Imagine if they made a Mughal TV show - Page 9

Some people are conflating the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. They were different. The Delhi Sultanate had five dynasties Mamluk, Khilji, Tughlaq, Sayyid, and Lodi. The Mughal Empire was one of the many but strongest splinters of the Timurid Empire that replaced the Lodi dynasty and Delhi Sultanate to have the largest kingdom in South Asia. There were 19 different Emperors in the Mughal dynasty, not counting dispute Emperors and Regents. I don't think you can paint them all with one broad stroke.

-----

I don't think historical fiction necessarily has to take sides or glorify one side. Take 'The Crown' for example. The early seasons did indeed paint Queen Elizabeth and the royal family in a positive light. The young Queen was an important figure in modern British history. However, in the most recent season, it does not shy away from criticizing the royal family and highlighting how they treated Diana as well as Margaret Thatcher horribly (Thatcher had her issues, but didn't deserve the royal bullying at Balmoral). Prior to Harry and Meghan's interview, the Crown had reignited the debate whether the monarchy is outdated and should be abolished.

If any Indian filmmaker or producer wants to make a historical fiction series - I might suggest setting it in South America during the Spanish inquisition. You can still cast brown actors and no one will get offended.

Originally posted by: sunflower52

How do you know that Hindu rulers did not do all that, as Ancient India is not very well recorded, all the accounts or stories have came from outside sources. Such as ancient Greeks/China.

Yes, show all the good and bad that Mughals did, I do not mind as its part of history. I also agree about whitewashing no need.

History is all about learning and not repeat the same mistakes that our ancestors did, but humans nature is they never learn. Hence, this quote "History Repeats Itself".

Whether you believe it or not in actual Islam, there is no such thing as force conversion.

How many were forced and or converted themselves we will never know.

I am out from this argument, said what I wanted to say.

you can go out of argument, but forced conversion is a real thing.

Originally posted by: MujheMaarjaneDo

you can go out of argument, but forced conversion is a real thing.

Yes and its wrong to force someone to convert, as I said the actual Islam does not allow doing that.

Originally posted by: aish.

You do understand that there's a difference between 'caring, 'educating people about it', 'not forgetting' and getting my sentiments hurt about it and refusing to move on, right?

Also stop mixing black and white. Issues like that of racism among blacks, Kashmiri pandits being displaced have their relevance till date, people are still suffering.

Tell me who is suffering because of British rule or Mughal rule today? Also whose Grandma was alive in 1600?

I will educate my children about thr British rule and their atrocities like my parents educated me. But I won't teach them to still be mad about it, like my parents taught me not to be. Its a part of histroy that needs to be known, not stuck with.

Tell me how many Indians are stuck with the British rule today? I mean even in cricket matches people care only about India vs Pak, not Ind vs Eng even though the British were the cruel ones for centuries. Becsuse one is past, the other is present. Especially when the entire reason we are two countries is one British policy- Divide and rule.

And im out.

So the long-term negative effects of British rule are not felt in today's India? You don't see anti-Hindu bigotry among radical Muslims? We don't hear of Hindu oppression in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan?

Riiiiiiight. Bye. Have a good day.

I would like to say the initial mughals were invaders and outsiders

But 3rd or 4th gen onwards they were indians only as their linegae was more indian than mughal

Like Prince Salim aka emperor jehangir was 50% indian blood lineage (rajputh)

Shah jahan was like 75% indian blood etc (rajputh) (one grandparent and both parents hindu rajpuths only grandfather akbar was mughal muslim)

So by the time another 2-3 gens afterwards came they were like 90% indian blood lineage and more hindu rajpuths than muslim mughals

So they were more indian than mughals after 4-5 generations

cannot say US born indians are indian citizens, they are US citizens only

So mughals after 4-5 gens were as indian as most indian sub continent people in genes atleast

And most mughals after Salim had 50 to 90% indian rajputh than mughal muslim invaders

I think its more to do with their upbringing that they still behaved more mughal invaders than the 70 to 90% indian blood that they had? i mean most emperors

If they had seen that their one grandparents and both parents had hindu rajputh blood 100% (like shah jahan) and so we are more indian rajpuths than a mughal muslim and behaved benevolently towards sub continent citizens it would have been better.

But they never think like that why? no idea must be to do with up bringing or was it something deeper must be debated

If only they had considered themselves local and treated local citizens with more benevolence like some like akbar, jehangir did than it would been better

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

So the long-term negative effects of British rule are not felt in today's India? You don't see anti-Hindu bigotry among radical Muslims? We don't hear of Hindu oppression in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan?

Riiiiiiight. Bye. Have a good day.

Originally posted by: J3601

thats becasue Mughals goal was not to convert people they were not Kaliphas like the one in the middle east

oh is it what is kalipah?

but mughal are also muslims only or are they diff sects from kalipah?

the initial mughals did impose jaziah for non muslims

Originally posted by: myviewprem

oh is it what is kalipah?

but mughal are also muslims only or are they diff sects from kalipah?

the initial mughals did impose jaziah for non muslims

i meant to say caliphs...

its basically a person considered a politico-religious successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim world, at the time Ottoman empire were the Caliphate

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I am fairly certain at this point my posts won't be taken as merely discussing history. I have no intention of getting into a Mughal/Muslim vs Hindu verbal battle. I happen to be neither. My only interest in this debate was history.

Bowing out now as emotional arguments re: God and faith are not my cuppa.

Umm...so? Totally useless point. None of the people here, at least I am hoping, are present because they belonged to any of these two religions.

Now about your Ashoka example. That is just one and historically he has been called out for it with he himself realizing his sins and trying to atone for them before he died. I am not surprised at all that you chose to cherry pick only the wrongs he did just to support your grossly generalized comment about ALL the Hindu Kings being barbaric. Good that you decided to gracefully bow out of this topic because you absolutely have nothing else to contribute. 👍🏼Bye bye, see ya in another topic!😎

Originally posted by: Chaipatti

So how many from indian subcontinent are actually converted by actual islam and how many by sword yeilding islam? By which method did u convert, got any idea?😆

most muslims in the subcontinent are of lower caste.. they were getting treated like shit so they converted to Islam and Christianity