Akbar is respected because he was a great King both militarily & administratively and it didn't hurt that he was the most tolerant of the Mughals.
Same ticketing rights....what part of that don't you understand?
Neither Qutubuddin Aibak or Iltutmish (who completed it) were mughals & yeah the same ticketing rights story interests us.
....because it's part of our history. You won't understand. In Karnataka, people go visit the magnificent ruins of Hampi & then go on & see the Gol Gumbuz in Bijapur & think nothing much of it even if the
Sultanate had been responsible for the destruction of Hampi. We try (don't always succeed) to not be prisoners of history, you see it helps to have those ticketing rights over both
.
Stockholm syndrome??
Nobody loves anyone here, there is respect for Akbar but that's it. They are now our history just like the British built structures are our history too. You don't worry your poor head about us, we will do fine.
Save all the worry for all the hate that you have to have to not understand that we see history, not in black & white but in the grey that it usually is.[/QUOTE]
i like how you tip toe and show how utopian society india is and yet your friends here complain of how evil and Draconian the moghuls were. clearly the hate towards the moghuls that you try to hide is not so well hidden in your friends here. who clearly try to show how the british were actual saviours of their culture from the moghuls.
last part oh well that clearly is the best defence of indians when they know they have nothing to aruge with by turning their guns onto us and how "cruel,evil & draconian" pakistanis are.
the bottom line is to pakistanis moghuls were great and were the golden era of this area while the british invaders destroyed our culture and changed the history books and put the hindus in power when LEAVING! and since then the hindus want to forget everything in between and just remember 47 and before that ashoka, with a few bed time stories of some rajputs that stood upto moghuls instead of uniting with them.
Makes very strange reading.
The last Mughal emperor to exercise full power was Aurangzeb. By the end of his reign in 1707, the Empire was under siege- not by the British, or the French or the Portuguese, or Dutch or Danes, or any Europeans, not even by central Asians, although both Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali were in the future, but by the Marathas. By the time another fifty years had elapsed, by 1757, the British had seized power in a corner of India, but the Marathas had taken over vast swathes of northern India, and were creating the conditions in the Punjab that allowed the Sikhs to take power a few decades later. In the south, the independent kingdom of Mysore had begun to expand, thanks to its military commander, Hyder Ali, and that commander's son, who declared himself Sultan, and struck coins. This was in the middle of the eighteenth century.
By the end of the eighteenth century, between them, the Marathas, the Sikhs and the Empire's own provincial rulers, the Nawabs of Oudh and the Nizam of Hyderabad, there were only tatters of the Empire left.
Dilli se Palam
Badshahi Shah Alam.
When the British won India, they wont through the First, Second, Third and Fourth Anglo-Mysore Wars; the First, Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars; and the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars. Among others, they had also to fight off the Nawabs of the provinces of Bengal and Oudh and defeat the Nizam by proxy.
Not much is heard about the Anglo-Mughal Wars; they never happened. By then, the Mughal Empire was dead, just an emperor propped up in his throne in the city of Delhi, and enthroned and dethroned at will, depending on who the local hoodlum was. Sometimes this was a faction like the
Sayyids of the UP, sometimes the Jats, sometimes the Marathas, and of course, the Persians and the Afghans had a lot to say for a brief period.
It is too much to hope that all members would be familiar with the history of south Asia, but I wish some of those writing in with their views would at least read an History of India for Dummies, if nothing else. It may not matter much to others, but to those who have had some exposure to history, some of the views expressed here are painful to read, irrespective of which country the person concerned comes from.
tu fir agaya
