There can be e…

Yes I agree. I don't think anyone should be accused of islamophobia or christophobia or hinduphobia for that matter for pointing out problematic episodes in the history of Islam, Christianity, or Hinduism. The constant accusations of islamophobia have created the current backlash that we are seeing in India. I will criticize my own group of Christians as well with many calling for criminal penalties now against a man who insulted St Francis Xavier. Of course my view is heavily drawn from the fact that I'm American which means we are free to insult anyone and are taught to grow thick skin.

But the simple truth is that criticizing Islam in the Indian subcontinent often ends in death or threats of violence, unlike most other religions, which seem better able to handle criticism. Look at Salman Rushdie. Scary

Post reply on HN