This post is to be read in conjunction with the first episode "Mughal Nama"
The ostentatious behavior of Mughals was yet another cancer which had eaten up most of the wealth of the sub-continent. They used their every capacity to squeeze whatever they could from the poor masses of the region. The whole Mughal generation was obsessive of silver, gold, diamonds and other precious stones. The famous Peacock Throne was one of such examples. Its value was more than 60 million rupees at that time. The infamous emperor Rangeela reportedly had ordered that jewels of all types to be scattered on the floor of his palace because he liked to walk over them. The treasuries used to be loaded with wealth in form of diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and many other precious stones and of jewelry and decorative art pieces made of gold and silver. In 1739 Nadir Shah took away a wealth of 600 million worth rupees plus the Kohinoor Diamond and the Peacock Throne. The utensils used in the palace were of gold and silver too. Then they had a strong drive for constructing expensive monuments and buildings of massive structures. In Agra, the Taj Mahal was constructed by deploying more than 20,000 workmen of different expertise for about twenty two years. Their wages alone would exceed ten billion rupees if calculated on present standards. It even does not include the material used in that. Same figures stand true for Delhi Mosque and the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore. Such were the limitless merriments of our great emperors on behalf of bread and butter of ordinary people of the sub-continent.
The last but not the least is the moral values and religiosity. Almost all of them were morally corrupt themselves and far from religion, although they claim to be the greatest admirers of Islam. All of them were avid drinkers of liquor but Humayun and Jahangir drank so excessively that it cost them their lives. Their keeping of harems of so many women needs no elaborations. If they claimed to be Muslims rulers then Islam does not allow such extrusions. Akbar went to the extent to make a hodge-podge of all the religions. Historians claim that he created religious harmony. In my opinion, by removing boundaries between the religions, he had played with them. He tried to dismantle the originality and identity of the major religions of that time namely; Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Religious harmony means to live peacefully yet not interfering in to each other’s religious practices.
I tried to highlight few of the major misconceptions which are very much there but we unintentionally refuse to perceive them. It needs a lot more discussion to clear the fog but before concluding all the discussion here, one must question once again; what are the welfare steps that had been taken during the reign of Mughals? What were the policies which emancipated the ordinary people of the sub-continent? What change was brought down in the economic, social, and moral system already established (I leave culture aside)? The living of an ordinary farmer was even more scrutinized in terms of grabbing inordinate taxes and hence his life was even more miserable. The “justice” was available to few and that too prejudiced by the emperor’s own will and wish and there were no rules laid down. There were no civic facilities available to public which we see flourishing in the western empires of the same time. The people remained aloof of the technological advances which the rest of the world was witnessing and taking part in. Instead they were alluded in to literature and art which actually was to satisfy the emperor’s pleasure and wishes. Even in art the region could not produce a Picasso or Da Vinci, to say so. The one somewhat significant aspect of their whole era, their structural monuments, which historians claim to be the golden heritage, in my opinion, is even the worst thing to claim to. What good use is a palace, a Serai (Inn), a garden, a castle or even a mosque of that magnificence to a person living in the street? It was all to provide comfort to the emperor and those very few who were near to him. The people remained as they were or even worse in many cases.
The whole Mughal dynasty followed the simplistic but mean approach in governance, which focused on procuring wealth from the grass root level to enliven the palace no matter it cost the precious lives of people. In my opinion Mughals did the same as the British, in some cases even worst. If British looted the sub-continent tremendously then they did some reforms too notably in infrastructure, technology and irrigation system. They brought the concept of democracy in the sub-continent. We are benefitting from these fruits even to this day too. Mughals excruciated people at large but left behind merely buildings built at the cost of people’s blood, sweat and tears. Those might be marvels for some but whenever I visit them I can’t exclaim Mughal sense of architecture, I feel the touch of calloused hands and smell the blood amid the massive walls.
19 comments:
Whoa, you've done some research there. But they really didn't do anything worthwhile huh? Imagine the immense power they had, to make a difference! They could've done so much.
"The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different." -- Aldous Huxley
Exactly thats what I have tried to infer... they had so much of a vast land and people under they command but what they did for people? Nothing...
Fascinating. Yes, we are taught that they were great, when in truth they were debauched and morally corrupt. There was no enlightened rule, or benign ruler during those times. This concept has come much later - with democracy
http://www.phoenixritu.com/
i`ve heard it, and reading this again, makes me feel that those guys became the kings only by fluke, on their parents accounts. If they were ordinary citizens, they would be just assholes.
Oh too much corrupt Ritu... one can't believe when he/she reads the full accounts of their lives...
Yes "Raj"... only Babur was capable so that he conquered but he too died too soon... so the rest of the generation went on savoring his laeft overs... and suffered who? People...
this is what happens in politics even if it is a democratic place.... politicians eat up the whole money and the common man has to suffer.... this happens even today... :-(
Yeah but at least we are satisfied that WE have elected them...
nice article but I have to disagree regarding the "fruits of democracy" that the British brought. Probably its a sweet and a ripe fruit for the disbelievers, it should not be for the believers. Just my $0.02.
"FE"...
it was British only who made us even known about democracy, may be unwittingly but it was the strong retaliation to them because they were the non-muslim element and people might not retaliate an idiot muslim ruler the way they did British... and then it was The Quaid who completed the task...
i'm sorry, but i have to disagree ... the era of the Mughals was at a time when rulers and kings thought only about power and supremacy. it was not that Mughals were like that, many dynasties before the Mughals were the same. at that time the concept of development and democracy did not even exist. rulers have always been power hungry and so were the Mughals. you have think in the context of that particular time. if we analyze it from todays perspective then you might be right to an extent, but they were right in their own way if see it from the perspective of that era.
Mughals have done a lot of good to India. Babar had come at a time when India was in chaos and disharmony. after the Gupta empire declined, India got divided into many small kingdoms and kept fighting among themselves. the Turkish rulers who established the Delhi Sultanate also did the same thing. the Mughals coming to India brought a lot of stability to it and they brought back India into world map and made the world look up to it, exactly the same way as it was during the time of the Mauryas and Guptas. i could tell a lot more about the good things done by the Mughals in much more detail, but perhaps this may not be the right place ... i always prefer a face to face discussion.
i appreciate your views about their religious perspective, but that's it. i think you need to be a bit more analytical, look into more facts, and give a lot more credit to the Mughals.
i would also like to add that i'm not giving my own opinion. what i'm saying is a result of a lot of reading and a lot of discussions that i have myself been involved in. my father is a leading historian and i have read books of other famous historians like Irfan Habib, Romilla Thapar, and Harbans Mukhia. "History of India (Vol. 1)" by Romilla Thapar, "Mughals of India" by Harbans Mukhia, and "Communalism and the Writing of Indian History" by Romilla Thapar, Harbans Mukhia, and Bipin Chandra are the ones that i would specially like to mention. i have also read excerpts of Alberuni's India, Babur Nama, Akbar Nama, Jehangir Nama, and Aurangzeb Nama. i have also got access to some of the archives that give a lot of information about the Mughals. it's easy for me to read more and more history books bcoz as i said my father is a historian and my house is full of history books.
"Saif"
Its your right to disagree, so no need to apologize :)
Yes its been in history that almost all the rulers were hungry for power but alongside that they have to do better (and many did) for the public from where their power emanates.
About you comment on democracy; so for your information, not a perfect democracy but we could trace its lines as earlier as pre-Christ era in the Roman empire where there was a well established senate working (no matter how negligible position it had in practice but in theory it was a very powerful institution).
Yes Mughals united the subcontinent but only to ravage upon it. The sub-continent had always been divided no matter what dynasty was ruling it. They could exist in even the smallest of the regions. They made the world (Britain) to look upon it, so that the Britishers can come and invade it, as Mughals had had enough of it. Now they wanted to resign it to Britishers. That's what they did. They left the rest of the wealth of the golden land to the claws of THE WORLD.
The public welfare system is also not new. Right from Egyptian empire to the very Ottoman empire and even later, the king or the emperor would do good to people or otherwise people would overthrow the throne. Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs built cities, canals, water reservoir dams and progressed their empires in Agriculture, art and culture. Can you compare Romans with Mughals. I think yes but only keeping in mind their territorial acquisitions. Napoleon-III empowered the middle class so much so that it finally took over his own empire. During the reign of Ottoman empire, a financial body of Ulema is formed known as "Men of the Pen". Most of the Ottoman emperors/Sultans were successful due to this body. In education they established "Madrasas" for Muslims and "Enderûn" for Christians. These were state funded and all the poor kids would learn and study in such institution.
You are right that its a discussion that is to be done one-2-one, as there are a lot more things which I can add here. But till now can you point out any one of these things which had been done by Mughals?
Lastly, you don't have to specify the source of your knowledge at all. The comments speak for themselves :)
Any way thanks for taking pain for writing some thing here.
i dont know wat kind of democracy r u talking about in the Roman empire. only people from higher classes cud become kings. also, the Romans were known for their cruelty and brutality towards their own people. the Egyptian pharoahs might have contributed to development of cities, but slavery was also at highest level at that time.
u said that the Mughals made the world to look upon them to make them invade it. but, did that happen over night? that happened in the much later time of the Mughals. the Britishers took over the Mughals at the time wen the empire was on the verge of decline. i doubt if they cud have done that during the hey days of the Mughal empire. its true that they cud not compete with the modern technology and science of the west. but, again that was during its decline and like every other empire the Mughal empire saw its bad days and ultimately declined.
the Mauryan empire declined bcoz its later rulers focused more on religion that caused an internal revolt. that doesnt make the whole Mauryan empire flawed. likewise, the great Gupta empire declined due the constant attacks of the Central Asian nomadic tribe, the Huns. the Guptas cud not compete with the military and warfare of the Huns. but, that doesnt make the Gupta empire flawed.
the Mughals also did a lot of public welfare. they built many hospitals and schools. they provided all the funds for medicines. education was free for students. wen the farmers faced crisis then the Mughals used to cut down the agricultural tax. they even provided the farmers with funds to help them. later, during Aurangzeb's time the agricultural tax was increased due the economy problems that they were facing, but again that was during the time of decline.
the Mughals had a very good judicial system. they had the best administrative system. they had very good administrative reforms. all this may not be as good as today, but this is very obvious. there will always be improvements in modern times. but, the judicial and administrative system was the best at that time during the Mughals. in the first part of the post u have mentioned that the rulers themselves appointed people on high posts and thus appointed improper people. well, the rulers were the highest authority in every matter so they obviously made appointments themselves, but they had a panel and had committees to do so. and about the people being improper, well it is a known fact (i mentioned it above) that the Mughals had the best judicial and administrative system of the time, so i doubt that they appointed improper people.
the Mughals were known to mingle with the commoners. they very much identified with the people, they saw them as themselves. earlier war-prisoner were made slaves, but the Mughals abolished that.
apart from the concrete things, there have been a lot more subjective benefits that were there during the Mughals. the cultural assimilation that was caused by the Mughals further enriched the rich cultural heritage of India. they contributed a lot in art and culture. u said that it was only for the rulers, but it wasnt. if u know about "Dastangui" then u wud know wat i'm talking about. it was a story telling with enactment kind of thing that artists used to go and perform at different places. it was most prominent during the reign of Akbar. painting was something that wasnt much found in India and was made a great source of art due to the Mughals. the kind of social change and development brought about by the Mughals benefited the people to a great extent in many ways.
in the first part of ur post u have written that the Mughals fought among themselves to become king. but, the same happened in almost every other empire. the Mauryans always fought among themselves. Ashoka killed his 100 brothers to become king. even the Turkish Sultans (of the Delhi Sultanate) fought among themselves. they had their internal conflicts. in fact, it was Ibrahim Lodi's uncle who had invited Babur to attack India.
and who said that Akbar tried to dismantle all the religions and interfered with them. it is very well known that Akbar was a very spiritual person. since he was illiterate he appointed religious people from different religions to know more and more about the different religions. he never interfered with any of them.
i saw that in a reply to another person's comment u said the architectural wonders of the Mughals were of no use to common people. but they have done a lot of benefit and still continue to do so. the buildings of Mughals has given a boom to the tourism industry and has directly effected the economic revenue of India in a very positive manner. people from all over the world come to see the Taj Mahal and many other master pieces of Mughal architecture in India.
finally, i wud like to say that the Mughals ruled India for more than 300 years. if the Mughal empire was flawed then how did they rule for such a long period. it was only due to the legacy that they had left behind. in the revolt of 1857, Bahadur Shah Zafar was made the leader. he was powerless at that time. he was 72 years old and was ill. but still he was made the leader simply out of respect. this shows the legacy that the Mughals had left behind.
as i said in my previous comment, u need to look more into the facts and be a bit more analytical.
"Saif"
First of all I am glad that my writing has made at least somebody to criticize it wisely and incessantly :)
So now I will come to the point;
About democracy in Roman Empire. Well they had a senate which was not appointed by the king directly but their ability, knowledge, skill, competence and patronage was considered. The people who will come to such senatorial position will be required to pursue such a career and ultimately resolve to it. The senate never had the soul authority to decide on the empire level issues but it provided a strong influence in the very much autocratic governance of state. You must read the history of Roman Empire to know the details. Of course the authority of the Senate was little as compared to the emperor and it followed the aristocratic style BUT it laid the very foundation of democracy as it negated silently the law of the emperor and his immense powers. The Senate was after all THE CITIZENS.
I do agree that slavery was at peak in Egypt BUT what did they do with the slaves? They built the marvels (I am not talking about the Pyramids, I am talking about the Dams and Cities) at that ancient times. And what apt example can be other than Afro-American slaves, but no need to specify the developments associated with America.
Yes they made the subcontinent so fragile that not just invaders from outside like Sher Shah Suri expelled Hamayun from his own empire but insurgencies rose from with in the empire as well, like Marathas in Deccan and Sikhs in Punjab in Aurangzeb's reign fought against the Mughals and made separate kingdoms.
You talk about the flaws in Mauryan and Gupta Empires. Fine! every dynasty had flaws. They were more focused on religion and bla bla. But what else they were focused on? Chandragupta freed the farmer from any kind of tax. Later emperors put a very negligible amount of tax and enhanced trade with Greek territories and in South-east Asia as well. Roads, Water ways, canals, hospitals and other infrastructures were built in thousands of number. Ashoka protected nature, he established a famous law against killing of animals and protected the deforestation at that time which is a concept of today's so called NGOs. Other countless public welfare is proved by the ruins we visit today in the present day Pakistan and western India. We see the very equipped water and drainage and sewage systems which existed in the ancient cities. Such is a public welfare governance system is supposed to be implemented. Moreover, now let me point out some discoveries and inventions in different empirical eras before Mughals in India;
1. The world first university was established in Taxila, Pakistan.
2. Ayurveda was developed 2500 years ago.
3. Pi was calculated by Budhayana.
4. Earliest water reservoir was built in Saurashtra.
5. Chess originated in Gupta empire.
6. Sushruta was the first ever surgeon in 6th century.
7. The decimal value was first invented in 100 BC.
There are so many others too but I guess these are enough for now. Please search on internet for more. Now tell me, do you find ANYTHING which even existed in Mughals era to be compared to advancement like these?
If Mughals had built any hospital then we must see such buildings as we can see the their large castles and mahals all around the sub-continent. I even never read in ANY scripture that they have built any hospitals.
Mughals had a very good judicial system??? I am amazed. They never had a written law which was followed while deciding the cases. There were never even any courts existed. It was the emperor who would decide on from petty cases such as a mere theft to as big of cases like murder and insurgencies. Please enlighten me if you find any book about the JUDICIARY COURTS in any of the Mughals emperor.
Yes of course I know about the "Dastangoi". But can Dastangoi be compared to the Thebian Plays produced in the ancient Greece which held in the famous Hellenistic theaters? Do we have even a single such an ornate and magnificent theaters as one which still exists in Epidaurus? You yourself tell me? (btw Dastangoi is a feature of persian culture. Even DASTAN word is a persian language word. It has nothing to with Mughals)
Yes it is a part of autocracy that the stronger will annihilate the rest if he is in power. Lets say Mughals and the Ashoka were comparable in this regard, lets compare them in other traits of governance, which we already did above. So do Mughals are comparable with the other emperors/kings/sultans? Even Sher Shah Suri built the Grand Trunk Road which still exists in Pakistan and used.
About religion; if Akbar was so fascinated about knowing about religion then he should have done inside his court, his bed room or inside his library. He should have not forced this out to the general public. Instead he tried to create a whole new religion, and ensured that it's been followed, the infamous Deen-e-Elahi. Who was he? A prophet? Had his so called cult been famous, there would be no Islam and no Hinduism and no Jainism in the sub-continent for us to see them as they are today. Religion is a very personal matter for public. No government should force its people to follow one.
Yes finally you are right in the tourism section. We have been befitting from Mughal's architectural remains in the form of tourism revenue. But that's what WE ARE getting. What good were they for the people living in the Mughal's era for more than 300 years? How many generations had passed in this 300 years period, please count.
Finally about the people of the subcontinent; Its been a trait of the people of this region that they accept any change so very open heartedly. They accepted Huns, they accepted Mughals, and finally they accepted British and so many other conquerors importantly the Persians, the Arabs, the Greeks and the Afghans. That does not mean that they were impotent and coward and could not fight back. They always fought back and always in the end they finally got back their land from the foreign invaders. These foreigners had always treated the sub-continent as something despised and of negligible worth. Babar in his famous Babarnama wrote, "Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks". The fact was although contrary but this shows his contempt for the typical people of the region. They never owned the people of the sub-continent.
We, as I said in my post too, are made to study and then believe those false concepts written in our history books, which are actually either written by the pen of emperor or based on the excerpts which are taken from the same books, such as Babarnama, Tuzk-e-Jahangiri, Akbarnama, and Tuzk-e-Taimuri. Of course the so called historian or I must say merely a Kaastib (writer/calligrapher) WILL write what the emperor is ordering him or otherwise he will be no more. "Likho Zil-e-Ilahi bohat he hamdard aur riyaya pasand shenhnshah thay"... and the Kaatib will write the same in as beautiful writing as he could. He would have no choice otherwise :)
first of all my intention is not to criticize u, but to put down the true facts.
like in the Roman empire, the Mughals too appointed people based on skill and competence. a good example of that is that they had always appointed a number of Hindus for high posts. to an extent they wanted to satisfy the majority of Hindus, but obviously they wud not appoint non-deserving people, they wudnt want to have a weak government organization. they did not make decisions by themselves. as i said earlier, they had a panel whom they consulted for all the decisions that they made. in that way the Mughals were the same as the Romans.
u said that Humayun made the subcontinent so fragile that Sher Shah Suri expelled him. first of all, Humayun didnt make the subcontinent fragile, it was already fragile at that time. due to its fragility Babur invaded and took over India with ease. but he cudnt do much bcoz of his untimely death. further if Humayun was expelled, he also came back and reestablished the Mughal empire.
there were revolts during Aurangzeb's reign, but as i said it was during the time of decline. but this was not first time wen the subcontinent was fragile. there have always been revolts and foreign invasions even during the Mauryans and Guptas. y do u only single out the Mughals.
i was not talking about the flaws of the Mauryans and Guptas. i said that if they had reasons for their empire to decline that doesnt mean that they r flawed and the same goes for the Mughals. please read my comment properly.
u dont have to tell me about the discoveries and inventions made during the Mauryans and Guptas. i know very well about them. its true that such accomplishments were not made during the Mughals, but during the reign of Mughals there was a great amount of accomplishment found in art and literary work which was not there in the previous eras. y do u discount them? u shud read about that from proper books. also, wen u talk about the developments made by previous empires, u have to understand the time wen the Mughals came to India. wen they came then it was worst condition of the subcontinent. i said this before, India was in extreme disharmony wen the Gupta empire declined, there was an extreme decline in development, art, education, and science. the same happened during the middle and later stages of the Delhi Sultante, partly due to the massive conquests of Timur. during the time Ibrahim Lodi, India was in a miserable condition, much worse than wat it was during the Mauryan and Gupta empire. if u compare the Mughal period with that particular phase of India, then u wud admire the miraculous achievements and accomplishments made by the Mughals. u said that the Mauryans had trade relations with the Greeks. well, even the Mughals did trade with the Ottomons and Europeans. the Mughals had very good relations with the Ottomon empire in every aspect, which icludes trade. read the book "Mughal Ottomon relations" written by my father (N.R. Farooqi). Aurangzeb had many European nobles who worked in his court, which tells about the relations between Mughals and Europeans at that time.
u might be amazed to know about wat i said about the judicial system of the Mughals. but, im amazed that u believe that they didnt even have a court and a written law. ask any established historian and he'll tell u about that. the Mughals followed a very organized and well managed court of law. the Delhi Sultante had a judicial system, which was followed by the Mughals (with some improvements). if there is a government it will obviously have a law and judiciary. thats common sense. yes, the emperor was the head of the judicial system, but he had learned people who worked under him and who made most of the decisions. there isnt any one book that talks about the judicial system of the Mughals. read any university level history book and u'll get to know that there was a hierarchy (from lowest to highest) in the judicial system that took care of all the kinds of crimes.
there is no point in comparing Dastangoi with the Hellenstic theaters, bcoz both r very different forms of art. Dastongoi was not the conventional kind of theater. and so wat if it was Persian, it was prominent during the Mughals. the magnificent theaters that u're talking about were for people who belong to a high status and class. Dastongaoi was for the commoners. and apart from that how can u ignore the magnificent art, architecture, and literary work that flourished during the Mughals. y r u always complaining about the palaces and mosques built by Mughals. such buildings were always built. even the Guptas built a number forts, palaces, and temples. the Britishers also built vast buildings and churches. wats the problem with that. the fact that they are being talked about gives the indication that they were masterpieces that were not found before. that lead to a major architectural development which is an integral part of any culture. wen it comes to poetry, prose, painting, all this excelled during the Mughals, which was not there before in the subcontinent. u might say that that didnt do any good to the common people. but that is incorrect, it obviously did so but not in a concrete manner but in a more subjective manner. all this is a very integral part of culture and the Mughals by introducing all this did a lot in enriching the Indian culture.
i dont know from where did u get the information that Akbar tried to force Deen-e-Elahi on to others. this has no sense at all. first of all its a big misconception that Deen-e-Elahi was a religion. it was just about a group of small nobles who followed a particular belief. it was more of a philosophy. Akbar never ever forced everybody to follow it. it was followed only by him and only a few people who were his so-called followers. it was not even something thats very important. the fact that it died out clearly shows that it was of very little importance and was followed only by a few nobles and wasnt meant to be spread among all the people.
u r right that the people of the subcontinent always accepted the foreigners, which in no way shows that they were weak. but it was different with the Mughals. all the other foreigners, including the Britishers were always considered as foreigners. but the people accepted the Mughals as one of them. i said this before, even the Mughals identified with India and said that they are Indians and not outsiders. this was one of the main reasons y Bahadur Shah Zafar was made the leader of the revolt of 1857 despite he being powerless, old, and ill.
the quote that u mentioned from Baburnama is a very famour one, but again u have interpreted in a very wrong way. there's a book (i cant recall the name) in which the author clearly mentioned that its a pity that Babur came at such a time wen he found the subcontinent in a such a condition, had he come during the Guptas, wen the subcontinent was at its supreme, then he wud definitely have had a very different opinion. the subcontinent was actually like that during that time and this is wat Babur wrote. this in no way showed his disgust towards the people of the subcontinent. he obviously did not experience the greatness of the subcontinent during the reign of previous dynasties.
i have heard a lot about wat u have said that historians wrote only that wat the rulers ordered them to do so. but u shud know that they were not the only historians of that time. there were also historians who have worked independently without any pressure from the rulers of that time. history is not studied in such a simplistic manner. all kinds of information is taken collectively and then combined.
u r right that the history that we know is the history that we r taught. but that is only right wen u see the books at the school level. u wont find that in higher level of books and original records.
i'm not saying that the Mughals were perfect. they obviously had their weaknesses. all the great empires, the Greeks, Romans, Mauryans, Guptas, all had good as well as bad things. they had their strengths and weaknesses. and the same goes for the Mughals. if u say that all the other empires were good and the Mughals were not, then that is a very biased and illogical way to put it. also, u cant compare one empire with the other bcoz they were in different times and in different situations. their policies and their actions were t according to the situation of that time. as i said before, every empire had its good times and then had its bad times, which led to its ultimate decline. the similar things happened with the Mughals.
history is not about assumptions, speculations, and opinions. history is about facts. and all i have given is facts. u asked to me to tell about some of the welfare work done by the Mughals and i did that in my previous comment. those r facts and if u dont want to believe them then thats ur problem. i have said enough about the Mughals. if u have made up ur mind that the Mughals were of no good to the people then thats up to u. comparing them to other empires does not prove anything and i have told about that in all my comments. i cant do anything if want to deny and ignore the facts that i have presented to u.
i cant be continuing to keep on writing really long comments all the time. i dont have the time to write all this, i have my own work to do. thats y i said that i prefer a face to face discussion. i cant be doing all this the whole day. i'm done with this discussion and now its up to u if u want to agree with me or not. its good if u agree and if u dont then its ok, u can continue to deny all the facts. thanks.
i had intended to make a few more points in my previous comment but i somehow missed it, so here they are:
firstly, Ashoka ordered (if he had) not to kill animals becoz he had converted to Buddhism and Buddhists r against violence, which includes killing animals. the NGOs of today dont have anything to do with Buddhism wen they practice the same thing. so, its not that Ashoka was ahead of his time, he was simply following one of the main principles of his religion.
u asked me that wat did the architecture of Mughals do for the people during that time. well, they did a lot of good for many of the people at that time. each building took years to build and thus all the buildings were a great source of income for hundreds of labourers. those buildings r not of any simple kind of building. they also required a lot of skill and artistry (u wud know that if u look at those buildings minutely). they were skillfully carved and great amount of art work and calligraphy has been done on them. such buildings had become a boon for the local artists. they became a great source of employment for them. y cant see that? the kings also used to give large sums of money as rewards to the architects who had come up with such great architectural designs. the Taj Mahal took 20 yrs to be built. it had become a mini-city for hundreds of labourers, skilled workers, and artists. and before u say that Shah Jahan cut the hands of all the workers once the Taj Mahal was built, let me tell u that that is absolutely false and there is no truth to that. this was said by the Britishers to give a bad name to the Mughals and thus create a rift between Hindus and Muslims.
hospitals were not solitary buildings, like they r today, that u wud find them separately. they were in-built within huge buildings of that time. if u have not read about hospitals built by Mughals in any book then i wud say that u have to do a lot more reading to know more and more about the Mughals.
finally, as i said in my previous comment, i am done with this discussion. i think i have wasted enough of my time in writing all this information. i can give u more n more points but i cant leave all my own work for this. so thats it from me. its up to u to either believe the facts that i have given u or deny them. good luck!
"Saif"
I can't help myself smiling, not on you but on the fact that the discussion is getting too hot and I foresee many things :)
So I am happy that you yourself refrained from discussing more on the subject. I intend to do so also. I had already said what I had to say.
Now I rest my case to the public, who will read my post, comments you made on it and a few deliberations I had tried to make. The purpose was never to harm anyone's feelings or even waste anybody's time. I am really in a debt of you for taking your precious time to discuss things here. God bless you :)
Read both your posts on the subject and found them very wholesomely done. I would not go into the details of whether the details are right or not; I would take them as right as you seem to be a responsible blogger. The tone, the simplicity and flow is simply amazing. Give us more on these lines.
Thanks "Mampi"
I am sure you must have read all the comments here... :)
and Sure would deliberate on this subject more...
Post a Comment