What if Dara Shikoh became the Mughal emperor instead of Aurangzeb

May 2013
1,777
Pakistan
well atleast we dont study manufactured history that teaches that Bin Qasim formed a new nation state in the subcontinent and the people in the Indus who were the ones who gave the name "Hindu", are infact invaders who took pity on the lower castes to free them up from upper caste exploitation in the subcontinent, bestowing their benevolence over 7 centuries.
The obsession of people from Republic of India about so-called "Pakistani obsession of Arabs" is indeed hilarious. The Muslims from Republic of India may have such a thinking but here in Pakistan, there is no such thing. If nothing else, it does display one thing that how little they know of Pakistan and Pakistanis.

Mohammad Bin Qasim is indeed a hero in Pakistan. He was a 17 year old who led a small army which captured the whole of Sindh which encompassed a large territorial spread against a much larger force led by an experienced and powerful Brahmin Hindu ruler Raja Dahir. His capture of Sindh also led to large number of local people becoming Muslims for the first time in this region and this is looked as a heroic deed by this 17 year old.

The name Hindu was not given by any Muslim invader. It emerged from the word Sindhu which was and is the name of River Indus. The ancient Persians did not have the word S in their language at the time, and replaced it with the word H and therefore the word Hindu from Sindhu. Subsequently, all the people living around River Sindh (Indus) in the geographical area of Indus River Valley were identified as Hindus irrespective of the religion or culture that they followed. The Arabs started calling it Al-Hind and the Turks called it Hindistan.

The name India is also derived from Indus, which originates from the old Persian word Hindu which as I explained stems from the word Sindhu, which was the historical local appellation for the River Indus. The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi/Indos (Ινδοί), which translates as "the people of the Indus".

The word Hindu was categorised as a religion by the British only in the 1800s.

And why do you people get flared up so much when correct historical aspects are highlighted.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
Raja Jai Singh I was on Aurangzeb's side in war of Succession. If Dara won then Raja Jai Singh I perhaps would be just demoted. Nevertheless, after defeat of Adilshahi Army when Adilshahi sultan requested Mughals to help them and Aurangzeb sent Mughal army. Now Dara Shikoh was not man of warfare, if he was Emperor he would just probably advise to defuse the situation peacefully which was impossible. He would not send Jai Singh I either as explained above. In that case, Shivaji would slowly defeat Adilshahis completely.
I don't think that was simply the case. I don't know the exact details of the succession crisis but AFAIK Jai Singh didn't join the side of Aurangzeb. Dara Shikoh was in Agra when Shah Jahan died. He secured Jai Singh on his side by promoting him to higher rank and then sent him to Bengal along with his son to deal with Shuja. Jai Singh defeated Shuja, however while he was in Bengal dealing with Shuja, Aurangzeb captured the Agra. Considering the fact that now his own fiefdom and family members were in Jaipur at the mercy of Aurangzeb, he chose it wise to surrender to Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb's own position in Agra wasn't completely secured either and hence he pardoned Jai singh to secure powerful Rajput ruler on his side. Another powerful Rajput ruler Jaswant Singh of Marwar also fought on Dara Shikoh's side in battle of Burhanpur. He was pardoned by Aurangzeb for the same consideration. We all know how both the Rajput families were ultimately screwed up by Aurangzeb when he got the opportunity to do so. Aurangzeb pardoning Hindu rulers has more to do with his own political considerations than his benevolent nature that utterly dishonest Ram Punyani & Co. is propagating ad nauseam

Even if Rajput rulers wouldn't have been on the side of Dara Shikoh, he would have done the same thing that Aurangzeb did after winning the war. Jai Singh probably wouldn't have suffered on account of his choosing the side of Aurangzeb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
Btw east India especially Bengal was brought under the effective Mughal control due to the Man Singh. (who would have otherwise been fighting the Mughals to save his own kingdom if not for the Akbar). He established capital in Dhaka to effectively deal with rebels in eastern Bengal, which ultimately became major factor in large scale conversion to Islam in east Bengal. Kachwaha Rajputs had such a great potential, its pity that it was utilized in establishing the foreign rule in India and yet they never got any credit for their achievements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,386
India
Kachwaha Rajputs had such a great potential, its pity that it was utilized in establishing the foreign rule in India and yet they never got any credit for their achievements.
I'm not sure that's accurate. Many people know of the Rajput role in the preeminence of the Mughal Empire and Akbar especially. I knew of Todar Mal and Man Singh (not in significant detail, I grant you, but I didn't know of Chandragupta Maurya in significant detail either) even as a kid. Lots of kids do. And its not like the Rajputs are ignored in popular culture. We have lots of stories of their valour and bravery. And practically every history book I've read on the Mughals, emphasizes the importance of the Rajputs in Akbar's era and beyond.

Now sure, overall historical awareness is quite poor, but then overall education quality is quite poor. But I don't think there's any specific negligence towards the Rajputs during the Mughal era.
 

greatstreetwarrior

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
3,871
wasnt Bengal ruled for almost a few centuries under Muslim rule. Even the rebellion that he quelled there was from a Muslim ruler. Why do you say that the Rajputs led to this.

East Bengal was a Buddhist majority area similar to Chittagong then(which remained impregnable to reach). Infact the modern West Bengal was the Hindu majority area which continued to remain so. Islam spread substantially among Buddhist Bengalis followed by some animist Hindus in East Bengal whose association with Hinduism was weak in the first place. Strong Hindus in the Gangetic delta were still Hindu.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
wasnt Bengal ruled for almost a few centuries under Muslim rule. Even the rebellion that he quelled there was from a Muslim ruler. Why do you say that the Rajputs led to this.

East Bengal was a Buddhist majority area similar to Chittagong then(which remained impregnable to reach). Infact the modern West Bengal was the Hindu majority area which continued to remain so. Islam spread substantially among Buddhist Bengalis followed by some animist Hindus in East Bengal whose association with Hinduism was weak in the first place. Strong Hindus in the Gangetic delta were still Hindu.
West Bengal still remained the centre of Sultanate rule during the Pre Mughal Islamic rule. (Gaur was one of the largest city in India). The political centre shifted to Dhaka for the reason that I stated above only during the Mughal rule. And ultimately convergence of various factors led to the expansion of Islam including the central Muslim authority. Hinduism didn't become dominant in east Bengal because circumstances weren't favourable for it. Otherwise why do you think that Gaudiya Vaishnavism left deep impact in Manipur but not in east Bengal?

I have composed a detailed post on the spread of Islam in East Bengal in another thread. here's the link.
http://historum.com/asian-history/78965-reasons-overwhelming-muslim-majority-east-bengal-2.html#post1988981?postcount=12
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
I'm not sure that's accurate. Many people know of the Rajput role in the preeminence of the Mughal Empire and Akbar especially. I knew of Todar Mal and Man Singh (not in significant detail, I grant you, but I didn't know of Chandragupta Maurya in significant detail either) even as a kid. Lots of kids do. And its not like the Rajputs are ignored in popular culture. We have lots of stories of their valour and bravery. And practically every history book I've read on the Mughals, emphasizes the importance of the Rajputs in Akbar's era and beyond.

Now sure, overall historical awareness is quite poor, but then overall education quality is quite poor. But I don't think there's any specific negligence towards the Rajputs during the Mughal era.
I wasn't talking about history books but popular perception.

Rana Pratap and Man Singh were on the same battle of Haldi Ghati fighting each other in which Man Singh won. Its ironic that on one side we celebrate Rana Pratap and on the other hand we hailed the Akbar as greatest ruler of India. Poor Man Singh... In one he is villain and in other he is subordinate of great ruler.. completely lacking his own narrative

And I wasn't talking about Rajputs in general (which in my opinion are much over hyped in the context in which they are remembered). I was specifically talking about Rulers of Amber.
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,386
India
I wasn't talking about history books but popular perception.

Rana Pratap and Man Singh were on the same battle of Haldi Ghati fighting each other in which Man Singh won. Its ironic that on one side we celebrate Rana Pratap and on the other hand we hailed the Akbar as greatest ruler of India. Poor Man Singh... In one he is villain and in other he is subordinate of great ruler.. completely lacking his own narrative

And I wasn't talking about Rajputs in general (which in my opinion are much over hyped in the context in which they are remembered). I was specifically talking about Rulers of Amber.
But that's what I'm saying. I don't think Man Singh is ignored in popular perception. Ok sure, Pratap is more famous, but underdog rebels tend to be. Man Singh is pretty famous. I certainly recall him featuring a fair bit in Akbar-Birbal stories, and like I said, these were two people I was familiar with as a child. I wasn't a history student back then, just a regular student.

It is a fact, that in most cases, rulers get most of the credit for the actions of their subordinates. How many people know of Genghis Khan, and how many know Tsubutai? We've all heard of Augustus Caesar, but how many know of Agrippa? I don't think there's any specific negligence towards Man Singh. He certainly gets a lot more attention than some others. At one level, he's better of than even Rahim. Poor fellow's only remembered as a poet, how many know of his military exploits?

I won't deny that History has its quirks. Birbal was practically insignificant in Akbar's history, yet gets far more importance than Tansen and Man Singh and Rahim. But I don't think Man Singh is particularly ignored. And lets face it, he was a gem in a collection of gems. And Akbar himself had much to his credit. When you have so much talent and genius in so short a time, there is some dichotomy in attention. Look at how much people know Themistocles and Leonidas, yet almost no one knows of Militiades, Arimnestos and Aristides. Everyone's heard of Socrates and Plato, but do we know of Heraklitus? Yes, we could do with knowing more of Man Singh, but in terms of popular perception, I don't think he's particularly been ignored. We certainly have a far better understanding of him in popular perception than that of poor Jaychand
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
Birbal is famous because of the stories of Akbar - Birbal and not as a historical character. Stories of Vikram Vetal are popular, that doesn't mean that Vikramaditya is famous historical character. Anyway I wasn't talking about fame or popularity. Afterall they fought two greatest Indian icon - Pratap and Shivaji. (And funnily they won both the time!!!). So it is understandable if they aren't famous. (Although to be fair it is completely possible Jai Singh or his son helped Shivaji to escape from Agra). I was basically talking awareness and recognition not only about Man Singh but entire dynasty. But yes you are right. They don't get much attention but they aren't completely ignored.

The thing that I am unable to understand is why did they stuck to the Mughals for such a long time. They were the first of the Rajputs to accept the Mughal suzerainty. From Man Singh's subsequent military record it is certain that the move wasn't taken out of complete cowardness. There must be some other considerations. However more surprisingly they remained loyal even to the Aurangzeb when almost all the other Rajput clans declared themselves independent, completely pissed of by bigotry of Aurangzeb and despite the fact that Aurangzeb constantly kept bullying Kachwahas by sending them to difficult remote locations like Afghanistan and Assam and destroyed their temples in Mathura. It is just strange that they remained loyal despite such odd circumstances. Or am I missing some point here?
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,386
India
Birbal is famous because of the stories of Akbar - Birbal and not as a historical character. Stories of Vikram Vetal are popular, that doesn't mean that Vikramaditya is famous historical character. Anyway I wasn't talking about fame or popularity. Afterall they fought two greatest Indian icon - Pratap and Shivaji. (And funnily they won both the time!!!). So it is understandable if they aren't famous. (Although to be fair it is completely possible Jai Singh or his son helped Shivaji to escape from Agra). I was basically talking awareness and recognition not only about Man Singh but entire dynasty. But yes you are right. They don't get much attention but they aren't completely ignored.

The thing that I am unable to understand is why did they stuck to the Mughals for such a long time. They were the first of the Rajputs to accept the Mughal suzerainty. From Man Singh's subsequent military record it is certain that the move wasn't taken out of complete cowardness. There must be some other considerations. However more surprisingly they remained loyal even to the Aurangzeb when almost all the other Rajput clans declared themselves independent, completely pissed of by bigotry of Aurangzeb and despite the fact that Aurangzeb constantly kept bullying Kachwahas by sending them to difficult remote locations like Afghanistan and Assam and destroyed their temples in Mathura. It is just strange that they remained loyal despite such odd circumstances. Or am I missing some point here?
You could be missing lots of stuff. Maybe there was a family member who was a hostage. Maybe they genuinely liked Akbar as a person. Maybe they felt that he was truly divine. Maybe they felt that the Mughals would shut off trade to their kingdoms if they didn't cooperate. Examining motives of individuals is only possible when we have texts written by them, and sometimes not even then