Folks -- I'm happy to answer historical questions on Twitter re the Mughals.
But general tip -- If what you're citing as "evidence" is a cartoon drawing you saw on WhatsApp... you shouldn't need a historian's professional opinion to tell you it is bullshit.
#Mughal #history
But general tip -- If what you're citing as "evidence" is a cartoon drawing you saw on WhatsApp... you shouldn't need a historian's professional opinion to tell you it is bullshit.
#Mughal #history
Updating with some questions that have come in with brief answers.
The jizya wasn't in effect for much of Mughal rule. When it was, Brahmin religious leaders (not all Brahmins) were exempt.
Typically, the jizya was collected by a special class of tax collectors drawn from the ulama.
Typically, the jizya was collected by a special class of tax collectors drawn from the ulama.
The Mughals had no policy towards Hindus as a whole.
As a result, there's huge variety in Mughal-Hindu relations. But it is worth noting that a lot of Hindus worked for the Mughals, with some upper castes doing pretty well. Rajput lineages often allied with the Mughals.
As a result, there's huge variety in Mughal-Hindu relations. But it is worth noting that a lot of Hindus worked for the Mughals, with some upper castes doing pretty well. Rajput lineages often allied with the Mughals.
Aurangzeb probably wasn't equally close to all his sisters since they supported different brothers in the war of succession.
Roshanara backed Aurangzeb.
Roshanara backed Aurangzeb.
I would prefer to have specific examples, but that's broadly accurate.
Also, premodern Indians often experienced hardships due to the joint actions of kings. E.g., warring with each other, the Mughals and Marathas both used scorched earth tactics, resulting in civilian deaths.
Also, premodern Indians often experienced hardships due to the joint actions of kings. E.g., warring with each other, the Mughals and Marathas both used scorched earth tactics, resulting in civilian deaths.
Much about modern day India, especially in the north, was shaped in part by the Mughals, including cuisine, language (e.g., Hindi), currency, and ruling symbolism (yes, even under Hindu nationalists).
From a Mughal perspective, this was a matter of armed resistance (internal Sikh narratives, largely solidified later, tell a different tale).
Aurangzeb wasn't into forced conversions, but he was heavily into imperial security. Keep in mind, he was head of state, not a religion.
Aurangzeb wasn't into forced conversions, but he was heavily into imperial security. Keep in mind, he was head of state, not a religion.
Yes, the Mughals kept lots of records (although not everyday births among their subjects or anything that granular).
But the Mughals had a long, drawn-out ending. Delhi was sacked and burned, a few times. Archives were sold off. In brief, lots was lost and the rest scattered.
But the Mughals had a long, drawn-out ending. Delhi was sacked and burned, a few times. Archives were sold off. In brief, lots was lost and the rest scattered.
Of the many "Aurangzeb persecuted X" claims, this holds the most water, although it still fails to capture his incorporation of Shias (and, at times, defense of them) in imperial administration.
This article is quite good on the point:
cambridge.org/core/journals/…
This article is quite good on the point:
cambridge.org/core/journals/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
