Biryani is NOT yours.

Biryani is made from rice. Rice DOES NOT even grow in original Mughal homeland.

The word Biryani is NOT Arabic, Persian or Turkic. It originally comes from a Sanskrit word borrowed by Persian.

Why should WE boycott it?

Ek Toh Chori Upar Se Seenazori ?
The Persian word 'Biryani' is comes from Persian 'Birinj' for rice.

Now, this word is NOT FOUND in Old Persian. It suddenly occurs in Middle Persian.

According to Mayrhofer's "Etymological Dictionary Of Old Indo Aryan", the word Birinj comes from Sanskrit word vrīhí (व्रीहि). Image
The word "Biryani" DOES NOT appear until 17th century.

It is ABSENT in all the older records.

Ain I Akbari (16th century) describes the preparation of a dish known as Zard Birinj (yellow rice) which could be seen as a precursor to Biryani. Image
Zard Birinj (Yellow rice) was made of rice mixed with spices which were NOT AVAILABLE in Middle East or Central Asia.

It was originally vegetarian. But some varieties also added meat to the dish.

Clearly, Zard Birinj developed from ancient Indian Haridranna (हरिद्रान्न)
In fact, the word 'Zard Birinj" is a straight translation of "Haridranna"

Sanskrit हारिद्र (haridra) means "Yellow". In Persian, Zard (زرد) means "Yellow". "Anna" generally means rice in Sanskrit and "Birinj" is rice in Persian

By straight translation, Zard Birinj= Haridranna ImageImage
The FIRST unambiguous mention of Biryani comes from Nuskha-i-Shahjahani in 17th century. It was made in the kitchens of INDIA which has access to spices.

This is NOT surprising. Biryani IS MADE OF rice and spices which could be found only in India (or South East Asia)
Mughals were originally speakers of Chagatai language, which is a Turkic language belonging to Altai family .

Which means Altai mountains in West Mongolia is their ultimate origin( Whence they migrated to Central Asia & later India).

Rice DOES NOT grow in this Altai region Image
In the last 10-15 years, they have made attempts to cultivate rice in Mongolia using modern technology.

The enterprise has largely not been successful…
At any rate, the FIRST mention of Biryani comes ONLY in 17th century.

This was centuries after Mughals entered India.

This straightly disproves the claim that "Mughals brought Biryani to India"
PS: The best quality of Biryani is made from Basmati rice, which is grown ONLY in the Indian subcontinent. Not Arabia or Mongolia
Now I examine the claim that "Mughals brought Biryani to India" with textual sources.

In this respect, data from Baburnama is extremely valuable as a contemporary Mughal source for geographical and botanical data

To begin with, What was India ('Hindustan') during those days?
In Baburnama, Hindustan begins from the East of Kabul.

When Mughal emperor Babur reached Lamghan (Laghman), Ningnahar (Nangarhar) and Adinapur (Jalalabad) which are towns to east of Kabul in today's Northeast Afghanistan

Babur declared that he reached the border of Hindustan. ImageImage
"Other grounds, other trees, other animals, other manners & customs" is how Babur describes difference between Hindustan and Central Asia

The North/West of Kabul was known as "Khurasan" & wasn't part of Hindustan.

Kabul & Qandahar were entrepots between Hindustan and Khurasan Image
With this background in place, let us examine the evidence from Babur's mouth.

Throughout Baburnama, Babur DOES NOT mention rice when he was in Central Asia. He mentions other crops and cereals but rice is completely ABSENT.

What to say of Biryani?
The FIRST mention of rice farming in Baburnama occurs AFTER Babur enters Hindustan.

He mentions that good crops of rice and corn were cultivated in Nangarhar, a place which Babur describes as "borderland of Hindustan" ImageImage
Next, we are told that Rice was grown on "steep terraces" in the Nur valley of Laghman (today's Northeast Afghanistan) in the Hindukush mountains, which was again considered a part of Hindustan

Today, these regions are Afghan Pak borderlands Image
Then, the Mughal army conducted a night raid and looted rice fields of "Mil Kafirs".

These were the Nuristani and Chitrali Kalash Kafirs of Hindukush mountains.

They put up a brave resistance and fought the Mughal army. Image
To conclude,

Mughals DID NOT bring Biryani to India.

Far from it. They did not even have natively cultivated rice. Rice could not be grown in their homelands in those days.

They first encountered rice fields in Hindustan and looted those rice fields during night raids
To all the dunderheads talking potatoes, tomatoes and Chilles.

There were NO potatoes, tomatoes and Chilles in the Mughalai Biryani of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb.

There is no mention of these ingredients in Nuskha I Shahjahani Biryani
Some of the ingredients of Vada Pav could have been imported from outside.But Vadapav is Indian because the recipe was created in India.

Likewise, Biryani is Indian because it was created in India. The Mughals DID NOT bring any Biryani recipe with them.

This is elementary logic

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with True Indology

True Indology Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TIinExile

16 Oct
What a moron!

Mughal is nothing but Persian rendering of the word "Mongol"

Genghis Khan and his immediate descendants who invaded Persia and India in 13th century were known as "Mughal Kafirs" in Persian literature

Mughals invaded Afghanistan just like they later invaded India
Tolui Khan, the son of Genghis Khan, who in 1221 invaded Persia & utterly defeated, devastated and massacred Khorasan was called a "Mughal" in Persian Chronicles.

The word for 'Mongol' in Persian is 'Mughal'

From Sharjat Ul Atrak
Likewise, the Mongol armies of Genghis Khan's grandson Mongke Khan who invaded India in 1245 were known in Persian literature as "Mughal infidels"
Read 8 tweets
10 Oct
Exposing Rana Safvi (@iamrana).

Rana Safvi is hailed as a ground breaking historian and award winning author in secular Jamaat. Her entire work eulogizes Mughal invaders and Gangi Jamuni Tehzeeb.

This thread dissects and fact-checks some statements made by her. Thread (1)
We first examine some of the statements made by this "historian" which unveil the real "historical knowledge" she possesses.

After the dissection, we shall delve into the nature, motivation of her work, the powers behind her promotion and hype around her work. Let us begin (2)
Rana Safvi posted a picture. She claimed that this structure was found during excavations from
Bet Dwaraka (Gujarat).

But is that really so?

Read 31 tweets
7 Oct
The price of speaking truth.…
I have lost any faith I ever had in Twitter.

But I filed a cyber complaint against this FAKE Islamist impersonator @TruelndoIogy for sending me death threats. I will also be filing an FIR. I will bring you to book. Wait and watch
On the same day he wrote the tweet, this fake impersonator wrote me a message threatening to kll me & rαpe & kll my mother.

This is the real face of this fraudulent impersonator account. He is mistakenly followed by many prominent people.

This is the price I pay for what I do
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
This is a thread about a typical "RW Elitist".

Who is a "RW elitist"?

He is the one who claims to support, ostensibly, Indic causes post 2014.

However he is a total leftist by his attitude and approach. In sooth, he is a Trojan Horse. Thread.
The first sign of a "RW Elitist" is personal boasting. Go through his bio and you will find him boasting about the awards he received from Secularist, Evangelist, Macaulayist and western Litfests.
He got those awards because he literally threw Hindus/Dharmics and their ideology under the bus in his book while procuring their very support for its sale.
Read 29 tweets
14 Sep
Naughty boy!

This is exactly what is wrong with these Abrahamic atheists. They do not know & don't understand anything. They behave no different from religious Abrahamics when it comes to Hindus.

Now,they find "punishment for blasphemy" in Rgveda. Was it really so?

Thread (1)
The verse in question is Rgveda 6.72.

Abrahamic Atheists are using an outdated 19th century translation of a Christian scholar Ralph Griffith to prove existence of blasphemy punishments in Rgveda.

This "translation' of Rgveda was published by "The Christian Literature Society" Image
Now, the word used in the original text is निदः (Nidaḥ)

This is wrongly translated as "blasphemer".

निदः comes from root निद् which means "mocking, ridiculing".

The word निंदा meaning "speak ill of(someone)" also comes from the same root. This word is also used in Hindi Image
Read 17 tweets
31 Aug
Menon uncle,

If you are talking about me, please at least have the decency to tag me.

What is the terror? I won't bite. What is hilarious is your complete ignorance. Thread

That is NOT "Bali iconography" & that figure is NOT "Bali figure".

In the artistic convention of early Trivikrama sculptures such as those from Mathura & Badami, Trivikrama DOES NOT trample Bali. He stamps Rahu.

In the sculptures of Mathura and Badami and also in several later day depictions, Vishnu DOES NOT place his foot upon Bali. The laughing face in the sky is Rahu.

You seem to be absolutely clueless about conventions of early Indian art. Image
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!