Imagine if they made a Mughal TV show - Page 6

Originally posted by: sunflower52

Stop living in the past, start living in the present and get hurt over what is happening now. You can not move forward if do not let go of past and work for better future.

Mughal history is filled with good and bad, when it comes to kingdoms all of them did their fair share of looting whether they were Muslims, Hindus, Christians. They were invaders who then became a part of the society and also adopted some of the local culture.

The only reason Mughals are getting pointed at is because they are Muslim rulers, then all I can do is shake my head.

During the time of empires all were bloody and horrifying, that's how new empires were formed.

Exactly STOP living in the past and stop worrying and whining about how the invaders should be shown in the positive light or whatever. History is history and let it be shown the way it happened and don’t expect whitewashing and accept to take it the way it is and move on.

Hindus didn’t rape and brutalized people to convert into their religion. Don’t pull things out of nowhere without any proof just to normalize the brutal stuff the Muslim barbaric invaders did. It is what it is. Just accept it and move on. Stop trying to whitewash stuff.

@Bold: Yes but the salient feature of Muslim invaders is that they were on a Jihad all the time trying to convert people into their religion by brutalizing and ravaging people. If you are from the Indian Subcontinent, chances are your ancestors were one of those who either gave in, or just held their own despite the rape and ravage they were put through.

Like I said in my other post, there is no point holding on to the past. But when the conversation is about rape and murder, stop glorifying the rapist to me. I am all for looking into the future because that is the only way!

The present day Muslims should feel neither answerable nor attacked for any of it because all those invaders died and left without any successors, at least until last I checked!

Originally posted by: Ashley.Tisdale

Yeah if I feel sad about my ancestors I am weak. Thank u for the enlightenment.

India existed way before any of the barbarians entered the land. The borders were different but the country very much existed. Ancient scriptures mention a "Hind" land, the Sumerians and Akkadians used to trade with the IVC. So the country very much existed, just not in its current way. Go read about Proto-Indio-European/Indo-Iranian documents.

Why don't u go beyond the Sikhs, Rajputs, Marathas etc, way before they existed the way they do now. There are enough details which show from where each clan came into existence, the names evolved and changed from Proto-Indo to what we know it as today.

India was not called India, but it was very much on the map. Had there been any official records from ancient pagan civilisations we would know more.

U think I don't know about the taxing system, how Rajputs also chose wrong? I do and would love to see this shown in the correct way. Not in ways in which some Mongol, Turk conquerer is shown to be some great king India had.

I think I have made myself very clear, I don't want to see anyone glorified, but I want the truth to be shown. There are a bunch of shows/documentaries I have seen on the Ottomans, the siege of Constantinople etc and have always noticed how one side was glorified. And that's not what I want to see. To top it all off pissing off a community in order to glorify some barbaric king...nope not interested.

Indian History has been twisted and shown in the worst ways where we were expected to worship how great some invader was and what structures they built etc...but due to the internet its visible how many were connected structures, originally built for something else. It only gets controversial from here and you know it.

India did not existed but subcontinent existed where Afghan, Rajputs, Marathas, and every other type of people lived, they were never united, as i said earlier they had nothing in common with each-other aside from religion.. saying the subcontinent was india is like saying the middle east is one country because most of them share the same religion (recent times).. rajput could careless what marathas was going through or vice versa, all this nationalism is new it never existed back in the days, every Kingdom was looking for themselves... the funny thing is they never even looked at Mughals as Invaders.

i dont go beyond Sikh, Rajputs and Marathas because there isnt enough source material to know what the f*ck was going on before them.. all these recording things started with Mughals

whether you like it or not but what Babur achieved is a great feet... there isnt alot of people in History who has done that and people who have achieved such feets are also famous af like Alexander the great, Caesar, Cyrus the great, Changiz Khan, Timur.. also Mughal Empire was one of the most successful kingdoms.

i would also love to see a show where it shows everything and not glorifying them... even if they are not glorified Mughal empire is super impressive, any historian will tell you.

Originally posted by: J3601

India did not existed but subcontinent existed where Afghan, Rajputs, Marathas, and every other type of people lived, they were never united, as i said earlier they had nothing in common with each-other aside from religion.. saying the subcontinent was india is like saying the middle east is one country because most of them share the same religion (recent times).. rajput could careless what marathas was going through or vice versa, all this nationalism is new it never existed back in the days, every Kingdom was looking for themselves... the funny thing is they never even looked at Mughals as Invaders.

i dont go beyond Sikh, Rajputs and Marathas because there isnt enough source material to know what the f*ck was going on before them.. all these recording things started with Mughals

whether you like it or not but what Babur achieved is a great feet... there isnt alot of people in History who has done that and people who have achieved such feets are also famous af like Alexander the great, Caesar, Cyrus the great, Changiz Khan, Timur.. also Mughal Empire was one of the most successful kingdoms.

i would also love to see a show where it shows everything and not glorifying them... even if they are not glorified Mughal empire is super impressive, any historian will tell you.

Yes. I am all for a good and realistic history lesson without any of that stupid whitewashing and hero worshipping. History is quite interesting even without any of the trimmings these so called shows try to bring in, either to appease a particular section of people or whatever. Historical figures don’t have to be washed either completely white or black and can be depicted as is also.

Originally posted by: J3601

India did not existed but subcontinent existed where Afghan, Rajputs, Marathas, and every other type of people lived, they were never united, as i said earlier they had nothing in common with each-other aside from religion.. saying the subcontinent was india is like saying the middle east is one country because most of them share the same religion (recent times).. rajput could careless what marathas was going through or vice versa, all this nationalism is new it never existed back in the days, every Kingdom was looking for themselves... the funny thing is they never even looked at Mughals as Invaders.

i dont go beyond Sikh, Rajputs and Marathas because there isnt enough source material to know what the f*ck was going on before them.. all these recording things started with Mughals

whether you like it or not but what Babur achieved is a great feet... there isnt alot of people in History who has done that and people who have achieved such feets are also famous af like Alexander the great, Caesar, Cyrus the great, Changiz Khan, Timur.. also Mughal Empire was one of the most successful kingdoms.

i would also love to see a show where it shows everything and not glorifying them... even if they are not glorified Mughal empire is super impressive, any historian will tell you.

@bold Sure it didn't exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_Khanda

@red: Sure we were illiterate fools before that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

@blue: We know exactly what each of these men did.

There have been shows/movies on Sikandar vs Porus and everyone knows Alexander's valour.

Cyrus the Great of the Teispids, later the successor kingdoms of Assyria/Athura upto Sasanian Empire, their kingdom was successful too. And why would I mind watching about them, our own Parsees and Iranis are their descendants.

Originally posted by: aish.

I understand but people still saying things like 'my sentiments are hurt' and being angry because of a factual inaccuracy in a movie/show is absurd to say the least. Ask a daily wage worker if he or she would care about this. No, they won't, because they know that there are far more important things in life than getting mad over TV. If there's something wrong shown, then ask for it to changed. But this whole 'hurting sentiments' drama is hilarious.

Anybody still associating their identity to something that happened in history and getting hurt over it has failed to evolve, end of story.

@bold - interesting viewpoint. Where do you draw the line? Pakistanis/Indians whose lives were ruined overnight where they escaped their comfortable homes for refugee camps should not associate their identity with partition? Or their children/grandchildren shouldn’t do so? At what point does it become “history” that we should not bother ourselves with? Kashmiri Pandits 100 years from now will still talk about how their ancestors were displaced from their homeland. Should they just stop getting hurt over it and is this a sign of their failure to evolve?

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

First of all you can't compare the reign of the Mughals (comprising several individuals over hundreds of years) against a single individual Hitler. The attitudes changed depending on who was on the throne and the political atmosphere of the time. The Mughals did a lot of things as each of the emperors had his own obsession astrology (Humayun), anatomy(Jehangir), religion (Akbar),conquering the Deccan(Aurangzeb) etc. They did not spend the whole time coming up with different ways of butchering their Hindu subjects. Hitler on the contrary had one and only one obsession. Did he have a Jewish wife or mother who could have influenced his decisions? But I wouldn't expect anyone with their blinkers-on attitude for recognizing the ridiculousness of this comparison. And I was comparing Akbar with his contemporaries in Europe who waged Crusades for centuries on Jerusalem.Compared to their fantaticism he's comparatively very broadminded acknowledging the truth of all religions.

Hitler also had lots of obsessions(Google can help you with that) but people focus on the genocide coz that's what matters.

@bold : So butchering of folks because they didn't accept the religion being forced on them is okay as long as it's not the single most obsession of the dynasty. Cute.

It's quite clear who has the blinders on here. I'm out.

As mentioned earlier, you do you 👍🏼

I think the point some are making is conquerors, Hindu and Muslim, have killed, tortured, and raped in their effort to reach dominance.

One of the ways of keeping the subjects under control is to destroy their old way of life, which includes religion. This didn't matter where Marathas, Rajputs, other Hindu conquerors were concerned, because both invader and invaded had same religion. With Mughals, they forced the conversion, but the primary aim was not spread of the faith but control.

The (justified) vilification of the Mughal invaders is not matched by that of in-house conquerors who did same bad things only because religion was not involved. Ergo, this argument is about religion, not about how terrible the Mughals were.

Summarizing the debate here, that's all. I have major issues with all of India's history prior to Mughal rule being destroyed.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I think the point some are making is conquerors, Hindu and Muslim, have killed, tortured, and raped in their effort to reach dominance.

One of the ways of keeping the subjects under control is to destroy their old way of life, which includes religion. This didn't matter where Marathas, Rajputs, other Hindu conquerors were concerned, because both invader and invaded had same religion. With Mughals, they forced the conversion, but the primary aim was not spread of the faith but control.

The (justified) vilification of the Mughal invaders is not matched by that of in-house conquerors who did same bad things only because religion was not involved. Ergo, this argument is about religion, not about how terrible the Mughals were.

Summarizing the debate here, that's all. I have major issues with all of India's history prior to Mughal rule being destroyed.

The topic of this thread I thought was about Mughals?

Also if you read history, you will know the barbaric ways in which the Muslim invaders approached the Indian Subcontinent, people were shocked out of their living daylights. Muslims actually introduced looting, plundering and destruction of the community places like libraries, universities etc so that they can curb the socialization and as well as the education of the masses. There was no such record of the Hindu kings doing these kind of barbaric acts. Also the Hindu kings mostly kept their shenanigans to each other at the most to the palace. Most of the times it didn’t make any difference to the common man as to who was holding the crown.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I think the point some are making is conquerors, Hindu and Muslim, have killed, tortured, and raped in their effort to reach dominance.

One of the ways of keeping the subjects under control is to destroy their old way of life, which includes religion. This didn't matter where Marathas, Rajputs, other Hindu conquerors were concerned, because both invader and invaded had same religion. With Mughals, they forced the conversion, but the primary aim was not spread of the faith but control.

The (justified) vilification of the Mughal invaders is not matched by that of in-house conquerors who did same bad things only because religion was not involved. Ergo, this argument is about religion, not about how terrible the Mughals were.

Summarizing the debate here, that's all. I have major issues with all of India's history prior to Mughal rule being destroyed.

I thought the topic was Mughals.

@Bold: Please name some Indian kings who did this. I used indians because Mughals were not indians.

This is what you call classic monkey balancing that's the problem in India. The Sarva Garam Vadapao Syndrome.

Originally posted by: BeingBlunt

I thought the topic was Mughals.

@Bold: Please name some Indian kings who did this. I used indians because Mughals were not indians.

This is what you call classic monkey balancing that's the problem in India. The Sarva Garam Vadapao Syndrome.

No idea what that Saga Gaga means.

Also, there are plenty of posts on this thread which actually say Hindu conquerors didn't do any atrocities in the name of religion. They didn't, but some are also extrapolating to say there were never any atrocities at all.

Pick any Maratha or Rajput king. Or on south Indian side, Chola, Chera... anyone.

Claiming they didn't do it to the common man is 100% wrong. There was plenty.

Editing to add specifics: Chola-Chalukya conflict, the Hoysalas butchering Tamils, the Kakatiyas attacking Nellore. There's more: Maratha invasions of Bengal and Afghanistan area.

Or do you want an example of someone prior? How about Parasu Ram? That throwing the axe and bringing up land from the sea that is Kerala? It was actually conquest to resettle migrants from the north.

This is not to say Mughals were good. They were not. The difference was that they were outsiders and of a diff faith. They were exceptionally brutal as well *and* carried on with their atrocities over time and vast regions.

But this one side all good, other side bad argument is also not historically accurate.