4 ms·

I don’t care for the view of erasing nearly 1000 years of history to go back to “indigenous” , similar lines often trumpeted by right wing Hindutva ideologues.

I don’t care for the view of erasing nearly 1000 years of history to go back to “indigenous” , similar lines often trumpeted by right wing Hindutva ideologues. By indigenous I define it as the people of the region who settled there and became native to the land. It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. As a Bangladeshi, you can take this information and use it to change how you live your life. It is an attitude, that you do not always have to choose or chase after the Western or British way. That you can be educated and still bring your distinct customs into the workplace, decision making, professional life, etc. You as a people can usher your own institutions, for example educational institutions, without being an inferior copy of a European ideal. Why in some places is the foreign more reliable and trustworthy? Of course it speaks to the degradation and destruction of institutions. To move forward as a society one needs investment in native institutions. During the colonial history and afterwards, the people of the Subcontinent had to learn their own history from the British, imagine that! Imagine how much was erased in the mind of a person raised to view themselves as colonial.

skissane 4y ago
> It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. Is there some fundamental difference between what Muslim conquerors did to India in earlier centuries, and what British conquerors did to India in later ones? People talk about the historical expansion of the European powers starting in the early modern period as if it was some radically different historical phenomenon from earlier episodes of imperialism/colonialism in human history (the Mongol Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, etc). No doubt there were certain differences – especially when it comes to scale – but was it fundamentally different in essence? In moral status? > The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. If British rule had endured longer, could not that have become just as true of the British? And in a lot of ways – legal systems, political systems, education systems, the popularity of English (especially among the elites) – the British did "weave" themselves, and those weaves endure to this day.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  What was homeland of Mughals? (Babur tried and failed to reconquer Fergana) What was homeland of British?
  - skissane 4y ago
    But, what if Babur had succeeded in reconquering Fergana? Or, suppose that – much like how the Brazilian Empire became independent of Portugal in 1822 – 19th century Britain had fallen into civil war, and Prince Edward of Wales withdrew to Delhi, and declared himself Emperor of an independent India, albeit one where people of British ancestry remained in charge? How much should our judgement of history turn on its vicissitudes?
    - random314 4y ago
      The question is not about what-ifs and butterfly effects. What was the nationality of Akbar/Aurangzeb is a simple question.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > What was the nationality of Akbar/Aurangzeb is a simple question. Wikipedia’s article on “nationality” [0] defines it as follows: > Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states. So, which sovereign state had jurisdiction over them? The Mughal Empire. Hence, their nationality was Mughal. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality
        random314 4y ago
        Which coincides with India, as the Mughal empire extended all over India.
rayiner 4y ago
> I don’t care for the view of erasing nearly 1000 years of history to go back to “indigenous” , similar lines often trumpeted by right wing Hindutva ideologues. You’re the one doing that. But rolling back the clock 300 years before the British, but not 500 years before that before the Mughals and Sultans is quite indefensible. > By indigenous I define it as the people of the region who settled there and became native to the land. By that logic Americans are indigenous to the US but that’s not how we usually use the term. And Mughals weren’t that either. They were a foreign elite that conquered the subcontinent by force. Your average desi has very little Mughal ancestry. > It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. It’s a paper thin distinction. > To move forward as a society one needs investment in native institutions The irony is that Europe itself did quite the opposite. Their society has little connection to that of their Germanic ancestors. Instead it’s a synthesis of a middle eastern religion and Roman/Greek civil society and law.
- erenyeager 4y ago
  I am hoping the following expansion will make it more clear. The subjects of the Mughals adopted their religion, influenced by their culture, famous Mughal monuments like Taj Mahal dot the subcontinent, the legacy of sufism and emergence of Sikhism, all of these are their traces found in the substance of what it means to be Desi. Not all of these are shared by all people under the term Desi, for example the history of a person from Tamil Nadu will differ markedly from the history and view of someone from Punjab. But they are still part of the overarching sense of the Subcontinent. The Mughals and previous Sultans brought a new civilization that fused with the identity of the region over time. Conversely, despite the British way being heavily influential in the Subcontinent and having had the most recent influence on the makeup of the countries there, nobody will mistake the Buckingham palace as having the same legacy as that of India. The British colonial era was clear in transferring wealth away from the region and the British did not consider India native to them. The Mughals came as conquerers, yes, but they became integrated into the culture they conquered. They also brought wealth to the region. Did the British Monarchs ever marry into the culture of their subjects like the Mughals did? For the British, India was a profitable "Crown Jewel" but the mission was not to find the new land as a home. See how their presence in the region began as a trading company. Contrast with the US where Native Americans were forced into reservations and their culture and language has little influence on most of the inhabitants of the US today. But the idea of the US also departs from a lot of ideas about nation, it is its own beast.

skissane 4y ago

> It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. Is there some fundamental difference between what Muslim conquerors did to India in earlier centuries, and what British conquerors did to India in later ones? People talk about the historical expansion of the European powers starting in the early modern period as if it was some radically different historical phenomenon from earlier episodes of imperialism/colonialism in human history (the Mongol Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, etc). No doubt there were certain differences – especially when it comes to scale – but was it fundamentally different in essence? In moral status? > The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. If British rule had endured longer, could not that have become just as true of the British? And in a lot of ways – legal systems, political systems, education systems, the popularity of English (especially among the elites) – the British did "weave" themselves, and those weaves endure to this day.

selimthegrim 4y ago
What was homeland of Mughals? (Babur tried and failed to reconquer Fergana) What was homeland of British?
- skissane 4y ago
  But, what if Babur had succeeded in reconquering Fergana? Or, suppose that – much like how the Brazilian Empire became independent of Portugal in 1822 – 19th century Britain had fallen into civil war, and Prince Edward of Wales withdrew to Delhi, and declared himself Emperor of an independent India, albeit one where people of British ancestry remained in charge? How much should our judgement of history turn on its vicissitudes?
  - random314 4y ago
    The question is not about what-ifs and butterfly effects. What was the nationality of Akbar/Aurangzeb is a simple question.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > What was the nationality of Akbar/Aurangzeb is a simple question. Wikipedia’s article on “nationality” [0] defines it as follows: > Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states. So, which sovereign state had jurisdiction over them? The Mughal Empire. Hence, their nationality was Mughal. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality
      - random314 4y ago
        Which coincides with India, as the Mughal empire extended all over India.

rayiner 4y ago

> I don’t care for the view of erasing nearly 1000 years of history to go back to “indigenous” , similar lines often trumpeted by right wing Hindutva ideologues. You’re the one doing that. But rolling back the clock 300 years before the British, but not 500 years before that before the Mughals and Sultans is quite indefensible. > By indigenous I define it as the people of the region who settled there and became native to the land. By that logic Americans are indigenous to the US but that’s not how we usually use the term. And Mughals weren’t that either. They were a foreign elite that conquered the subcontinent by force. Your average desi has very little Mughal ancestry. > It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. It’s a paper thin distinction. > To move forward as a society one needs investment in native institutions The irony is that Europe itself did quite the opposite. Their society has little connection to that of their Germanic ancestors. Instead it’s a synthesis of a middle eastern religion and Roman/Greek civil society and law.

erenyeager 4y ago
I am hoping the following expansion will make it more clear. The subjects of the Mughals adopted their religion, influenced by their culture, famous Mughal monuments like Taj Mahal dot the subcontinent, the legacy of sufism and emergence of Sikhism, all of these are their traces found in the substance of what it means to be Desi. Not all of these are shared by all people under the term Desi, for example the history of a person from Tamil Nadu will differ markedly from the history and view of someone from Punjab. But they are still part of the overarching sense of the Subcontinent. The Mughals and previous Sultans brought a new civilization that fused with the identity of the region over time. Conversely, despite the British way being heavily influential in the Subcontinent and having had the most recent influence on the makeup of the countries there, nobody will mistake the Buckingham palace as having the same legacy as that of India. The British colonial era was clear in transferring wealth away from the region and the British did not consider India native to them. The Mughals came as conquerers, yes, but they became integrated into the culture they conquered. They also brought wealth to the region. Did the British Monarchs ever marry into the culture of their subjects like the Mughals did? For the British, India was a profitable "Crown Jewel" but the mission was not to find the new land as a home. See how their presence in the region began as a trading company. Contrast with the US where Native Americans were forced into reservations and their culture and language has little influence on most of the inhabitants of the US today. But the idea of the US also departs from a lot of ideas about nation, it is its own beast.