3 ms·

What absurdity! By that logic you might as well ask Mongolia for reparations for the sins of Genghis Khan. Babur was simply his descendent. Yes India was conque

What absurdity! By that logic you might as well ask Mongolia for reparations for the sins of Genghis Khan. Babur was simply his descendent. Yes India was conquered various times in history starting with the Aryans then the Arabs, then the Central Asian Mongol descendants. I hope you get over it eventually.

perhonen 3y ago
when do you think the British Museum will be able to publish an article on the neoclassical watercolors of Adolph Hitler without mentioning antisemitism, the holocaust, or WWII?
- farseer 3y ago
  Babur conquered India about as peacefully as Ashoka did a millennium and half before him. Both were warrior kings who took what they wanted, spared the compliant and punished those who resisted. Their killing or mercy had nothing to do with vengeance, hatred, ethnic superiority or preserving the master race. You really need to catch up on history, barring the revisionist junk being preached by the ruling BJP in India. If the British Museum had led a display on Genghis Khan or Aurangzeb, that would have been in bad taste. But this is Babur for God sakes, about as cultured or docile a king could get in 16th century while still being a conqueror of India.
  - perhonen 3y ago
    Babur, in his own words (the Baburnama), explicitly talks about the slaughter of apostates and infidels, creating towers of their skulls, the glory of being a killer of non-Muslims. The ethnic hatred is not only everpresent, it is celebrated.
g8oz 3y ago
Unfortunately the OP's attitude of solely antipathy towards the Muslim role in India's history has become a key plank in the country's idea of itself in recent decades. It has helped powered the rise of authoritarian nationalism - does the ruling BJP party have any real platform aside from keeping Muslims in their place? Lynchings and beatings are common especially in small towns. Contrary voices are denounced as traitors. Fascism weaponizes history.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > Unfortunately the OP's attitude of solely antipathy towards the Muslim role in India's history... You clearly did not understand the intention of what I posted (criticism of the anti-Western attitude at the British Library), instead insisting on a perceived antipathy towards Muslims. If you follow the link I added the first thing you see is an explanation of how the page is not too be taken as criticism of a single religion. Read it again and you might understand what I wrote and why. Don't forget to read the last few paragraphs which give context to what is written. All that said I do consider it important that this part of history is not shovelled under the carpet just to appease a vocal group, especially not seen in the context of the constant stream of criticism of Western colonialism which tries to portray this as a specifically Western vice
the_third_wave 3y ago
You also do not seem to understand the reason for me mentioning the discrepancy between the way the British Library treats western and non-western colonial history. Yes, it would be silly to make demands of current Mongolia for the sins of Genghis Khan just like it would be silly to make such demands of whomever currently lives for the misdeeds of the Mughals just like it is silly to make such demands of the current inhabitants of the western world. Either treat all forms of colonialism for what they were and are, this being a natural consequence of the fact that humans are a belligerent species out for their own best and always willing to take advantage of whatever lead they have over their neighbours no matter whether they happen to live in the North, East, South or West... or put all forms of colonialism on the same moral scale. I would prefer the former treatment, others may prefer the latter but this is not how the subject is treated by the British Museum. They do their best to pain western colonialism in as bad a light as they can while glossing over equally bad - or worse - transgressions from elsewhere, the Mughal empire being a good example of such but Genghis Khan certainly has put his mark on the world as well by killing some 11-12% of its inhabitants [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
- farseer 3y ago
  And I hope you can separate colonialism from empire building. European colonization was meant to enrich the host state at the expense of the colony. Whereas the Mughals outright conquered India, moved there and lived in it for the next 400 years. Their kids lived and died in India. They cut of their ties with their brethren in Samarkand and more importantly did not take India's wealth outside of India. The fact is most historic Indian Jewels (i.e. Kohi noor) are locked up in London, not Samarkand. Comparing the Mughals with the European colonizers is silly. The fact is Mughals became as Indian as the natives who lived there. They married locals and looked like them eventually. See the last picture of the Mughal emperor imprisoned by the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File:Bahadur_Shah_Zafar.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File... He looks like a dark skinned Indian Yogi.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago

perhonen 3y ago

when do you think the British Museum will be able to publish an article on the neoclassical watercolors of Adolph Hitler without mentioning antisemitism, the holocaust, or WWII?

farseer 3y ago
Babur conquered India about as peacefully as Ashoka did a millennium and half before him. Both were warrior kings who took what they wanted, spared the compliant and punished those who resisted. Their killing or mercy had nothing to do with vengeance, hatred, ethnic superiority or preserving the master race. You really need to catch up on history, barring the revisionist junk being preached by the ruling BJP in India. If the British Museum had led a display on Genghis Khan or Aurangzeb, that would have been in bad taste. But this is Babur for God sakes, about as cultured or docile a king could get in 16th century while still being a conqueror of India.
- perhonen 3y ago
  Babur, in his own words (the Baburnama), explicitly talks about the slaughter of apostates and infidels, creating towers of their skulls, the glory of being a killer of non-Muslims. The ethnic hatred is not only everpresent, it is celebrated.

g8oz 3y ago

Unfortunately the OP's attitude of solely antipathy towards the Muslim role in India's history has become a key plank in the country's idea of itself in recent decades. It has helped powered the rise of authoritarian nationalism - does the ruling BJP party have any real platform aside from keeping Muslims in their place? Lynchings and beatings are common especially in small towns. Contrary voices are denounced as traitors. Fascism weaponizes history.

the_third_wave 3y ago
> Unfortunately the OP's attitude of solely antipathy towards the Muslim role in India's history... You clearly did not understand the intention of what I posted (criticism of the anti-Western attitude at the British Library), instead insisting on a perceived antipathy towards Muslims. If you follow the link I added the first thing you see is an explanation of how the page is not too be taken as criticism of a single religion. Read it again and you might understand what I wrote and why. Don't forget to read the last few paragraphs which give context to what is written. All that said I do consider it important that this part of history is not shovelled under the carpet just to appease a vocal group, especially not seen in the context of the constant stream of criticism of Western colonialism which tries to portray this as a specifically Western vice

the_third_wave 3y ago

You also do not seem to understand the reason for me mentioning the discrepancy between the way the British Library treats western and non-western colonial history. Yes, it would be silly to make demands of current Mongolia for the sins of Genghis Khan just like it would be silly to make such demands of whomever currently lives for the misdeeds of the Mughals just like it is silly to make such demands of the current inhabitants of the western world. Either treat all forms of colonialism for what they were and are, this being a natural consequence of the fact that humans are a belligerent species out for their own best and always willing to take advantage of whatever lead they have over their neighbours no matter whether they happen to live in the North, East, South or West... or put all forms of colonialism on the same moral scale. I would prefer the former treatment, others may prefer the latter but this is not how the subject is treated by the British Museum. They do their best to pain western colonialism in as bad a light as they can while glossing over equally bad - or worse - transgressions from elsewhere, the Mughal empire being a good example of such but Genghis Khan certainly has put his mark on the world as well by killing some 11-12% of its inhabitants [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...

farseer 3y ago
And I hope you can separate colonialism from empire building. European colonization was meant to enrich the host state at the expense of the colony. Whereas the Mughals outright conquered India, moved there and lived in it for the next 400 years. Their kids lived and died in India. They cut of their ties with their brethren in Samarkand and more importantly did not take India's wealth outside of India. The fact is most historic Indian Jewels (i.e. Kohi noor) are locked up in London, not Samarkand. Comparing the Mughals with the European colonizers is silly. The fact is Mughals became as Indian as the natives who lived there. They married locals and looked like them eventually. See the last picture of the Mughal emperor imprisoned by the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File:Bahadur_Shah_Zafar.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File... He looks like a dark skinned Indian Yogi.
- the_third_wave 3y ago