7 ms·

The Mughals were descendants of Genghis Khan, the Western arm of the Mongol empire. They embraced Islam after sacking Baghdad and slaughtering the Caliph, havin

The Mughals were descendants of Genghis Khan, the Western arm of the Mongol empire. They embraced Islam after sacking Baghdad and slaughtering the Caliph, having had him trampled by horses. When Timurlane invaded India he would erect mountains of infidel skulls after battle [0]. His descendants followed that practice though to be fair they practiced this against all opponents just not infidels however it speaks to their barbarianism. All Mughals from Timurlane to Aurangzeb destroyed temples, smashed idols and butchered the priests and monks. Dozens of Indian religious sects that were heterodox (outside) to classical Hindu thought like Carvaka, who were material rationalists, were exterminated including most Buddhist and Jain sects. Buddhist traditions that exist outside India have recorded these holocausts. Akbar, who you eulogize, as having ushered in a golden age was anything but. He carried out the fanaticism of his ancestors and was proud to be known as a Ghazi or "great Islamic warrior". Amongst his notorious deeds that are whitewashed are destroying temples and idols and rewarding those who killed infidels and soaked their beards in their blood [2]. Aurangzeb who ruled from 1618 onwards was the 6th emperor had thousands of temples destroyed like his illustrious great grand father. He has many famous edicts still preserved [1] where he ordered thousands of temples destroyed and the idols carted to Delhi where they were buried under the steps of the grand mosque he built in New Delhi which still stands. Delhi and its surroundings which have Hindu history going back thousands of years do not have a single temple older than 60 years. Why? The Mughals systematically destroyed every temple from one of the oldest inhabited urban areas in the Indian sub continent. The were many empires in India prior to Mughals and after the Mughals that unified most of India and in many cases had greater land mass than the Mughals. Finally, the economic growth rate during the Mughals was generally negative and the Indian economy shrank while most of the world grew [3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chanderi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chanderi [1] https://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/farmans/ https://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/farmans/ [2] https://theprint.in/opinion/yogi-adityanaths-anti-mughal-stand-has-reasons-akbar-identified-himself-as-a-ghazi/509246/ https://theprint.in/opinion/yogi-adityanaths-anti-mughal-sta... [3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history...

dragonsh 6y ago
Please read the whole history instead of distorted version propagated by Neo nazi style administration in current India, which likes to distort India history to fit their own narratives. Mughals were descendants of and influenced by Mongolian and Persian [0] culture which established one of the most advanced and tolerant system of administration much before Greeks starting from 530BC. British were interested in India due to its prosperity in Mughal period as Akbar had trade relations with Europe and Middle East. From an article [1][2]: “Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare,[17][18][19] it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule; rather it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices,[20][21] and diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule.[22]” “To unify the vast Mughal state, Akbar established a centralised system of administration throughout his empire and adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. To preserve peace and order in a religiously and culturally diverse empire, he adopted policies that won him the support of his non-Muslim subjects. Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic state identity, Akbar strove to unite far-flung lands of his realm through loyalty, expressed through an Indo-Persian culture, to himself as an emperor. Mughal India developed a strong and stable economy, leading to commercial expansion and greater patronage of culture. Akbar himself was a patron of art and culture. He was fond of literature, and created a library of over 24,000 volumes written in Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Kashmiri, staffed by many scholars, translators, artists, calligraphers, scribes, bookbinders and readers. He did much of the cataloging himself through three main groupings.” [0] https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/ancient-middle-east/persian-empire https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- haltingproblem 6y ago
  I gave specific instances and their citations for the claims I made. You refuse to refute them and instead resort to name calling, Neo-Nazi? Really? You are welcome to think that rulers who murdered civilians, razed temples, smashed idols, shrank the economy were tolerant and ushered in a golden age instead of being fanatical barbarians.

dragonsh 6y ago

Please read the whole history instead of distorted version propagated by Neo nazi style administration in current India, which likes to distort India history to fit their own narratives. Mughals were descendants of and influenced by Mongolian and Persian [0] culture which established one of the most advanced and tolerant system of administration much before Greeks starting from 530BC. British were interested in India due to its prosperity in Mughal period as Akbar had trade relations with Europe and Middle East. From an article [1][2]: “Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare,[17][18][19] it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule; rather it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices,[20][21] and diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule.[22]” “To unify the vast Mughal state, Akbar established a centralised system of administration throughout his empire and adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. To preserve peace and order in a religiously and culturally diverse empire, he adopted policies that won him the support of his non-Muslim subjects. Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic state identity, Akbar strove to unite far-flung lands of his realm through loyalty, expressed through an Indo-Persian culture, to himself as an emperor. Mughal India developed a strong and stable economy, leading to commercial expansion and greater patronage of culture. Akbar himself was a patron of art and culture. He was fond of literature, and created a library of over 24,000 volumes written in Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Kashmiri, staffed by many scholars, translators, artists, calligraphers, scribes, bookbinders and readers. He did much of the cataloging himself through three main groupings.” [0] https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/ancient-middle-east/persian-empire https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
haltingproblem 6y ago
I gave specific instances and their citations for the claims I made. You refuse to refute them and instead resort to name calling, Neo-Nazi? Really? You are welcome to think that rulers who murdered civilians, razed temples, smashed idols, shrank the economy were tolerant and ushered in a golden age instead of being fanatical barbarians.