I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

-Any of the Mughal Emperors autobiographies of their reign. Obviously such accounts are biased, but they give you a good idea of how the emperors wanted to be seen at the time.

-On the British side, William Foster’s collection of travel accounts gives you an idea of what the original Brits in India felt about their new home.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Travels-India-William-Forster/dp/8175361735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198418960&sr=1-1

The History Channel (Sky 529/530) actually had a superb 2-hour documentary on “The Moors” this morning, did you see it ? Fascinating stuff.

I’ve actually been to Andalucia in Spain and it’s a beautiful part of Europe; I strongly recommend visiting the region for anyone interested in that sort of thing. Seville is picturesque although very urbanised compared to places like Cordoba and Grenada, which I like more because I think the historical legacy is more evident there. Superb architecture and very atmospheric. There’s also a noticeably tropical vibe to the climate and “greenery”. Extremely interesting history too, of course.

I found that Portugal had more relics from their colonial era (plus some obvious historical links to Goa) compared to the Muslim period, although maybe that was just a reflection of the places I happened to visit.

I do agree that one cannot dismiss Mughal and British influences as totally foreign, as they as they are very much a part of the Indian culture.

Portugal’s moorish influences are part of its distant past. In the “Reconquista”, the Christian kingdoms wanted to get rid of moorish influences in the Iberian Peninsula, and they didn’t allow moors to live in Christian lands. Ironically, Christians could live in moorish territories, and they absorved islamic architecture and arts. So when moorish territories became Christian, these Christians managed to fuse two cultures in a subtle way. There was, of course, a knee-jerk reaction to destroy anything that resembled a non-Christian culture, but you still can find few intact moorish building across the country.

The Moors culture though is survived in the language. A lot of Portuguese words start with ‘Al-’, and most of these have an arabic root. From names of places (Algarve – al’Garb) to names of things (Alface/Lettuce – alkhass), they have survived extintion.

But perhaps the most interesting word is “Oxalá”, which is a very common word that means “I hope that”. It actually comes from “sha allah” or “inshallah”, or “if God willing…”.

“I thought it would be helpful to give you a few more pointers on sources of info for Mughal-era history, since you were asking about this on the HK thread”

That’s very kind of you, thanks Jai.

“My basic point is that there has been more interest in the Mughal period, especially in the West, than any other period of Indian history which I think is unfair,”

Hmmm… well, on PP there is much more interest in the Mughal empire. Not sure if we can take what we read on PP as indicative of the West

I’m from the “West” (Amreeka) and lived in the West elsewhere (Italy), and I will say that there is much more fascination with “ancient India”– meaning Ashoka’s empire, Gupta Empire, etc. than the Moghul empire, or they are treated on equal terms, at least in the historical sense.

Talking to Desis and Brits, however, the Mughal Empire dominates their popular imagination: for the former, I think it’s the result of manipulating religion and also communal dynamics; for the latter, I think it’s a mix of Orientalism or Orientalist fascination (which the Moghul empire stereotypically embodies the most) as well as the fact that it was the dominant ruling force to contend with when the Brits came. In other words, the Moghul empire’s historical proximity- with the Brits at its heels– is probably one of the reasons why it’s so discussed.

I agree with your analysis. My basic point is that there has been more interest in the Mughal period, especially in the West, than any other period of Indian history which I think is unfair, and like any empire the Mughal empire had its positive and negative contributions. To their credit the Mughals did made make India their home and over the years became indigenised. This is in stark contrast to the British Empire which basically sought to divide and rule and plunder as much wealth out the country.

I do like Dalrymple because he’s a great writer. I’ve read his book ‘The Age of Kali’. I will read one of his books on Mughal India at some stage.

Just wanted to add that the Roman Empire is all over the place in North Africa as well. Roman ruins abound in Morocco, Libya, Algeria. As is the Spanish Empire in Latin America…

I know this is a British Asian focused blog, but I really think people fixate so much on South Asia and the UK that they tend to not see the rest of the world around them and be able to draw contrasts and comparisons. No more UK and Asia-centrism, please

“Why do people, especially in the West, regard the Mughal period as the greatest period of India’s civilisation? India was already a rich place before that.”

I don’t think anyone is saying that the Mughal period was the greatest period of India’s “civilization” (btw, the borders of “India” as we know it today didn’t exist during the Mughal period). I think some people want to recognize the contours of that era.

As a matter of curiosity, how come you see to think that the Mughal period was completely foreign to the subcontinent? As far as I can tell, it pretty much become rooted in various places in the sub-continent and became part and parcel of the sub-continent over a period of time. And if we were to compare reigns and empires, I’d say that the British empire was much more “foreign” to the sub-continent. Roughly two hundred years compared to 700 hundreds years is a big difference (but of course, in terms of law, mass transport, cricket, and “curry powder,” we got from the Brits).

And lastly, many empires all over the world became intertwined, incorporated, and became a feature of said landscape. I’ve traveled a lot, and I’ve come to firmly believe that there is no “authentic.” The remnants of the Moorish empire in Spain and Portugal, for example, are very evident and ARE Spanish and Portugeuse by now. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

“People also say that Mughal emperors encouraged religious freedom but those who benefited the most were the warrior, mercantile and trader classes. Eventually the peasants and artisans, who suffered high taxes under the Mughals, became radicalised and rebelled.”

What you point to is not specific to the Mughal Empire– ruling classes the world over do not seek to benefit peasants. What you are talking about has more to do with class than the fact that the empire was Mughal. What you said is true for the British Empire, and the ruling elites today in India for example.

And finally, like I’ve repeated ad nauseum on other threads, the Mughal Empire was decentralized. Talking about peasants and artisans en masse in the subcontinent is inaccurate. In some places they had a powerful reach (ie Delhi, some parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan, Hyderbad and so on) and in other places they didn’t.

there was a considerable amount of cultural syncresis too in relation to some aspects of Rajput culture, lifestyle, courtly structure & protocols etc.

Correction: “…..in relation to the impact & influence on some aspects of Rajput culture,…..”

I thought it would be helpful to give you a few more pointers on sources of info for Mughal-era history, since you were asking about this on the HK thread. Apologies for the belated response.

In addition to the 2 books I mentioned in post #19 above, along with Michael Wood’s book which I recommended in the HK thread, I can also recommend the following as solid initial primers for you:

1. The Lonely Planet Guide to India: Gives a very good overview of the Mughal era, not just in the “History” chapters but also later on, in relation to regions (particularly in the North) which were most heavily impacted.

The sections on Rajasthan in particular have a considerable amount of info with regards to the latter, due to the close links Rajputs ended up having with the corresponding Muslim/Mughal aristocracy, initially as adversaries and later as allies — the Sisodiasof Chittorgarhand subsequently Udaipur are the most famous examples of Rajputs who held out the longest, first against Babur and later against Akbar, often at an absolutely staggering cost of lives. Both of these individuals became noticeably less belligerent later on, and Akbar’s mindset in particular seems to mirror that of Ashoka’s to some extent. Both of them also initially had negative relations with the Sikhs which subsequently became much more positive — Babur was originally condemned by Guru Nanak as metaphorically being “the messenger of death”, but as Babur changed his attitudes in the following years he was actually blessed by the Guru that his descendents would continue to rule Hindustan as long as they ruled justly.

Because of the protracted political and social interaction with the Muslim ruling powers, lasting several centuries, there was a considerable amount of cultural syncresis too in relation to some aspects of Rajput culture, lifestyle, courtly structure & protocols etc. The same thing happened to numerous other non-Muslim “ruling groups” in the northwestern of India, obviously to varying degrees depending on the specific group.

2. Following on from this, The Lonely Planet Guide to Rajasthan, Delhi and Agra extrapolates the above and goes into a significant amount of further detail.

Authoritative, objective commentaries on Rajput history should also be read, and if you ever visit the major palaces in Rajasthan, you should be able to buy (or at least browse through) relevant books on sale there which have been officially approved and authorised by the royal families concerned. They tend to have a lot of archived records and antiques from the Mughal period too.

3. Reading information on Sikh history during the lifetimes of the 10 Gurus would be a good idea too, as it covers the 200 years of the “Great Mughals” in parallel. Various books are available, and there’s a huge amount of online information too (particularly good sources are Sikhs.org, Sikhnet and Sikh-history.com). However, bear in mind that the “Sikh experience” during the Mughal period was often negative, and the historical summaries concerned will reflect this in both content and tone.

4. The Last Mughal by William Dalrymple is fascinating reading, for a biography of the life & times of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, who got caught up in the events of 1857. Personally I think Dalrymple can sometimes be a little rose-tinted and biased in his views, but this is just a reflection of the fact that he obviously has a passion for India’s Mughal era and a great affection for India as a whole, and his writing is always extremely well-researched, incredibly detailed, very “readable” — Dalrymple’s often wry in his tone, but always compassionate and sincere — and brilliantly written. Apparently he plans to write 3 or 4 more detailed books on the Mughals during the next few years, so keep an eye out for that.

Anyway, there’s plenty of other sources of information around, but I think the above will do for starters Hope this helps.

If any of you want a detailed, scholarly overview of the Mughals, read this book.

I’d also recommend the following:

The Mughal Throne by Abraham Eraly

and

A Teardrop on the Cheek of Time — basically a very detailed biography of Shahjahan.

Why do people, especially in the West, regard the Mughal period as the greatest period of India’s civilisation? India was already a rich place before that. Isn’t that one of the main reasons why the Mughals invaded India? People also say that Mughal emperors encouraged religious freedom but those who benefited the most were the warrior, mercantile and trader classes. Eventually the peasants and artisans, who suffered high taxes under the Mughals, became radicalised and rebelled. If you look at South India, which had little Moghul influence, it has been far more religiously tolerant than North India and still is today.

There’s nostalgia about the period including the military successes of Mughal emperors, how they developed trade with the rest of the world and their import of Central Asian and Persian influence into the sub-continent. The nostalgia subconsciously reinforces the view that in India all things great have come from outside; it also apologises for British colonial rule as though that was a continuation of Mughal rule but actually was completely ruthless and looted the country of its wealth.

Sorry, I had to cut short my previous post. The examples were meant to illustrate that Jahangir, while not authorising a state with complete freedom of religion, created an environment where the average religious minority (i.e. those not of the state religion), had more freedom of conscience and worship to anywhere else in the world at that point.

Desi Italiana:

“Oh, it’s nothing offensive; it’s just more accurate. If we were to transliterate from the Gujarati script, “Gujarat” would be GujArat. Not Guj-oo-rat.”

Atacha? (Not sure about spelling).

Jai:

Nice.

It is no wonder that he is referred to as Akbar the Great. Although in Mughal-e-Azam – Prince Salim who is Jahangir, played by Dilip Kumar is the nice guy and Akbar is made out to be cruel. But that’s just bollywood.

For those who like this sort of thing, I strongly recommend the “re-colourised” version of the movie which was released about 2 years ago. The songs have been polished up too (better sound quality etc). The film’s obviously a somewhat Bollywoodised version of the historical characters depicted, as Parvinder correctly mentioned, but it’s a fantastic movie in every aspect anyway — story, acting, casting, music, the works. One of my all-time favourites.

(And try to watch it on the biggest widescreen/flatscreen TV you have access to; sometimes it’s obvious that the colourisation has been achieved artificially, but if you’ve already seen the original black & white version, a number of musical & dramatic segments in the new version will blow your socks off, just from the vividness of the colour and the quality of the detail in the costumes, jewellery and physical appearances of the actors/actresses depicted).

Incidentally, for those who don’t know, there is a mausoleum in Lahore where the real Anarkali is supposedly buried. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarkali)

Quote:

“The building still enshrines a beautifully inscribed monolithic sarcophagus. On the sarcophagus are inscribed 99 names of Allah and the Persian couplet:

تا قیامت شکر گویم کردگار خویش را
آہ گر من باز بینم روئ یار خویش را

tā qiyāmat shukr gūyam kardigāre khīsh rā
āh! gar man bāz bīnam rūī yār-e khīsh rā

I would give thanks unto my God unto the day of resurrection
Ah! could I behold the face of my beloved once more

On the northern side of the sarcophagus are inscribed the words “مجنون سلیم اکبر” (majnÅ«n Salim akbar, “the profoundly enamoured Salim (son of) Akbar”).”

Romantic stuff, eh

“I never know whether it is an ‘a’ or a ‘u’. Would putting in an ‘u’ be likely to offend people, or it is just more of a stylistic convention?”

Oh, it’s nothing offensive; it’s just more accurate. If we were to transliterate from the Gujarati script, “Gujarat” would be GujArat. Not Guj-oo-rat.

“I think many Hindus, Sikhs and Jains would differ … Sheikh Ahmed, the revivalist head of the Naqshbandi Sufis of Sirhind, who was of the opinion that ‘the glory of Islam consists in the humiliation of infidelity and the infidels.’
“

There were no persecutions of Hindus. There is a strange incident when Jahangir destroys a Hindu idol (Memoirs of Jahangir, Vol. 1, p. 254), but this is a one off. He recorded his awe when he met a Hindu holy man:

“I had an interview with Jadrup, who is one of the austere ones of the Hindu religion … certainly association with him is a great privilege.”

(Memoirs of Jahangir, Vol. 2, p.49).

Or when he encountered some Brahmans:

“On the 7th of the same month the camp was pitched at Hardwar on the bank of the Ganges. It is one of the most famous places of worship of the Hindus, and many brahmans and recluses have chosen a corner of retirement in this place and worship God according to the rule of their religion. I gave alms in cash and goods to each of them according to his requirements.”

As for apparently favouring Shaikh Ahmad, this is what Jahangir had to say about him:

“At this time it was reported to me that a Shayyad (a loud talker, a cheat) of the name of Shaikh Ahmad had spread the net of hypocrisy and deceit in Sirhind, and caught in it many of the apparent worshippers without spirituality [Jahangir then recounts Ahmad's claim that Ahmad had surpassed the first four Caliphs] … I according gave an order that they should bring him to the Court that is based on justice … [and then threw him in prison]“

(Memoirs of Jahangir, Vol. 2, pp.91-92).

‘while still ensuring freedom of conscience and worship for everyone else’
- I think many Hindus, Sikhs and Jains would differ.

Lets look at who had Jahangir’s ear at the Lahore court.

Sheikh Ahmed, the revivalist head of the Naqshbandi Sufis of Sirhind, who was of the opinion that ‘the glory of Islam consists in the humiliation of infidelity and the infidels.’
Chandan Shah, a Brahmin in the service of the Mughal Court. He resented the independent ways of the Sikhs, seeing them a threat to the power of the upper class Brahmins.

Guru Arjun Dev was produced in court on the charge of ‘having compiled a book which blasphemed the worship and rules of the Hindus and the prays and fasting of the Muhammadans.’

Jahangir, writing in his memoirs, stated: ‘So many simple-minded Hindus, nay, even foolish Muslims too had been fascinated by the Guru’s ways and teachings. Many times the thought had been presenting itself to my mind that either I shall put an end to this false traffic, or that he be brought into the fold of Islam.’
Quotes from Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri (memoirs of Jahangir), translated by Alexander Rogers, Delhi (1926), p72.

The Guru was first tortured by being seated on a hot iron plate, whilst burning sand was poured over him and then drowned in a river. He became the 1st Sikh martyr and turned the hitherto peaceful Sikhs into a militant army, in opposition to both the Islamists and Brahmin orthodox.

Thanks. Though you and other Sikhs will probably disagree, I would argue that Jahangir’s religious policies were, in general, superior to Akbar’s. Akbar’s policy was obviously the more noble (all religions are equal), but Jahangir managed bring the hardline Muslims back into the imperial camp, without compromising the high degree of religious freedom that the average Mughal subject enjoyed. Akbar’s disregard for Islam was causing a rupture with some Muslims, and Jahangir was able to appeal to these discontents while still ensuring freedom of conscience and worship for everyone else.