Sultana, a descendant of the Mughal emperor, wants ownership of the Red Fort

[Protest_again]

Please learn that in historical times dynasties expanded and then lost throughout the world. India is no exception. If you think Mughals and before them in Muslim time, the Turkic and then the Pathans from the west of India all were foreigners, then how about the Aryans who also came and settled in the north and NW India in scores?

So, being a Sudra Hindu yourself, are you going to call them foreigners? Please keep historical ups and downs in their proper perspectives and don't mix them with religion.

No Muslim Sultan/ Badshah was ever an Islamic preacher. They were rulers like others. But, the Aryan Hindus segregated the Hindu society and imposed JATPAT on the local Sudra inhabitants who were your forefathers.

And if you are from the NE, you can rest assured that the main Indian Hindu society takes you as lower than the lowest of Sudras living in the west of BD.

India has given up on Muslim heritage to two Islamic states that fought for separation. We only retain what is considered as show pieces (Taj mahal) and that which doesn't clash with our Dharmic cultures. Culturally India is Dharmic today and we don't see our oppressors of the past as our rulers or saviors. India do have Muslims but they chose or had to choose to live in our Dharmic land. We owe nothing to our oppressors.

Muslim dynasties could be rulers/saviors/heroes to you but not to us. If you feel so strongly for her, feel free to gift a fort to her in Bangladesh. I am sure there are one or two lying around.

 

[Bilal9]

So, as I asked before. Was President Kennedy an Irishman? Is President Trump a German? Is the Queen of England also a German?

You are talking fuzzy thing. Someday you will come with the weird idea that all Pakistanis are African because all people went out from that Continent?

How about accepting it personally?

Like you and others said, the identity of a proper narrow-minded "bhakt" today is denying any iota of good any Englishman or any Mughal ever did for Hindustan, and claiming that Mughals were no good "colonizers".

Ultimately - it is denying India's own past, because both colonizers (especially the Mughals) borrowed from as much as they contributed to India, whether in administrative practices (land reforms introduced by Emperor Akbar), in architecture, in the fine arts (musical instruments, musical form e.g. ghazals. thumris, literature, dance forms (e.g. Kathak), which were unique combinations of indigenous Indian and Middle-eastern forms of artistic expression. Mughals may have been "outsiders and invaders" during Babur's time in 1200, but they were all Indian by the 1700's.

To just deny all that is just savage and barbaric. Mughal heritage is an undeniable part of Indian heritage, to re-write that history will bear a brunt of the blame and savagery of the re-writers themselves.

True, there were discrimination too by these 'foreigners' including religious discrimination but they (especially Mughals) became more Indian (than not) over the years they ruled India, especially as the Mughal Empire waned and the sun set on it, with Bahadur Shah's exile to Burma.

Muslim sovereign rule was to last six hundred and fifty-one years, four empires and six strong and powerful rulers for India. They succeeded in large part in uniting a very large populated land mass and introduced many social reforms, using the Mughal court system which was very advanced for its time. Mughals introduced a uniform currency which eased trade and transactions. Mughals had an extensive road network - vital to the economic infrastructure, built by a public works department set up by the Mughals which designed, constructed and maintained roads linking towns and cities across the empire, making trade easier to conduct. Remnants of these bridges can still be seen in some older towns in the subcontinent today.

To deny that part of Mughal history or term it as all 'savage and cruel' is only a current attempt at discrediting a big part of Indian history, of which Hindu rulers were also accessories in and benefited from.

In the Mughal period, India commanded 24% of Global GDP, until the British took over. By 1700, the GDP of Mughal India had risen to 24% of the world economy, the largest in the world, larger than both Qing China and Western Europe.

Mughal Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bengal Subah was a major Mughal center of industrialization in the Mughal Empire, specializing in textiles and ship-building. Shipbuilding output of Bengal during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was at 223,250 tons annually, compared with 23,061 tons produced in nineteen colonies in North America from 1769 to 1771. Bengal Subah itself was a very large contributor to Mughal industrial exports (about 33%) with textiles and ship-building output.

Mughal Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ultimately - these Mughal "colonizers" did help to make a "cluster" of a hodgepodge conglomeration of mostly superstitious, infighting Hindu groups into a "unified identity" of people - what they claim to be today ("Indians").

In the process "Deen-e-Elahi" was also invented by Akbar, which (blasphemous as it was to Islamic purists) was a new Religion invented by combining elements of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. This was clearly an effort to bring unity to the Indian religious divisiveness and in Indian cultural fissures.

Today's Hindutva attempts at discrediting Mughals is just sad.

 

[bluesky]

Culturally India is Dharmic today and we don't see our oppressors of the past as our rulers or saviors.

A king or an Emperor rules his country as needed. Where do you find Muslim rulers oppressed Hindus? Was it not the Hindus who have been oppressing their fellow Hindus by creating JATPAT among the Hindus? And Assamese is the lowest of all the Hindu castes.

And you are falsifying history by name-calling the Muslim rulers. They were not preachers but were rulers who ruled over the country and the subjects who were inhabiting the land. Where do you find this small story of being oppressed by them?

There would have been no JATPAT Hindus in India had the Muslim rulers oppressed their Hindu subjects.

 

[Protest_again]

A king or an Emperor rules his country as needed. Where do you find Muslim rulers oppressed Hindus? Was it not the Hindus who have been oppressing their fellow Hindus by creating JATPAT among the Hindus? And Assamese is the lowest of all the Hindu castes.

And you are falsifying history by name-calling the Muslim rulers. They were not preachers but were rulers who ruled over the country and the subjects who were inhabiting the land. Where do you find this small story of being oppressed by them?

There would have been no JATPAT Hindus in India had the Muslim rulers oppressed their Hindu subjects.

Lol. Whether Hindus were oppressing others or not is not for you to judge. India has a tradition and practice that was coming uninterrupted for a few millennia. We evolve at our own pace.

Muslim rulers needed the same Hindu Brahmins to rule the land as rulers. Many of the munshis of the time were Hindu Brahmins. Hindus were governed by their Hindu code. Otherwise Hindustan would have revolted against them. They had entertain them so to legitimate their own control on the country.

At least Hindu society leaders brought about renaissance and got outlawed some of most dreadful practices of ancient tradition by 1900's. We all celebrate them as heroes today for doing so. Can we say the same about your(muslim) renaissance leaders?

And even today its not like Muslims of the world are beacon of what it is to be a human. lol. We all know how beastly some of them could be even today. So keep your judgment to yourself. We will not celebrate the muslim rulers although we acknowledge them. And most definitely don't owe a Fin thing to them. We consider them oppressors and foreigners. You can consider them however you like. Like I said we will not stop you from giving her a fort or two.

I repeat India is Dharmic country and its Islamic heritage is just a history piece to study and learn. That Islamic heritage is not its heritage by a long shot but a symbol of oppression against the locals just as the British were. We are only choosing to forgive and forget and let the history die.

If Muslims of subcontinent think they have a birth right over a land mass that is India today, they are sadly mistaken. India is a republic as of 1947 and its rulers are elected by majority Hindu population. Its constitution is derived by quoting Ramayan and Bhagavat gita verses and not Quran.

India is secular because Hinduism is inherently secular which allows for multiple gods and multiple paths/traditions, otherwise India is already Hindurashtra. The Impression you have about India as a secular country is basically a single family (Nehru) imposing its will on the people of India. India is breaking through from such clutches and the Muslims of subcontinent are just realizing the reality that India is no longer their baap ka land. It will take some time to sink in. In couple of decades, they'll adjust to the new reality.

 

[SecularNationalist]

She is not the only heir of red fort , lal topi Zahid Hamid also wants to take it

 

[bluesky]

Lol. Whether Hindus were oppressing others or not is not for you to judge. India has a tradition and practice that was coming uninterrupted for a few millennia. We evolve at our own pace.

Muslim rulers needed the same Hindu Brahmins to rule the land as rulers. Many of the munshis of the time were Hindu Brahmins. Hindus were governed by their Hindu code. Otherwise Hindustan would have revolted against them. They had entertain them so to legitimate their own control on the country.

At least Hindu society leaders brought about renaissance and got outlawed some of most dreadful practices of ancient tradition by 1900's. We all celebrate them as heroes today for doing so. Can we say the same about your(muslim) renaissance leaders?

And even today its not like Muslims of the world are beacon of what it is to be a human. lol. We all know how beastly some of them could be even today. So keep your judgment to yourself. We will not celebrate the muslim rulers although we acknowledge them. And most definitely don't owe a Fin thing to them. We consider them oppressors and foreigners. You can consider them however you like. Like I said we will not stop you from giving her a fort or two.

I repeat India is Dharmic country and its Islamic heritage is just a history piece to study and learn. That Islamic heritage is not its heritage by a long shot but a symbol of oppression against the locals just as the British were. We are only choosing to forgive and forget and let the history die.

If Muslims of subcontinent think they have a birth right over a land mass that is India today, they are sadly mistaken. India is a republic as of 1947 and its rulers are elected by majority Hindu population. Its constitution is derived by quoting Ramayan and Bhagavat gita verses and not Quran.

India is secular because Hinduism is inherently secular which allows for multiple gods and multiple paths/traditions, otherwise India is already Hindurashtra. The Impression you have about India as a secular country is basically a single family (Nehru) imposing its will on the people of India. India is breaking through from such clutches and the Muslims of subcontinent are just realizing the reality that India is no longer their baap ka land. It will take some time to sink in. In couple of decades, they'll adjust to the new reality.

So, with your own confession, India was ruled by the Muslim Emperors very fairly. No Hindu Munshi was required to accept Islam. In most of the Royal Courts, Hindus were dominant because they were educated and well-versed in their respective subjects, unlike Muslims who were dominant mostly in the Justice and military department and were killing their fellow Muslims.

Please read the accounts of many historical warfares during the Muslim period. Once Hindus accepted Muslim suzerainty, Muslims never disturbed them except a few tried to collect Jizya tax. Almost all fighting centered on Muslims vs Muslims.

Find out if any war was imposed on the Hindus once they accepted the Muslim suzerainty and tell us here. Even the war between Bengal Muslim power and Delhi Muslim Mughal power continued for a long 30 years.

Please read "Baharistani Gayebi" written by Mirza Nathan, a Mughal General, sometime in the 1590s. Thousands of Muslims from both sides were killed in those continuous fighting. It started in 1575 and ended in 1605.

And there were many other killing wars in Bengal before that.

She is not the only heir of red fort , lal topi Zahid Hamid also wants to take it

Zahid Hamid is a Pakistani politician and has nothing to do with the Mughal dynasty. His family was as good a Mughal subject as was mine. Can I also claim a part of Red Fort or TajMahal?

Only the descendants of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar can claim anything that belonged to that family.

 

[itsanufy]

Present-day India is the successor of British India. So, Delhi should pay the compensation.

Then this news should be in Indian section rather than the BD one.

Just Kidding.

Because your forefathers were something big you shouldn't be in the privileged group. I can claim my great great ..great forefather was the first human on earth and I should get some priviledge.

Even I oppose of giving her a special pension of 6000 rupees, I believe she is another Indian citizen and should get priviledge as others.

 

[itsanufy]

Like you and others said, the identity of a proper narrow-minded "bhakt" today is denying any iota of good any Englishman or any Mughal ever did for Hindustan, and claiming that Mughals were no good "colonizers".

Ultimately - it is denying India's own past, because both colonizers (especially the Mughals) borrowed as much as they contributed from India, whether in administrative practices (land reforms introduced by Emperor Akbar), in architecture, in the fine arts (music, literature, dance forms), which were unique combinations of indigenous Indian as well as Middle-eastern forms of artistic expression.

To just deny all that is just savage and barbaric.

True, there were discrimination too by these 'foreigners' including religious discrimination but they (especially Mughals) became more Indian (than not) over the years they ruled India.

Muslim sovereign rule was to last six hundred and fifty-one years, four empires and six strong and powerful rulers for India. They succeeded in large part in uniting a very large populated land mass and introduced many social reforms, using the Mughal court system which was very advanced for its time. Mughals introduced a uniform currency which eased trade and transactions. Mughals had an extensive road network - vital to the economic infrastructure, built by a public works department set up by the Mughals which designed, constructed and maintained roads linking towns and cities across the empire, making trade easier to conduct. Remnants of these bridges can still be seen in some older towns in the subcontinent today.

To deny that part of Mughal history or term it as all 'savage and cruel' is only a current attempt at discrediting a big part of Indian history, of which Hindu rulers were also accessories in and benefited from.

In the Mughal period, India commanded 24% of Global GDP, until the British took over. By 1700, the GDP of Mughal India had risen to 24% of the world economy, the largest in the world, larger than both Qing China and Western Europe.

Mughal Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bengal Subah was a major Mughal center of industrialization in the Mughal Empire, specializing in textiles and ship-building. Shipbuilding output of Bengal during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was at 223,250 tons annually, compared with 23,061 tons produced in nineteen colonies in North America from 1769 to 1771. Bengal Subah itself was a very large contributor to Mughal industrial exports (about 33%) with textiles and ship-building output.

Mughal Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ultimately - these Mughal "colonizers" did help to make a "cluster" of a hodgepodge conglomeration of mostly superstitious, infighting Hindu groups into a "unified identity" of people they claim to be today (and as a result call themselves "Indians").

In the process "Deen-e-Elahi" was also invented by Akbar, which (blasphemous as it was to Islamic purists) was a new Religion invented by combining elements of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. This was clearly an effort to bring unity to the Indian religious divisiveness and in Indian cultural fissures.

Today's Hindutva attempts at discrediting Mughals is just sad.

Leave the other areas, just say what mughals has done so good for present day BD?

 

[Protest_again]

So, with your own confession, India was ruled by the Muslim Emperors very fairly. No Hindu Munshi was required to accept Islam. In most of the Royal Courts, Hindus were dominant because they were educated and well-versed in their respective subjects, unlike Muslims who were dominant mostly in the Justice and military department and were killing their fellow Muslims.

Please read the accounts of many historical warfares during the Muslim period. Once Hindus accepted Muslim suzerainty, Muslims never disturbed them except a few tried to collect Jizya tax. Almost all fighting centered on Muslims vs Muslims.

Find out if any war was imposed on the Hindus once they accepted the Muslim suzerainty and tell us here. Even the war between Bengal Muslim power and Delhi Muslim Mughal power continued for a long 30 years.

Please read "Baharistani Gayebi" written by Mirza Nathan, a Mughal General, sometime in the 1590s. Thousands of Muslims from both sides were killed in those continuous fighting. It started in 1575 and ended in 1605.

And there were many other killing wars in Bengal before that.

Zahid Hamid is a Pakistani politician and has nothing to do with the Mughal dynasty. His family was as good a Mughal subject as was mine. Can I also claim a part of Red Fort or TajMahal?

Only the descendants of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar can claim anything that belonged to that family.

Why should we accept some muslim suzerainty when this was a Hindu land? And India was too disconnected at the time to bother who was ruling the Delhi. Ordinary civilian had no say or no interest in the Delhi rule. And Hindus enmasse did not accept the Muslim suzerainty. And you would agree that Hindu kingdoms were rampaged and their temples pillaged if they didn't accept their rule. Also, they kept Hindus in their ministry because they were good at administration and Mughals were not numerically superior even then. They didn't do it out of respect to Hindu religion, don't make it so.

Obviously, your point of view is coming from those of our oppressors. But I pity you to think they were any less cruel to your ancestors.

Anyways, History is history. We think Mughals were foreigners who invaded Dharmic India. Although subsequent rulers were Indianized, still their rule is based on Quran which is alien to this land and its people. Those who accepted their religion demanded separation in 1947 and was accorded.

What is left is the Dharmic India and people of multiple religions living in its overarching shadow. Any attempt to glorify our oppressors heritage will not tolerated. They can glorified in the lands that wanted partition. Not here Period.

 

[Cheepek]

Someone needs to tell her we ended privy purse long time back. No one owes her anything.
Look at the level of delusion and entitlement here,

The 60-year-old said, "Do you think the descendants of the emperors who built the Taj Mahal should now be living in abject poverty?"

Very befitting, "descendants" should enjoy their slums.

 

[SIPRA]

Lol. Whether Hindus were oppressing others or not is not for you to judge. India has a tradition and practice that was coming uninterrupted for a few millennia. We evolve at our own pace.

Muslim rulers needed the same Hindu Brahmins to rule the land as rulers. Many of the munshis of the time were Hindu Brahmins. Hindus were governed by their Hindu code. Otherwise Hindustan would have revolted against them. They had entertain them so to legitimate their own control on the country.

At least Hindu society leaders brought about renaissance and got outlawed some of most dreadful practices of ancient tradition by 1900's. We all celebrate them as heroes today for doing so. Can we say the same about your(muslim) renaissance leaders?

And even today its not like Muslims of the world are beacon of what it is to be a human. lol. We all know how beastly some of them could be even today. So keep your judgment to yourself. We will not celebrate the muslim rulers although we acknowledge them. And most definitely don't owe a Fin thing to them. We consider them oppressors and foreigners. You can consider them however you like. Like I said we will not stop you from giving her a fort or two.

I repeat India is Dharmic country and its Islamic heritage is just a history piece to study and learn. That Islamic heritage is not its heritage by a long shot but a symbol of oppression against the locals just as the British were. We are only choosing to forgive and forget and let the history die.

If Muslims of subcontinent think they have a birth right over a land mass that is India today, they are sadly mistaken. India is a republic as of 1947 and its rulers are elected by majority Hindu population. Its constitution is derived by quoting Ramayan and Bhagavat gita verses and not Quran.

India is secular because Hinduism is inherently secular which allows for multiple gods and multiple paths/traditions, otherwise India is already Hindurashtra. The Impression you have about India as a secular country is basically a single family (Nehru) imposing its will on the people of India. India is breaking through from such clutches and the Muslims of subcontinent are just realizing the reality that India is no longer their baap ka land. It will take some time to sink in. In couple of decades, they'll adjust to the new reality.

Interesting post. Your claim that India is, at the same time, "Dharmic" as well as secular, is like saying that Sunny Leone is virgin as well as a p**n star.

 

[Protest_again]

Interesting post. Your claim that India is, at the same time, "Dharmic" as well as secular, is like saying that Sunny Leone is virgin as well as a p**n star.

I know you think that is somehow a great comeback but it is rather childish. However to your question, India is Dharmic and secular in the sense that Dharmic religions are secular as they allow for multiple paths to same truth unlike Abrahamic religions which are strictly contrived to a book. I know that this will pass over your head so don't stress over it.

 

[SIPRA]

However to your question, .......

Read my post again. I have not asked any question, whatsoever, and there is no need to ask any question, because I fully know this Hindutvadi Scum, in and out.

 

[Protest_again]

Read my post again. I have not asked any question, whatsoever, and there is no need to ask any question, because I fully know this Hindutvadi Scum, in and out.

Yes. We are Hindutvadi scum but you profess killing every Hindu that makes you a sadhu. lol. F off.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Please learn that in historical times dynasties expanded and then lost throughout the world. India is no exception. If you think Mughals and before them in Muslim time, the Turkic and then the Pathans from the west of India all were foreigners, then how about the Aryans who also came and settled in the north and NW India in scores?

So, being a Sudra Hindu yourself, are you going to call them foreigners? Please keep historical ups and downs in their proper perspectives and don't mix them with religion.

No Muslim Sultan/ Badshah was ever an Islamic preacher. They were rulers like others. But, the Aryan Hindus segregated the Hindu society and imposed JATPAT on the local Sudra inhabitants who were your forefathers.

And if you are from the NE, you can rest assured that the main Indian Hindu society takes you as lower than the lowest of Sudras living in the west of BD.

First there is no historical evidence of anything remotely similar to Aryan invasion in Indian subcontinent. Foreigners always settled in ancient Indian regions. Like Greeks, Macedonians, Iranians etc but that's it.

No other languages including Sanskrit or Tamil being the oldest in the subcontinent records something of this. Tamil language clearly mentions of sea devouring the old capital of Tamils btw Lanka and India and it is true based on geological data. So when they can record something which happened thousands of years ago, why can't they record this which happened only a 4-5000 years back? Talking about AIT, you actually demean your own anchestors who developed their own unique culture according to the lay of the land by pointing to imaginery invaders who shaped your way of living.