CoreSub His Att re

8/3/2019 CoreSub His Att re

1/7


2/7

The great grandson of Tamerlane, Babar, who on his

mother's side was descended from the famous Genghiz

Khan, came to India in 1526 at the request of an Indian

governor who sought Babar's help in his fight against

Ibrahim Lodi, the last head of the Delhi Sultanate. Babar

defeated Lodi at Panipat, not far from Delhi, and socame to establish the Mughal Empire in India. Babar

ruled until 1530, and was succeeded by his son

Humayun, who gave the empire its first distinctive

features. But it is Humayun's son, Akbar the Great, who

is conventionally described as the glory of the empire.

Akbar reigned from 1556 to 1605, and extended his

empire as far to the west as Afghanistan, and as far

south as the Godavari river. Akbar, though a Muslim, is

remembered as a tolerant ruler, and he even started a

new faith, Din-i-Ilahi, which was an attempt to blend

Islam with Hinduism, Christianity, Jainism, and other

faiths. He won over the Hindus by naming them to

important military and civil positions, by conferring

honors upon them, and by marrying a Hindu princess.

Rejoicing at birth of Prince Salim

(Jahangir). Mughal, c. 1590.


3/7

Akbar was succeeded by his son Salim,

who took the title of Jahangir. Jahangir was born on9 September 1569 at Fatehpur Sikri. His father,Akbar, really doted on him but the relationship gotbitter as Jahangir came of age. Jahangir openlyrebelled against his father at first, but wasevenutally reconciled; and on Akbar's death inNovember 1605, he assumed the throne. Though his

own son, Khusrau, then seventeen years old, led amilitary campaign against his father, Jahangircaptured him and rendered him blind. In 1611,Jahangir met, wooed, and married Mehrunissa, theyoung widow of a Mughal officer. A beautiful andstrong woman, she soon became Jahangir's favoritequeen and assumed the title of Nur Jahan, 'Light of

the World'. Her father, Itimad ud-daulah, waselevated to the position of chief minister; her brother,Asaf Khan, became a nobleman at the court; and hisdaughter, Mumtaz Mahal, was married to Khurram(later Shah Jahan), Jahangir's other son, in 1612.Nur Jahan herself came to exercise considerableinfluence over her husband, and Jahangir is said to

have relied heavily on her advice.


4/7

The Emperor Jahangir

examining a picture.

Under Jahangir, the empire continued to be a war state attuned toconquest and expansion. Jahangir's most irksome foe was the Rana ofMewar, Amar Singh, who finally capitulated in 1613 to Khurram's forces. Inthe northeast , the Mughals clashed with the Ahoms of Burma, whose

guerilla tactics gave the Mughals a hard time. In Northern India, Jahangir'sforces under Khurram defeated their other principal adversary, the Raja ofKangra, in 1615; in the Deccan, his victories further consolidated theempire. But in 1620, Jahangir fell sick, and so ensued the familiar quest forpower. Nur Jahan married her daughter to Shahryar, Jahangir's youngestson from his other queen, in the hope of having a living male heir to thethrone when Jahangir died.

Jahangir always feared the Persians and the Uzbeks of Central Asia. The Persians matched the Mughals in military strength andresources. Their relations were tolerably good because each feared the

other's might. But in 1622, taking advantage of the disputes within the

court, thePersians capitalized on the Mughals' preoccupation in internal affairs and captured Qandahar. Shah Jahan

refused to help Jahangir and Shahryar in the campaign against the Persians and thus led an open rebellion. Hefought his fathers forces but was defeated and agreed to terms dictated by Nur Jahan. In 1627, Jahangir becameseriously ill, and he never recovered from his illness. Upon the death of his father on 28 October 1627, ShahJahan, with support from his father-in-law Asaf Khan, became the emperor by executing Shahryar and other

male Mughal heirs. The accession of Shah Jahan to the throne was a result of great political intrigue.

Jahangir lacked the political enterprise of his father Akbar. But he was an honest manand a tolerant ruler. He strived to reform society and was tolerant towards Hindus, Christians and Jews.However, relations with Sikhs were strained, and the fifth of the ten Sikh gurus, Arjun Dev, was executed atJahangir's orders for giving aid and comfort to Khusrau, Jahangir's rebellious son. Art, literature, and architectureprospered under Jahangir's rule, and the Mughal gardens in Srinagar remain an enduring testimony to his artistic

taste.


5/7

Aurangzeb who was favored by powerful men

more inclined to turn the Mughal Empire into an Islamicstate subject to the laws of the Sharia. It is Aurangzeb who

triumphed, and though the Mughal Empire saw yet further

expansion in the early years of his long reign (1658-1707),

by the later part of the seventeenth century the empire was

beginning to disintegrate. Aurangzeb remains a highlycontroversial figure, and no monarch has been more

subjected to the communalist reading of Indian history. Heis admired by Muslim historians for enforcing the law of theSharia and for disavowing the policies pursued by Akbar;among Hindus, laymen and historians alike, he isremembered as a Muslim fanatic and bigot. In the event,Aurangzeb's far-flung empire eventually eluded his grasp,and considerable disaffection appears to have been created

among the peasantry. After Aurangzeb's death in 1707,many of his vassals established themselves as sovereign rulers, and so began the period ofwhat are called "successor states". The Mughal Empire survived until 1857, but its rulers were,after 1803, pensioners of the East India Company. The last emperor, the senile Bahadur ShahZafar, was put on trial for allegedly leading the rebels of the 1857 mutiny and for fomentingsedition. He was convicted and transported to Rangoon, to spend the remainder of his life on

alien soil.

SHUJA, AURANGZEB,

AND MURAD BAKHSH


6/7

Few figures from the Indian past strike most Hindus with as much revulsion as the Turkish conqueror,Mahmud of Ghazni. Mahmud succeeded his father, a warlord who had carved out an empire in central

Asia and had established his capital at Ghazni, south of Kabul, in 998 AD at the age of 27. He launchedaggressive expansionist campaigns, and is said to have invaded India no less than 17 times between1000 and 1025 AD. His campaigns invariably took place during the hot summer season, and on eachoccasion Mahmud left India before the onset of the monsoons, which would have flooded the rivers ofthe Punjab and possibly trapped his troops.Mahmuds invasions of India, which never extended to the central, south, and eastern portions of thecountry, were doubtless exceedingly bloody and ruthless affairs. He is said to have carried away hugeamount of booty on each visit, and among other Indian dynasties, the Chandellas of Khujaraho, thePratiharas of Kanauj, and the Rajputs of Gwalior all succumbed to his formidable military machine.Places such as Kanauj, Mathura, and Thaneshwar were laid to ruins, but it is the memory of hisdestruction of the Shiva temple at Somnath, on the southern coast of Kathiawar in Gujarat, which hasearned him the undying hatred of many Hindus. Muslim chronicles suggest that 50,000 Hindu died inthe battle for Somnath, and it is said that the Shiva lingam was destroyed by Mahmud himself; afterthe battle, Mahmud and his troops are described as having carried away across the desert theequivalent of 6.5 tons of gold. The famous, intricately carved, doors of the temple at Somnath werealso carried away, and there is an interesting story to be told about Somnath [see entry].

There can be no doubt that Mahmud of Ghazni waged ruthless campaigns and terrorized the people who came in his way. The Arabgeographer and scholar, Alberuni, who wrote an account of India and spent much time at Mahmuds court, wrote of his raids that

"the Hindus became like the atoms of dust scattered in all directions and like a tale of old in the mouths of people. Their scatteredremains cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards all Moslems." Nonetheless, the communalist interpretation ofMahmud, first initiated by British historians and then adopted by nationalist Hindu historians, is without merit and must be rejected.This interpretation represents Mahmud as someone who harbored a special hatred for Hindus, but in point of fact there is nothinghe did to Hindus that he did not also do to Muslims, especially Muslims he considered to be heretical. The Muslim ruler of Multan, anIsmaili, and his subjects were dealt with just as ruthlessly. Though Mahmud destroyed Hindu temples and broke Hindu idols, heacted as any ruthless warrior bent on conquest and pillage might do; indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find other conquerors atthat time who behaved any differently. Many of his deeds struck even later Muslim historians as indefensible, and they becomecomprehensible, though emphatically not justifiable, when one considers him within a framework which recognizes the politics ofconquest. If Mahmud pillaged Hindu temples, he did so because wealth was hoarded in these temples; but there is little to suggesta particular animus towards Hinduism. Contemporary records suggest that one of his most notable generals was a Hindu by thename of Tilak.


7/7

Mahmuds ferocity and barbarism scarcely prevented him from cultivating the great minds of thetime. He was animated by an ambition to make turn his court at Ghazni into a haven for scholarsand artists, and he turned Ghazni into one of the cosmopolitan cities of the world. The famousPersian poet, Firdausi, author of the national epic the Shahnamah, was enticed to make his home

in Ghazni, as was the Arab geographer Alberuni. The more substantive questions pertain to whyIndia fell so easily to Mahmuds sword on so numerous occasions, though even here it is worthy ofnote that he met stiff opposition in Kashmir and could never establish his rule over that fabled land.He doubtless had a more efficient military than any Indian ruler could muster, and the mostformidable of the Hindu kings, the Cholas, were too far removed from northern India to offer anyresistance, or even to have any interest in the affairs of the north. Caste divisions in Hindu societyalso played their part in weakening the resistance of Hindu kings, and the professionalism and

egalitarianism of Muslim armies, many of which allowed slaves to rise to the top, was nowhere tobe seen among the Hindus. These are among the pertinent considerations raised by Mahmudsraids into India, and scholarship would do much better in directing itself towards the politics ofconquest and the political structures of north India around 1000 AD than in being derailed bycommunalist readings of Indian history.

CoreSub His Att re

Documents

Transcript of CoreSub His Att re