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

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#71

Post by chimp_brain »

g8oz wrote: post #67
chimp_brain wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nuanced, they were always challenged every few decades, from Marathas to Ahoms in North East. Fighting with all Hindu princely state instead of making them ally would've surely might have been counter productive. While it was their intention to Islamise, and many did, but it was impossible without an extremely cultural backlash that they also feared.

Again even within their "safe" core territories we don't see an organized ongoing program of mass coerced conversion. So the point is - they weren't trying to totally Islamicize India and whether you believe that's because they didn't care to or they were afraid to due to political calculation doesn't really make a difference. Remember, most Indians who converted did so due to the influence of wandering Sufi mystics…

Your assumption is that mass pogroms were possible, such attempts would've lead to massive revolt and unification of all hindu ally's and perhaps Mughals losing power. Having said that in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Iran ( which was Zorastrian ), state discrimination and oppression of Zorastrians were used.

Again that doesn't mean all Indians converted through sword, but discrimination was a tool, jizya, and even extreme oppression. India has more Zorastrian than modern day Iran, more Sikhs, Jains and even countless Tribal religions. All other neighbouring countries which had Islamic rules have either a dwindling population, or nothing left.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#72

Post by dartharva »

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.

They were the last "Big" Empire in the subcontinent before the British Raj. The EIC inherited a lot of Mughal-standard bureaucracy in the territories they took over, despite the territories themselves belonging to Sultanates distinct from the Mughal. The Crown kept the same alive too. Traces of Mughal administrative vocabulary are found to this day in Modern India's legalese.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#73

Post by dartharva »

keiferski wrote: post #25
SilverElfin wrote: post #23

Wait so these people invaded and took over India? For what reason - Land? Religion? Feuds? And it seems like they were displacing another Islamic colonial power that was already there? Weird to have this article discuss battles but skim over the context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turco-Mongol_tradition Read that and you’ll get the context.

The Mughals were of Turkic descent but were not Turco-Mongol nomads. Steppe nomad culture had died out for a long time before Babur's rise.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#74

Post by dartharva »

SilverElfin wrote: post #23

Wait so these people invaded and took over India? For what reason - Land? Religion? Feuds? And it seems like they were displacing another Islamic colonial power that was already there? Weird to have this article discuss battles but skim over the context.

Is there ever a singular reason behind why conquerors conquer? Babur conquered and established an empire because there was an empire to be conquered and established. That reason in itself is enough.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#75

Post by tmule »

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.

[dead]

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#76

Post by tmule »

unsignedchar wrote: post #32
19f191ty wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Estimates for the Maurya and Gupta periods are significantly more speculative than Mughal estimates. We have reasonably good tax and mint records for the Mughals, whereas Maurya/Gupta figures rely heavily on back-calculating from population density. Is this what kids in India are being taught these days?

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#77

Post by anon291 »

defrost wrote: post #69
anon291 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of my ancestors were kept in the dungeons at Seringapatam for decades for the crime of being Christian by a Muslim ruler, which resulted in 2/3 of them dying. What gracious overlords we had to let the other 1/3 not die even though they could have killed them. I remain eternally grateful to their magnanimity. Just because the world doesn't recognize how awful that Islamic rule of India was to the actual people li…

That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure, although it was just a decade and a half in total. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catho... * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210 Should this behaviour be generalised to all Islam rule all the time, or was it more specific to Tippu Sultan in he Kingdom of Mysore ? Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an examp…

I'm not generalizing. All I said is that people should not be called Islamophobes for pointing out very real events in the Indian subcontinent. The simple truth is that even mentioning that a Muslim ruler did something wrong in the Indian context often ends up with death threats, claims of 'Islamophobia', and other attempts to silence people. The history of India is large and varied; there is a persistent effort to pretend the history of Islam in India is glorious and wonderful. No such bias exists for the Hindus or for the British / Portuguese, who are often criticized without much fuss.

Many Islamic rulers of India killed people or forced them -- via violence -- to convert to Islam. Not sure why this is controversial or Islamphobic. Someone pointing out that Islamic rulers had enough power to be even worse but didn't is not some great claim of charity on behalf of the Muslims -- far from it.

Also, let me guess -- you never knew about the captivity of the Mangalorean Christians (who would, lol) -- you read a wikipedia article, and now you pretend to be such an expert at it that you can say things like:

> That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure,

That specific locale, 220 years ago had actual people inside. Like real people. It's a big deal because it affected real people, if that wasn't clear.

> Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an example of typical Catholic rule over christians (but heretics!!) - that saw 200,000 killed (not imprisoned).

I currently attend a Dominican parish, and I openly criticize the Albigensian Crusade. No one issues death threats; there is no claim of 'Christophobia'; etc. Similarly to all the various interventions by Christian polities. That's the point -- we are relatively free to criticize Christian colonialism, genocides, etc. The same is true of most religions. There's only one religion of which criticism is constantly met with speech trying to cajole others into silence.

This general disposition towards criticism of Islamic regimes and Islamic genocides means that it's relatively normal to be skeptical of Islamic rule, both ancient and modern. Islam seems unable to criticize itself. I'm hardly the first to notice this.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#78

Post by defrost »

anon291 wrote: post #77
defrost wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure, although it was just a decade and a half in total. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catho... * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210 Should this behaviour be generalised to all Islam rule all the time, or was it more specific to Tippu Sultan in he Kingdom of Mysore ? Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an examp…

I'm not generalizing. All I said is that people should not be called Islamophobes for pointing out very real events in the Indian subcontinent. The simple truth is that even mentioning that a Muslim ruler did something wrong in the Indian context often ends up with death threats, claims of 'Islamophobia', and other attempts to silence people. The history of India is large and varied; there is a persistent effort to p…

I agree that people should not be called {slur} for pointing out very real events in the world.

> mentioning that a Muslim ruler did something wrong in the Indian context often ends up with death threats,

Location dependant really, in some contexts that goes down well. eg: {fill in an example yourself, I'm certain you can name various communities that love to trade in bad stories about {X} for various valuies of {X}}

> Also, let me guess -- you never knew about the captivity of the Mangalorean Christians

Well, your ability to "guess" could use some work, I'm long in the tooth and can reel off a slew of atrocities .. what are your thoughts on the Coniston Massacre, for one such event?

> and now you pretend to be such an expert

Really? Can you highlight how I "pretended to be an expert"?

> you read a wikipedia article

That was to confirm / check I had guessed the correct event via your description, you seemingly overlooked the JSTOR lit review which, TBH, is the kind of thing I first read given myself and my reading habits predate the creation of wikipedia.

> that you can say things like

Just to be clear, is it your position that this 15 year long imprisonment was not a big deal at the time? Are you insistent that the imprisonment lasted longer than 15 years ( 'decades' as you stated)?

If not, then we seem to agree with the statement I made.

I'll also state that in the years that have since passed that event has become an even bigger deal for some, the story having grown and morphed .. in ways discussed in the JSTOR review.

If it helps, my general disposition tends towards _not_ generalising particular historical events and atrocities as a trait shared by all {X} for some {X} unless supported and also properly examined as to whether such traits are confined to {X} or have a more common general human pattern.

By way of example, I avoid generalising the well documented and extensive sexually predatory behaviour of the various Christian Brother groups about the globe to be the behaviour of all Catholics.

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#79

Post by catlover76 »

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.

[dead]

Re: Panipat: The rise of the Mughals

#80

Post by 19f191ty »

chimp_brain wrote: post #46
19f191ty wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mughal empire was collection of many wealthy provinces, which were wealthy even before Mughals. After assuming power most Mughal ruler did nothing but wasted wealth on countless vanity projects, unlike Europeans where rulers still funded exploration and innovation.

Accurate username
Post reply on HN