Did Hindus lead their lives as slaves from 1526 to 1818 during the Mughal period? How much was his religious freedom?

Updated on : December 8, 2021 by Mia Turner



Did Hindus lead their lives as slaves from 1526 to 1818 during the Mughal period? How much was his religious freedom?

Do you want 300 years of history to be told in a few words? God help!

I will try to answer by dividing the period into four broad periods and their unique governance models.

Period I - Panipat I to Panipat II

Period in which the Mughals under Babar invaded India, dethroned the Delhi Sultanate, fought and won the Battle of Khanwa against Rajputs under Rana Sangram Singh (Rana Sanga). From here the story changed. Babar died leaving behind Humayun, who was no match for Sher Shah Suri. He had to flee from India. Sher Shah Suri ruled for a brief period of five years and was killed in a hunting accident. Your Chief Minister and

Keep reading

Do you want 300 years of history to be told in a few words? God help!

I will try to answer by dividing the period into four broad periods and their unique governance models.

Period I - Panipat I to Panipat II

Period in which the Mughals under Babar invaded India, dethroned the Delhi Sultanate, fought and won the Battle of Khanwa against Rajputs under Rana Sangram Singh (Rana Sanga). From here the story changed. Babar died leaving behind Humayun, who was no match for Sher Shah Suri. He had to flee from India. Sher Shah Suri ruled for a brief period of five years and was killed in a hunting accident. His prime minister and General Hemu assumed command, declared himself Vikramaditya, and fought brilliantly against Akbar's forces. A fortuitous arrow shortened his life and the Mughal dynasty was established.

This period was generally chaotic with no clarity as to the royal ruler and the situation changed with each passing day. People, both Hindu and Muslim, suffered. Since there was no peace, progress in the fields of literature and culture suffered.

Much of India was under Hindu rulers, particularly Rajputs, Hindus like Hemu held important positions, and therefore genocide was rare. During Babar's reign, some genocides and destruction of the temple occurred, but nothing like what India saw later.

Period II - Panipat II to 1658

This was the period of Akbar, Jehangir and Shahjahan. This period is known for its plurality of thought and coexistence of beliefs. The dominant faith was Islam, but a very long truce existed between the Muslim and Hindu kings. This coexistence ensured that, although the sporadic incidence of community violence broke out from time to time, the State did not interfere in the faith of the subjects. A relatively peaceful time, this was the period that led to great strides in all fields and communities contributed equally to them. To consider that the Hindu population suffered greatly due to religious beliefs is a mistake. The best proof is Dara Shikoh, Shahjehan's heir apparent, who was a great scholar of Hindu scriptures.

But this was also the period that made Hindus complacent and for which they paid a lot.

All good things must come to an end and Aurangzeb assumed command in 1658, murdering his three remaining brothers.

Period III - 1658 to 1707 -

This was the period in which Aurangzeb ruled. this was an absolute disaster for the Hindus, their religion, for peace and quiet, for the growth of science, culture and literature.

A capable general and extremely cunning emperor driven solely by his personal interests, Aurangzeb destroyed his heritage. You are responsible for the following.

  1. Massive expansion of the empire
  2. Mass conversions and mass murders of related Hindus
  3. Destruction of a large number of temples, the most notable being the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, the Somnath Temple and the Kesava Dev Temple. There he built mosques.
  4. His tax policies were discriminatory and he applied Zaziya to Hindus and a higher tax rate to Hindu merchants compared to Muslim merchants.
  5. He ordered the execution (euphemism for murder) of Guru Teg Bahadur of the Sikhs.
  6. He ran a sham court and murdered Chatrapati Sambhaji, son of Chatrapati Shivaji, in an unprecedented action against a captured king.
  7. H ordered the destruction of Golkonda Jama Masjid as well.
  8. The great Rajput rebellion occurred during his reign breaking the 150-year truce.
  9. Aurangzeb assassinated the 32nd Da'i al-Mutlaq (Absolute Missionary) of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Musta'lī Islam Syedna Qutubkhan Qutubuddin. This may take the sting away from proponents of the communal division theory, but it underscores the fanatical leanings of this last effective Mughal emperor.

This was the time when the Indian population, more particularly Hindus, Sikhs, and non-Sunni Muslims suffered at the hands of Aurangzeb. This was a terrible period for the common population of India, and actually worse for the Mughal dynasty in the long run.

However, this was also the time when the Hindus surpassed the Mughals. The Mughals' 27-year war to annihilate the fledgling power of Maratha met with stiff resistance. It is a unique example of tenacity, perseverance through thick and thin, and having an ideal above personal gain. The murder of Chatrapati Sambhaji and three kings and a female regent fought against the Mughals.

In the north, the Sikhs rallied and emerged as a great power. Their pride and ferocity ensured that the Mughals were put in their place forever.

Period IV - 1707 to 1857 The slow and painful decline

Aurangzeb, through his rule, left a battered empire, empty coffers, and broken alliances. The rest of the Mughal empire suffered a slow and painful decline into nothingness over the next 150 years. During this period, they slowly and irrevocably lost power, wealth, and even pride.

Muslim satraps began to act out of their own interests. The Maratha and Sikh kingdoms became the most powerful kingdoms in India. The East India Company gained power. The Mughals were first devastated by Nadir Shah and later by Ahmed Shah Abdali. Nadir Shah not only looted their treasures but is said to have looted their harems as well. In the late 18th century, the Mughals were emperors in name only, dominated by smaller kingdoms and the East India Company. It may not be inappropriate to compare them to the mayor of a third-rate municipality.

Such pathetic creatures cannot cause harm to anyone.

However, the situation throughout the country was not the same. But above all, there was no discrimination on religious grounds at that time. I'll give you an example, so you can know something about people's lives at that time:

  • Diwali was celebrated at the Red Fort at the time of Bahadur Sah, Sah Alam, etc.
  • When we talk about slaves, the life of even Muslims and Hindus was not that good, except for people from the royal family.
  • At the Great Akbar court, many important posts were held by non-Muslims like Birbal, etc.
  • In reality, the Mughals were in the main power and ruled effectively in areas near Delhi. States, such as Rajasthan, Mah
Keep reading

However, the situation throughout the country was not the same. But above all, there was no discrimination on religious grounds at that time. I'll give you an example, so you can know something about people's lives at that time:

  • Diwali was celebrated at the Red Fort at the time of Bahadur Sah, Sah Alam, etc.
  • When we talk about slaves, the life of even Muslims and Hindus was not that good, except for people from the royal family.
  • At the Great Akbar court, many important posts were held by non-Muslims like Birbal, etc.
  • In reality, the Mughals were in the main power and ruled effectively in areas near Delhi. The states, like Rajasthan, Maharastra, were ruled under some settlements. There were no Muslim kings, so I don't think there are slaves in the life of the Hindus.
  • In the Mughal armies, the Hindus held many important positions.
  • Whereas, Aurangzeb did many non-Hindu activities like destroying many temples etc.

When we talk about religious matters, the list will be very long. But some things, we can conclude:

  • The Indians were not educated at that time. The people were not organized under religion.
  • The life of the people, except the royal family, was like that of slaves, but it was so for Muslims as well as Hindus.
  • Most of the emperors and kings of that time fought for wealth, luxury and religion was not a problem. Many times, they even fought with Muslim kings.
  • Sometimes people were enraged with religion, but it was not organized by the Mughal Kings.

I hope you have your answer.

Happy reading:

During the time of the Mughals, common people struggled to work, whether they were Hindu or Muslim. Since the country was predominantly Hindu, we find more Hindus in deplorable conditions. Most of the convertees (Muslims) also struggled together with their Hindu brethren.

But on the other hand, royal Muslims and also highborn Hindus or royals lived happily. There were many Hindus in the service of the Mughal kings and they were not treated badly at all. The Hindus had jagirs and mansabs at their controls. Even during the time of Aurangzeb, the upper layer of the Hindu community was not repressed.

Keep reading

During the time of the Mughals, common people struggled to work, whether they were Hindu or Muslim. Since the country was predominantly Hindu, we find more Hindus in deplorable conditions. Most of the convertees (Muslims) also struggled together with their Hindu brethren.

But on the other hand, royal Muslims and also highborn Hindus or royals lived happily. There were many Hindus in the service of the Mughal kings and they were not treated badly at all. The Hindus had jagirs and mansabs at their controls. Even during the time of Aurangzeb, the upper layer of the Hindu community was not repressed. They enjoyed their freedom.

History teaches us a lesson: the world is divided into rulers and ruled. Ruled contains the oppressed and has no caste. Poverty and suffering are for everyone.

Because we are an exceptional warrior nation with more than 50,000 years of the pride of the oldest civilization.

Akbar knew that if he had to rule India, then he had to make his own religion: 'Din-E-Elahi'.

It is not orthodox Islam. Period.

How did Islam come to India?

Through peaceful Sufism.

Who were the Sufis?

They were basically like 'vaishnavi' from WB.

You can also call them ancient Islamic hippies.

Now his message was "Love yourself and spread the love."

Back then, India or rather Bharatbarsha was full of rules and regulations of the pundit people, so ordinary people faded away with that kind of life.

So they were scattered

Keep reading

Because we are an exceptional warrior nation with more than 50,000 years of the pride of the oldest civilization.

Akbar knew that if he had to rule India, then he had to make his own religion: 'Din-E-Elahi'.

It is not orthodox Islam. Period.

How did Islam come to India?

Through peaceful Sufism.

Who were the Sufis?

They were basically like 'vaishnavi' from WB.

You can also call them ancient Islamic hippies.

Now his message was "Love yourself and spread the love."

Back then, India or rather Bharatbarsha was full of rules and regulations of the pundit people, so ordinary people faded away with that kind of life.

So they were desperately looking for a change.

Then came Sufism. Many people thought, “Wow! So laid back religion. There are basically no rules. It's just talking about love, ”so people got carried away with that at first.

But who knew what awaited India or Bharatbarsha then?

Soon many Islamic invaders came to India to spread their ancient backward religion called "Islam".

The first batch came as Mohammed Ghori type, then as Mughals, etc.

To their credit, they managed to beat us. And he enslaved us or converted us or raped us. (But it was never going to be for long. Soon our brave kings fought back and began to recapture).

It's not that surprising, though considering that his lifestyle was to kill other people by going from one place to another. They were murderers and Bedouins, that's all they did in their entire lives. They had no place to live, no kingdom, nothing. Just murder people and convert them to Islam. So, as they say, the more you do the same thing over and over again, the better you will do.

That is why it is not surprising that they manage to enslave or rule us.

Their intention was to spread their orthodox Islam throughout India, as they thought that the Sufis spread a corrupt version of Islam and that was an insult to their prophet Muhammad.

But little did they know that how difficult it was going to be ...

The Indians or Bharatbasi resisted their rules and resisted so well that despite their torture and destruction of the maximum of Indian artifacts and mandir (temples), kingdom (castles), we still today have 80% + non-Muslim population in India.

It is a credit to our indomitable spirit, stubbornness and pride that made us who we are today.

No country in the world can say that after being enslaved and ruled for so many years by Islamic invaders, we managed to survive and not become another Islamic kingdom. It was possible because we weren't exactly ruled by Islamic invaders.

This is how the Indian warrior kings and queens resisted and defeated the Islamic invaders:

Did the Islamic invaders rule all of Bharat as projected in our history books? Did the Mughal Empire cover all of India? Were we always defeated? Did the rulers always surrender without a fight? It's a BIG NO. Did our ancestors put up stiff resistance and win battles? A BIG YES! The real story tells us a different story. And history, which they teach us, hides the glories of our ancestors.

The Islamic invaders ruled only parts of India, not India, as our history books tell us. The Indian rulers offered stiff resistance to the invaders. They fought until their last breath. There are hundreds of brave victories of our ancestors from east to west, north to south from the 8th to the 18th century, the period of Islamic invasion, plunder and rule. But these glorious stories are kept hidden. Rather we are taught more about the glories of the invaders. Many regions could not be touched by Mughals or other Islamic looters given the military strength of the respective rulers.

The fighting spirit of the Indian warriors began to wane after the concept of non-violence gained momentum. Most of the Indian kings and their subjects lost interest in the war. Generation after generation, the courage, fearlessness and valor that were otherwise the key attributes of warriors and soldiers began to decline. Few Indian rulers gave little importance to maintaining a robust army or improving military infrastructure. Hence, they were caught off guard when Islamic invaders attacked their kingdoms. They could not offer any stiff resistance. Although Bharat was advanced in all fields, these rulers were unable to save their respective kingdoms from being plundered and plundered by Islamic invaders. They were unable to save their men from being slaughtered and taking women away as sex slaves. They were unable to save the hundreds and thousands of heritage temples, ancient buildings, and universities from being destroyed by Islamic looters. The concept of non-violence weakened and destroyed the warrior spirit in many kingdoms of India, leading to its destruction.

But not all kingdoms followed this concept of nonviolence. The rulers who maintained a ready army and upgraded their military infrastructure survived the attacks. They offered stiff resistance. But all these sagas of valor and victory are not featured in our history books. Let's delve into some of our glories.

Lalitaditya Muktapida was the ruler of Kashmir when Junaid, the Arab governor of Sindh, attacked Kashmir on the orders of Caliph Hisham in the 8th century. The king of Kashmir defeated Junaid and thus failed the Arab attempt to plunder Kashmir. Lalitaditya Muktapida also subdued the Turks by attacking their territories. Raja Samgramaraja of Kashmir in the 11th century repulsed several attacks by Mahmud of Ghazni. The looter Mahmud could never defeat the King of Kashmir! Furthermore, Raja Samgramaraja also assisted Trilochanpala, the Hindu Sahi ruler of Kabul, with an army against Mahmud of Ghazni. The combined army defeated Sultan Mahmud.

One of the largest alliances of Indian rulers was witnessed when the Arabs attacked and sacked cities up to Ujjain before the mid-8th century. The battle was fought between Arab forces led by Emir Junaid and an alliance of Indian dynasties led by King Nagbhat I of Gurjar Pratihar. The Indian alliance made up of Gurjar Pratihars, Chalukyas, Rashtrakuta, Guhil, etc. A series of battles were fought between Arabs and Hindus. The final battle was fought in 738 AD on the borders of Rajasthan. The Arabs faced crushing defeat. After this, Muslim looters did not think of attacking India for several years, in fact for more than a century!

Do you know that Ghori attacked the Gujarat region for the first time? Gujarat was ruled by the Chalukya Solanki Rajputs.

Naiki Devi was then the regent queen; the ruler Mularaja II was a minor. Ghori was heavily defeated in the battle that took place in 1178. Firishta, a 16th century Persian historian mentions how the ruler of Gujarat defeated the Muslim army "with a great slaughter." Mohammad Ghori was so defeated on this expedition that he did not think of attacking India until 1191! He never attacked Gujarat again in his life!

King Prithu of Assam defeated Bakhtiyar Khilji (the looter who burned down Nalanda University) in AD 1206. Prithu severely wounded Khilji and laid him down. Ahoms placed a powerful force to counter the attacks. The Ahoms defeated the Islamic invaders several times. In 1527 AD, Rukunuddin Rukun Khan, the general of Nasiruddin Nasrat Shah, the Sultan of Bengal, invaded Kamrupa only to be defeated by the Ahoms. Viswa Singha was then King Ahom of Kamrupa. Upon learning of Rukun Khan's defeat, the sultan sent his general Mit Manik with an army of a thousand horsemen and ten thousand infantrymen. In this battle, the Ahoms won. Mit Manik was taken prisoner while Rukun Khan fled the battlefield. The Ahoms captured a lot of loot that included some firearms.

Who doesn't know about Taimur Lang, one of the most barbarous Islamic invaders who massacred thousands of Hindus, razed temples and looted large numbers of temples and civilians! All of this happened on his way from the other side of the Indus River that covered Attock to Delhi. Do you know that Taimur was unable to plunder India during his return expedition? Around 80,000 men from different communities, from Jats, Gurjars, Rajputs, Brahmins to Ahirs, Valmikis and hill tribes, were part of the troop that attacked Taimur and massacred a large part of its army. Meerut, Haridwar and the neighboring areas were saved from being looted and looted by Taimur. It was Devpala, a Jat who celebrated a Mahapanchayat and made it possible.

Mahabali Jograj Singh Gurjar was the Supreme General

while Rampyari Gurjar, 20, was the general of 40,000 female warriors. Together, warrior men and women wreaked havoc on Taimur at Meerut and Haridwar in 1398, forcing him to flee India.

Similarly, Rani Bhavashankari, a contemporary of Akbar, made the recruitment of one soldier from each family mandatory. She was the ruler of Bhurishhrestha of Bengal. He stationed forces on the border and maintained his army well. She defeated the Pathan Sultan three times. Even Akbar did not interfere with his sovereignty.

The Mughal army sent by Shah Jahan in 1640 to attack Garhwal failed in the expedition.

Rani Karnavati defeated them badly. She also cut the noses of the surviving Mughal soldiers, which is why they named her Naak Kati Rani. His cruel and ruthless stance frightened the Mughals and they could never win Garhwal.

Kapaya Nayaka, a Musunri Nayaka, in the south drove the Tughlaq from Warrangal (then Telangana) territory in 1336 and reestablished Hindu supremacy. He could do this with the help of 75 subordinate Nayakas; another best example of unity against a common foreign enemy. He also helped other kingdoms in southern India to regain their kingdoms from Islamic invaders.

Raja Ganesha, a direct descendant of the Deva dynasty of Bengal, regained the Bengal throne from the Islamic rulers in 1414. He established his Hindu superiority and dominance in a region dominated by Muslims for more than 200 years. According to the book Riyaz-us-Salatin, a chronicle written in Persian by Ghulam Husain Salim Zaidpuri about the complete history of Muslim rule in Bengal, the noble Ganesha killed Shihabuddin and took the throne. In alliance with another Hindu king, Sivasimha of Mithila, Ganesha defeated Ibrahim Shah, a neighboring sultan.

Narasimhadeva of Orissa built the Konark temple after his victory against the Islamic rulers. He attacked the territories of the Sultanate of Bengal before the Sultan could attack him. During the battle, he played a tactic of the Islamic invaders and won. It was 1248 AD

There are countless more examples of Indian warriors victory against Islamic rulers and invaders, but these are not shown in our history books. The Islamic rulers ruled only a part of India, not the whole, but we are made to read that they ruled India.

Yes, Islamic invaders and looters could also loot and plunder some kingdoms because the rulers of Bharatiya strictly followed the Dharma rules in warfare. They avoided fighting an opponent who was already involved in a fight with another. They avoided stabbing from behind or hitting below the navel. They took care of the injured at the end of the day. They considered women, prisoners of war and farmers sacred. They never looted the land or destroyed standing structures on enemy lands. They were merciful if the enemies asked for forgiveness. The feats of the battlefield were carried out only during the day. This was followed from time immemorial.

History is full of such examples of Dharma followed by the Hindu kings of India.

Prithviraj Chauhan pardoned Mohammad Ghori when he asked for forgiveness, although the latter attacked him several times. On one occasion, Prithviraj saw Ghori flee the battlefield, but he did not attack the running enemy. In the final attack (16th according to few sources), Ghori defeated Prithviraj. Did Ghori forgive Prithviraj? No! He raped the wife of King Sanyogita in front of him several times and took him prisoner to Ghor, where he tortured him to death. Ghori sacked Delhi, slaughtered soldiers and civilians, took women as sex slaves, destroyed temples, and the list of atrocities is endless. If Prithviraj had killed Ghori, the story would have been different.

King Prithu of Assam defeated Bhaktiyar Khilji in 1206 AD, but allowed Muslim prisoners of war to settle in his kingdom when they asked for forgiveness. This is how the Muslim settlement in Assam began. Hindu kings never defied the rules of the Dharma.

But the Islamic invaders and looters did the opposite of these same Dharma rules followed by Hindu kings in war. They followed the tactics of betrayal, deception and cruelty. They plundered kingdoms, plundered lands, killed the weak and innocent, raped women and took them as slaves, stabbed warriors in the back, destroyed structures and standing temples, and what not! Converting the defeated people to Islam was one of his key strategies. Akbar, considered 'the GREAT', ordered the slaughter of around 40,000 unarmed old men, women and children from Chittorgarh after he captured him on February 23, 1568 according to the accounts of Abul Fazl and Badauni, Muslim historians.

In 1226, Raja Bir Singh of Birsinghpur in Bengal defeated the Turks led by Giasuddin Iwaz Khilji. Faced with defeat, the Turks hatched a plan of treason. To easily subjugate Raja Bir Singh's Hindu army, Giasuddin Iwaz Khilji used cattle on the battlefield. Each cow horn was wrapped with a piece of cloth soaked in flammable liquid. The horns lit up as the battle was about to begin. The Muslim army followed the cattle that ran madly towards the Hindu army. Since cows were sacred to Hindus, the Hindu army offered no resistance. Giving a resistance would harm the cows. Using this betrayal trick, Khilji won the second battle.

Afzhal Khan, the most capable of the Bijapur Sultanate's Adilshahi army commanders, misled the negotiators during the meetings. In 1639, he treacherously murdered Kasturi Ranga, the king of Sera, a small kingdom in southern India, during a meeting. Shivaji went to meet Afzhal Khan after equipping himself with weapons hidden from view. Because he knew that Afzhal Khan could secretly attack him. At the meeting, Afzhal Khan applied his treacherous tactics and secretly attacked Shivaji during a hug.

Shivaji responded immediately, gutting him with the wagh nakh and stabbing him with the bichu. A fight followed. Sambhaji Kavji, Shivaji's bodyguard killed the seriously wounded Afzhal Khan.

A few months before Shivaji's coronation in 1674, the Sultan of Bijapur Adil Shah sent his general Bahalol Khan with a huge army to attack the Maratha territory.

The Marathas under Prataprao Gurjar defeated the Bijapuri forces and took Bahalol Khan captive and seized his war materiel. Shivaji had warned all his Senapatis and Sardars never to trust their enemies and never let them go free. When Bahalol Khan repeatedly begged Prataprao to forgive him and vowed not to attack Maratha territory again, Prataprao Gurjar released Bahalol Khan, his troops, including the seized war material. Did Bahalol Khan keep his promise? No! Prataprao Gurjar followed the Dharma rules, but the Muslim army did not. Bahalol Khan marched into Maratha territory with a new force of 15,000 soldiers. Because Khan camped unawares, Prataprao Gurjar was unable to organize a large army. It had only 1,200 soldiers. Finally, he achieved martyrdom at the hands of Bahalol Khan. Later, the Marathas defeated Bahalol Khan in the next battle.

After the invasion and the Islamic rule, the British, like the termites, damaged our psyche and infused the syndrome of inferiority and mental slavery in the Indian brains. They drained our resources and made India a poor nation. Lakhs of freedom fighters sacrificed their lives for the freedom we enjoy today, however this freedom is attributed to a namesake leader (Congress or Gandhi Ji did not bring our freedom, unknown, nameless and forgotten freedom fighters what they made).

In addition, there were internal conflicts between rulers (lack of unity) and even internal conflicts within a kingdom for the throne. Then there were traitors who sided with the foreigners. All of this resulted in the subjugation of many Indian kingdoms at the hands of looters and looters, who were ruthless and barbaric. And there is still a similar situation. And there is no shortage of traitors even today!

Our curriculum, especially in history, has been designed in such a way that we are destined to suffer from the inferiority complex syndrome. These questions will always arise in our minds: were we always defeated? Why didn't our ancestors offer any resistance? Why were we always looted and looted so easily? These questions are destined to make us an insecure nation.

IF I want to answer your question in one word, then it is called "DIPLOMACY"

When Babur came to India, he only had 30,000-50,000 soldiers on the way to India, many mercenaries joined him due to the victory against the lodhi and SANGA, the mercenaries were Hindus, Muslims as the only reason is the wealth, now why did Babur allow them like him? was fully aware that the Mughals were just salt in the water and to survive they need the help of local people to understand the culture, geography, the pros and cons of society and the most important thing is to know the strategy of the enemies.

Now came the Humayun -He was known as "king i

Keep reading

IF I want to answer your question in one word, then it is called "DIPLOMACY"

When Babur came to India, he only had 30,000-50,000 soldiers on the way to India, many mercenaries joined him due to the victory against the lodhi and SANGA, the mercenaries were Hindus, Muslims as the only reason is the wealth, now why did Babur allow them like him? was fully aware that the Mughals were just salt in the water and to survive they need the help of local people to understand the culture, geography, the pros and cons of society and the most important thing is to know the strategy of the enemies.

Now the Humayun arrived. He was known as "king in exile", so he did not have time to consolidate his rule due to the Afghans.

Akbar - Has been described as a canny politician and diplomat when Akbar won the throne he realized that to change the Kingdom into Empire requires peace in the ruling area.

So he adopted the following policy

  1. Marriage Alliance System: In order to prevent the Rajput Cheiftians from becoming a force, Akbar began to support one of the parties in the internal dispute of the Rajput Cheiftians, as he knew that the Rajputs are warriors, loyal but not political and they serve as a great loyal force. So he entered into a marriage alliance with Rajputs as now by any means Rajputs who are in family relationship will never be spatically abandoned when he is the husband of a woman from the royal family, for example Kachwalla rajput of Amber.
  2. Nobility of various races: Mughal army has several races in the nobility such as: Turani, Afghans, Pathan, Mongol, Turks, who were rebellious by nature and change sides frequently, so to survive you need to build the group of loyalists to those He chose Rajput to counter them and to counter Rajput in a certain area, the Turks of the Afghan colony settled.
  3. Minimal Damage Policy: Akbar was orthodox Muslim in the earlier phase, he always supported Islam, so whenever there was a war with Hindu Cheiftian or against any invaders, the first line of defense was for Hindus to watch any major battle he had place during the Akbar era, the greatest general were Hindus, for example. - 1) Battle of Haldighati -Mansingh / Shakti singh 2) Battle with Uzbek - Even non-miraculous mansabdar like Birbal were asked to lead
  4. Effective administrative force: during the Mughal era, the maximum population was only rural and even the main source of income was agriculture again from the rural area, now if some Persian, Turkish, Mongolian go to tax collection, then the possibility of revolt it was more than any rural town would have refused to pay a tax that not only led to a loss of income but to increased spending to stop the revolt. so local Hindus were required. even the Hindus Baniya and Kayasthya were excellent recorders and know the actual production of Field, so they were used effectively in Akbar Nav ratna todarmal has greater importance for this role

Now Come Jahangir & Shah jahan: they followed Akbar's full policy to exploit HINDUS

Now comes Aurangzeb: he changed the tactics since during his era the Hindus were exploited with force instead of diplomatically

Tallest Hindus Mansabdar - Aurangzeb The tallest Hindus mansabdar nearly 33% in which the Maratha formed most of the reason why the Mughal was at war with the Maratha. Maratha was used to check Maratha in which Deccan Mansabdari was generally given to Maratha n rajput to control Shivaji. in case of damage, only Hindus will suffer and weaken due to internal conflicts

Second main part of the Rajput rationale: The Rajputs were given jagirdari and the main farmers in the northern part were Jaat, so Aurangzeb used Rajput very tactfully, as due to continuous war there was a loss of wealth , so taxes need to be increased, forcing Jagirdar to collect more. from Farmer as in the northern Jaat Revolted belt and to crush the revolt Rajputs were used as their impact is seen until today that JAAT VS RAJPUT is going in the Rajasthan region so far

Bahadur shah - named many Hindus as: Bundela, Jaat, Rajput with only one goal: to crush SIKH

After the death of Bahadur shah in 1712, the new Mughal emperor was a mere puppet in the hand of Maratha

Hope So I justify why the Hindus were appointed for what purpose and what the MUGHAL achieved with it.

Akbar was born and raised in a relatively liberal environment. Bairam Khan, Akbar's guardian and protector, was responsible for shaping his conduct and shaping his initial policy. Akbar's most notable tutor, Abdul Latif, taught him the principle of universal peace that Akbar never forgot. Therefore, the early environment influenced Akbar's religious views in the direction of liberalism. Some of the other reasons for Akbar's liberal religious policy were:

  1. Bhakti / Sufism Movement - Akbar was born at a time when Bhakti saints and Sufis 'companions' had already been emphasizing religious religion.
Keep reading

Akbar was born and raised in a relatively liberal environment. Bairam Khan, Akbar's guardian and protector, was responsible for shaping his conduct and shaping his initial policy. Akbar's most notable tutor, Abdul Latif, taught him the principle of universal peace that Akbar never forgot. Therefore, the early environment influenced Akbar's religious views in the direction of liberalism. Some of the other reasons for Akbar's liberal religious policy were:

  1. Bhakti / Sufism Movement - Akbar was born at a time when Bhakti saints and Sufis 'peers' had already insisted on religious tolerance. It was therefore natural for Akbar to be influenced by contemporary ideas and values.
  2. Akbar was a rationalist, he believed in questioning and getting to the bottom of the issue of god and religion. In fact, he built the Ibadat Khana to bring together spiritual leaders from different religious backgrounds in order to conduct a discussion on the teachings of the respective religious leaders. Hindus, Roman Catholics, Zoroastrians, Jains and even atheists participated in it.
  3. Akbar was a pragmatic imperialist. He was convinced that he could not establish a strong empire without the cooperation of the Hindus who made up the majority of his subjects. He thought it useless to alienate and make the majority population hostile to his government. Therefore, he incorporated several Hindus into leading civil and military posts, Birbal being the most famous.
  4. Akbar wanted to free himself from the orthodoxy of the Muslim priestly class.
  5. Akbar's association with Hindu wives and his alliance with Rajput kings would also have required, although to a lesser degree, the adoption of a tolerant policy.
  6. He was also heavily influenced by Hinduism. Akbar was familiar with many Hindu beliefs and practices. But since Akbar was eager to acquire a first-hand knowledge of the principles and doctrines of that religion as given in the Shrutis and Smritis, he associated with prominent Hindu scholars, among whom Purushottam and Devi stand out.

Thus, Akbar's upbringing, the influences he had, the interests he cultivated, the pragmatic policies he followed, all tended to adopt liberal religious policies. Some of the measures it took were:

  1. It allowed freedom of worship to people of all faiths and put an end to forced conversions.
  2. Akbar practiced various Hindu customs. He celebrated Diwali. He allowed Brahmin priests to tie strands of jewelery around his wrists as a blessing and, following his example, many of the nobles began to wear rakhi (amulets of protection). He had given up on beef and had banned the sale of all meats on certain days.
  3. He prohibited the slaughter of cows and referred to the water of the Ganges as the "water of immortality."
  4. The 'jizya', that is, a tax that non-Muslims had to pay for living in Muslim lands under the law of Islam, was abolished.
  5. Abolished pilgrimage tax paid by Hindus to undertake the pilgrimage to their holy places.

Finally, YES, it also decreed that Hindus who had been forced to convert to Islam could reconvert to Hinduism without facing the death penalty.

Furthermore, the Ibadat Khana that Akbar built for religious and intellectual conversations soon turned into a 'shouting match' between various religious priests, with all trying to superimpose their beliefs on each other and trying to portray their religion as the only religion. ' true 'and their respective gods as the only "true" god. (Sadly, nothing has changed in the 400 or the last 4000 years either)

Ibadat Khana of Akbar

Akbar therefore interrupted the discussions, however his interaction with various religious theologians had convinced him that despite their differences, all religions had various good practices, which he sought to combine into a new religious movement known as Din- i-Ilahi. Akbar's attempt to produce a synthesis of all the good that each religion possessed in this new religion of Din-i-Ilahi largely failed as the movement failed to gain the required traction. Birbal was the only Hindu who followed this religion. However, to commemorate Din-e-Ilahi, he changed Prayag's name to Allahabad (pronounced ilahabad) in 1583, Allahabad / Ilahabad owes its name to Akbar's Din-i-Ilahi movement.

Finally, it can be safely said that Akbar was far from being a staunch Muslim or indeed even a "proper" Muslim.

I find the answers and comments quite devious and more influenced by personal feelings than by the specificity of the Story and the demand of the question! These questions are very subjective in nature, as are the answers.

As far as I know-
1) The conversions were forceful in places (as noted by Miss Sharma) and to some extent; which cannot be said to be completely wrong because a ruler (good or bad) tries to spread his sociocultural-religious ideologies in his empire.
Take as an example: Ashoka, who tried to spread Buddhism because he had religious leanings towards it, but not at the expense

Keep reading

I find the answers and comments quite devious and more influenced by personal feelings than by the specificity of the Story and the demand of the question! These questions are very subjective in nature, as are the answers.

As far as I know-
1) The conversions were forceful in places (as noted by Miss Sharma) and to some extent; which cannot be said to be completely wrong because a ruler (good or bad) tries to spread his sociocultural-religious ideologies in his empire.
Take for example Ashoka, who tried to spread Buddhism because he had religious leanings towards it, but not at the cost of other religions, as he also believed in the harmonious coexistence of all religions. And also Akbar and Humanyu.
Akbar prohibited forced conversions in 1562.

But some Mughal rulers definitely did things in a very wrong way, but that was their personal way of doing it and we should condemn that particular ruler instead of pointing fingers at all Mughals.
The jizyah imposed by the Mughals was VIEWED as a way to encourage poor Hindus to convert to Islam. Jizyah was banned by Akbar in 1564 and then reinstated in 1575. Jizyah was promoted by Aurangzeb which was discontinued by Faruksiyar. Do you provide any clues on jizyah? It's just that it was specific to context, time, and person and therefore extending it to all rulers would be unjustifiable.

2) The conversions were due in large part to the hierarchical gradation of Hindu society: the caste system, which placed social, economic, political and religious disabilities in a certain section of society from the moment they were born, that is, the untouchables or Ati-shudras.
These people had been treated worse than animals. So when they had the opportunity to experience social mobility by giving up their religion and hoping to be able to live as humans at least, they opted for voluntary conversions.

Rather than just looking from a particular perspective, we must not forget about the contribution of the Mughals to art and architecture in India. The growth of Indo-Islamic architecture, Sufism, and Bhagvadurism are a unique combination of Hindu-Muslim unity and collective prosperity.

The manifestation of Hindu-Muslim unity can be clearly seen in the revolt of 1857, where the people united, posing a threat to the English empire and they were relentlessly trying to break this unity to further their interests. The opportunity they had when they found the congress, which was dominated by Hindus and the British deftly played their game by calling the congress a Hindu body and constantly tried to divide us further ... be it the constitutional reforms of 1909 or 1919. And! We, the younger generation who ignore the hard facts, are fighting over waning events of the distant past and we become even more divided, which in the long run will be detrimental to our country! Social networks, which have revolutionized the world, they can be a blessing or a nightmare for our country. Whether we use it to promote unity or to divide ourselves, it is in our hands.
I hope that we will all act consciously to achieve a better united and undivided India!

PS: the last paragraph may not be relevant to the question. I felt like I should express it by looking at similar questions on a regular basis on quora :) Cheers :) :)

Taking sex slaves depends on the type of war and the loss. Almost all wars we are maneuvering diplomatically and one side accepted the terms and superiority of the others. Bloodshed was avoided. Real war is costly for both sides and it is not an easy task to mobilize soldiers to go into battle and kill. In such battles, daughters offer themselves as brides to the winners. As the More sardars of Javali offered their daughter to Shivaji. When a king gets too many war weddings, they are not called sex slaves.

When the war for the complete acquisition of the little kingdom is over. British Army with hel

Keep reading

Taking sex slaves depends on the type of war and the loss. Almost all wars we are maneuvering diplomatically and one side accepted the terms and superiority of the others. Bloodshed was avoided. Real war is costly for both sides and it is not an easy task to mobilize soldiers to go into battle and kill. In such battles, daughters offer themselves as brides to the winners. As the More sardars of Javali offered their daughter to Shivaji. When a king gets too many war weddings, they are not called sex slaves.

When the war for the complete acquisition of the little kingdom is over. The British army, with the help of soldiers from Madras, Nagpur, Indore, completes the annihilation of the Kingdom of Jhasi. Here the payment to the soldiers is a booty of the captured city. So the soldiers took everything, every piece of cloth, every utensil. Sex was also normal since the population had no savior.

The kings / sardar of southern India valued the white skin of the northern parts. They asked their allies in the north to send them girls as a normal part of their business. The girls would come from families of 12 to 16 siblings and the families sending their daughters would also see it as an opportunity. Unlike Bollywood's shedding of tears, it was just normal.

This behavior and state of affairs was independent of religious beliefs. Religion was a tool in state crafts to mobilize the army.

This question is rooted in a misunderstanding of how Muslims were converted "by the sword."

Death pain conversions were not as common as you might think. While that happened, large-scale post-conquest conversions were achieved by reducing the rights of non-Muslims (additional taxes) and incentivizing conversion (the highest advancement positions granted only to Muslims). In fact, the amount of money earned from taxes on non-Muslims contributed greatly to the rulers' finances, and thus that need always outweighed the enthusiastic fervor.

In a culture like India, with its various sects and philosophies

Keep reading

This question is rooted in a misunderstanding of how Muslims were converted "by the sword."

Death pain conversions were not as common as you might think. While that happened, large-scale post-conquest conversions were achieved by reducing the rights of non-Muslims (additional taxes) and incentivizing conversion (the highest advancement positions granted only to Muslims). In fact, the amount of money earned from taxes on non-Muslims contributed greatly to the rulers' finances, and thus that need always outweighed the enthusiastic fervor.

In a culture like India, with its diverse sects and philosophies, and millennia of change through contact, resistance to foreign invaders purely on religious grounds was not that important.

While the initial conversions may not have been valid, or simply for worldly gain, over several generations, it was accepted by people born of the faith as naturally as anywhere else in the world. Also, the way the Islamic community is established, the disincentives to leave the faith are so high that this is relatively uncommon.

Also, many, many conversions on the subcontinent were achieved through syncretic Sufi sects, making them more attractive to native beliefs. As such, there was no significant 'crypto-Hindu' population that developed (unlike Jewish and Christian communities in Muslim lands or Jewish and Muslim communities in Christian lands in Europe and the Middle East).

Since Hinduism is largely an ethnic faith, there is no inherent concept of "conversion" in it. The use of that term is a fairly modern innovation, and essentially the processes used over time have been like caste purification ceremonies.

Finally, due to the influx of a significant gene pool from Central and West Asia, a narrative of a distinct ethnicity developed in the Muslim community over time. This myth came to be adopted (perhaps with aspirations), also by recently converted native groups ... and eventually led directly to the movement of the two nations.

For these reasons, there was no notable "reversion" to Hinduism.

Note: read NN Taleb's work on intolerant minorities to get a better idea of ​​how Islamic assimilation worked in the Middle Ages. The work refers to a much broader range of topics, but includes Islamic conversion as an example.
The most intolerant victories: the dictatorship of the small minority

The Gupta Empire (320 AD to 550 AD) marks the longest Hindu empire in known history that spanned most of India as it exists today and also included parts of China, Pakistan, and Myanmar. This period is also popularly called the Golden Age of India, as most scholars such as Aryabhatta (mathematician) and Varaha Mihira (astronomer and astrologer) happened during this time. This era also saw literary geniuses such as Kalidasa and Vishnu Sharma, the author of the Panchatantra book, recognized and revered throughout the world.

Golden Age of India (Source: Wikipedia)

The last important ruler of the Gupta period was Skandagupta, who tr

Keep reading

The Gupta Empire (320 AD to 550 AD) marks the longest Hindu empire in known history that spanned most of India as it exists today and also included parts of China, Pakistan, and Myanmar. This period is also popularly called the Golden Age of India, as most scholars such as Aryabhatta (mathematician) and Varaha Mihira (astronomer and astrologer) happened during this time. This era also saw literary geniuses such as Kalidasa and Vishnu Sharma, the author of the Panchatantra book, recognized and revered throughout the world.

Golden Age of India (Source: Wikipedia)

El último gobernante importante del período Gupta fue Skandagupta, quien hizo todo lo posible por defender el imperio contra los ataques de los indoheftalitas (Hunas) del oeste y los Vakatakas rivales del sur.

But later rulers after Skandagupta weren’t able to defend for much longer and soon, civil wars and external attack of Hunas torn the country into multiple smaller kingdoms and the Golden Era of India gradually came to an end.

The below building in Java (Indonesia) which is designed in Gupta architecture reflects India’s influence in the region during the Golden Age:

Building in Indonesia designed in Gupta Architecture (Source: Wikipedia)

The Jizya or Jaziya tax was first introduced in India by Allauddin Khilji and not by any Mughal emperor. Mohammed Bin Tughlaq (often called "the crazy Tughlaq") reinforced it when, between Khiljis and Tughlaqs, there was some state of disorder. Mohammed Tughlaq made a mad attempt to invade China. He also moved the capital to Daulatabad, another disastrous move. This greatly depleted the treasury. Then he brought Jizya. Jizya continued during the Lodi government.

During the Sher Shar Suri period, it was not abolished, but it was not completely eliminated. Things were quite chaotic from the short time of Babur, Hu

Keep reading

The Jizya or Jaziya tax was first introduced in India by Allauddin Khilji and not by any Mughal emperor. Mohammed Bin Tughlaq (often called "the crazy Tughlaq") reinforced it when, between Khiljis and Tughlaqs, there was some state of disorder. Mohammed Tughlaq made a mad attempt to invade China. He also moved the capital to Daulatabad, another disastrous move. This greatly depleted the treasury. Then he brought Jizya. Jizya continued during the Lodi government.

Durante el período de Sher Shar Suri, no se abolió, pero no se eliminó por completo. Las cosas fueron bastante caóticas desde el corto tiempo de Babur, Humayun, Sher Shah y Humayun. El emperador Akbar abolió el impuesto. Fue devuelto por el emperador Aurangzeb.

Jizya was a tax levied on Hindus and other non-Muslims. The rationale was - a Muslim ruler is protecting you in spite of you not following the Muslim faith and hence you must pay this tax. Any one who converted the faith to Islam was immediately exempted.

These were already still happening in India Asia , but unexposed , Free Reservation Free Quoto free ration card free food free condoms free shoes free bicycle free laptops free mobile free eggs free school free meals free uniform free shoes free Bus pass free Train Pass etc with Saleries wages for 72 Girls jihatist dictator Facist Racists killer Quron mosques Jesus Christ wives bible Evanjilin churches communist From Hindu temple lands revenue properties Robbered Looted theft by them with DK DMK AIADMK Congress party Alies crimer Criminal parties asusual all over India Earth

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.