![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Recent edits
[edit]I couldn’t edit below concerns possibly because I’m on a mobile phone currently but anyway let me get to the crux of the issue.
Firstly per MOS:Ethncity, mentions of ethnicity should not be in the lead. Notice how most wiki pages regarding empires/dynasties these days no longer have ethnicity in the lead? It’s because of this rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=MOS:ETHNICITY
Secondly that’s a little bit of a ref bomb(4 references) but nonetheless this shouldn’t remain in the lead and if you want to add it to the body, I would recommend gaining consensus. We don’t describe nationalistic terms like “indian” to dynasties/empires like the Mughals. On the main page(Mughal empire) it has never been described as Indian. And yes, I’m sure anyone can easily find references for their claims because there’s always going to be some author that has a different perspective. But the issue is, this isn’t really a mainstream view, the Mughals are typically seen as foreign. This was a point also mentioned in the talk page of the Mughal empire. You’re essentially presenting an alternative view and this is what regent park had to write about that.
“I think you're going to need consensus for that as well. Generally, if only some sources use a term, you need to get consensus for how to present that term (why only some sources use it, what are the alternative terms, etc)”
(like I previously mentioned, many of the points made there, apply to this conversation, even if these are two different terms).
So if you’re going to make this change, you’re gonna need consensus. Otherwise per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, the previous content must be kept.
Removing it from the lead would be a first start per MOS:ETHNICITY. If you want to add it to the body, you’re going to need consensus. Otherwise this change shouldn’t be made.
Perhaps we should also wait on others. Maybe later I will ping the editors from the previous conversation for their opinion on the matter. But those are just my concerns for now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to ping you @PadFoot2008 Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, please note that MOS:ETHNICITY only applies to biographies of people, not dynasties. It is necessary to be mentioned as it's widely used in sources and is important (and helpful) for readers to know, and is additionally a much better lead. It is a standard observed in many dynastic articles including House of Hohenzollern, House of Bonaparte, or even Bhonsle dynasty. Should also mention that the entire discussion on the lead was mainly regarding the made-up construct "Indo-Muslim", which editors opposed the inclusion of + no sources were provided explicitly using that construct. PadFoot (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Very) extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit: more to add. Minor note: “ Also the emperors with Persian mothers (apart from Akbar) were also half-Indian from their father's side (their fathers had mostly Indian ancestry). So they were both Persian and Indian, and hence certainly had Indian blood” This is a little dishonest. They aren’t “half Indian”. To be more specific they are Indics mixed with Turks, and I’ve already mentioned this but this means Persian dna would be higher in those emperors who are mixed than Indian and Turkic. Mixing doesn’t all the sudden get rid of all the Turkic blood that was there. Sure some of the fathers had mostly Indic dna(but their paternal lineage/haplogroup would still remain Turkic, blood wise they would be mixed with mostly Indian dna sure, but the paternal haplogroup doesn’t really change, and they are still mixed. So take a Turco Indian and mix it with a Persian, their kids would be more Persian than Turco Indian because the blood of the mothers are undiluted). Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Also there are so many sources which agree that they became Indians. Literally every historian who calls them foreign agrees they became indian later. So my suggestion remains the same as that of flemmish, But instead of "Indianized" turco mongol state, I prefer to add "Indian Turco Mongol state" which is way better. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Because it is a generally known and accepted fact that Mughal dynasty indeed was indianized, Infact let us talk abt Bahadur Shah Zafar, The last Mughal emperor who died fighting Britishers, He fully considered himself indian, The Mughals fully became Indian and even considered themselves indian. It can be seen in their poems and literatures (which I can show), India was their home. The current lead is very incomplete and absurd, Lead in a page is used for summarising about a person, an empire or something. The current lead doesn't even give the exact idea about what Mughals were. Let's just have an RFC done here because it is unnecessarily extending the talk page making future viewers very hard to read and understand the topic. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
After Zafar's defeat, he said:[1]
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Continuation of Discussion
[edit]- Respect your opinion, but I have one concern. How do you know they adopted Indian identity? I’ve seen sources which call them Indian(which appears to be an alternative view), but non described the Mughals as viewing themselves as Indian. They saw themselves as Timurids which is why the identified as the house of Timur.
- I just don’t see how you can call them indianized when you can easily claim them as persianized for the same reasons. They ethnically mixed with the Mughals and in terms of culture, probably contributed the most to the Mughals no? Remember Urdu/Hindustani wasn’t even adopted as a court language until the empires decline during Muhammad shahs reign(for most of their history, hindi was not a court language unlike Persian). Persian held more importance than any other culture/language. Your argument seems to be that the they identified as Indian, which I would like to see a source for.
- it’s hard to argue that they “became” indian, when they were so mixed.
- don’t mean to blundgeom the process just thought I never really got an answer for why we should choose “indianized over “persianized”. This topic is way too nuanced to be forcing modern nationalistic terms onto a dynasty that was multiethnic and multicultural. Cheers! Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if we are allowed to interrupt in a voting session like this, But I see a lot of WP:OR, we go with what the academic sources and well researched historians say on the Mughals, Who clearly accept the fact that they became Indian, Unless you provide historians who clearly say Mughals didn't become Indians, Which you cant.
- Moreover, Hindustani language was adopted as the court language by the reign of Shah jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah.[3] Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. The wiki page of Muhammad shah states that Urdu was adopted during his reign. And I found one source which states that Persian was never even replaced and remained the official language of the Mughals until the British. [4] I’m not sure which is correct, so I may look more into this later. But I don’t think my point really changes based on which emperor adopted Urdu. The point I was trying to make is that this empire was multicultural. So saying that it was “indianized” ignores its other cultural and ethnic influences. “Indo Persian” is a little bit better but I dont think there’s a source here which uses that term to describe the Mughal empire(other than maybe patronizing Indo Persian culture which isn’t the same thing)
- Also, I don’t think anybody here claimed that they had a source which contradicts the claims of the citations you cited. That wasn’t even the main reason most people voted against adding “indo muslim” in the last consensus which is very similar to this. In this discussion, Im just stating that calling them “indianized” is removing a lot of nuance because they were mixed and multicultural.
- The point we made is that there is a LOT of sources that don’t add term “indianized”, or refer to the Mughals as Indian. I know you’ll ask even though this is kind of obvious considering this is somewhat of an alternative viewpoint you’re proposing so I’ll share some to not be accused of original research.
- https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/mughal_202401/mughal.pdf
- Here’s a very authoritative source by Annemarie Schimmel which only refers to the Mughals as house of the Timurids. There is mention of central Asian and Mongol roots in this page but no where does it say that the dynasty was Indian. And you guys claimed that the Mughals identified as Indian even though they only referred to themselves as the house of Timur.
- “The Mughals called themselves The House of Timur, after the conqueror of Central Asia. who died in 1405”
- “The Mughals ('The House of Timur) maintained their Strong Connections with Central Asia. To the end of his life Jahangir used to question visitors from Samarkand ahout the condition of the Gur Amir, Timur's mausoleum, and sent gold to pay for its upkeep” pg 23
- The mughals never stopped seeing themselves as the house of timur. Which also contradicts the claim that they identified as Indians.
- This author was an expert on oriental studies alongside many other earned qualification. Actually if you knew her, you would know she’s possibly one of the best historians on this topic. In fact let me cite one quote in the prologue.
- “No Scholar was better equipped to evoke the cultural achievement of the Mughals than Anne marie Schimmel, who died in January 2005. For her fellow scholars she was, as the Mughals might have declared, 'the wonder of the age” pg 7
- Persians in the Mughal Empire#cite note-Canfield-1
- here’s a source which refers to them as persianized Turks. See how there is clearly different views on this? This is what I meant by the fact that one can easily refer to the dynasty as “Persianized”? They were influenced by multiple cultures which is why there are different viewpoints on which contributed the most.
- Does that mean we should start referring to them as persianized in the lead because there is a source which states that? No because obviously the same criticism applies, this is a mixed multicultural empire.
- I can cite even more sources which don’t use the term “indianized” to refer to the Mughals. Nobody is complaining about the amount of sources. We just don’t think it should be in the lead for the various reasons we’ve been over.
- Also in your previous comment, you claimed that majority of sources refer to the Mughals as indianized. How exactly do you know that? Do you have a source? Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't buldengeon the voting process here. We have already addressed this issue of yours several times. But let me address to some of your other points.
- "Hmm. The wiki page of Muhammad shah states that Urdu was adopted during his reign. And I found one source which states that Persian was never even replaced and remained the official language of the Mughals until the British."
- Yes, How does it contradict my point? I never said Persian was totally replaced. I just said Urdu became official language of the empire since the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah.
- Besides for that, All your other sources say is, Mughals were turco-Mongols. Which I don't really doubt. They were undoubtedly turco-Mongols and had ties with uzbeks. Richard John has already explained this, Let me quote him again:
"Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
- No one argues that they weren't Turks or didn't have relations with uzbeks while staying in india, Or didn't consider themselves to be from the house of Timur, They did, This is what Richard John says. But ur ignoring how they became "Indians" and were "Indianized" and their concerns laid in the future of India (per most reliable historians), And ur other sources talking about Mughals being Turks nowhere contradicts our point. They were indeed Turks who became Indians, This is what Richard John says too again.
Just like nadir shah considered himself a turkmen but was an iranian/Persian nevertheless.
- And there is absolutely no source which contradicts this
- So again, It is WP:OR since You are showing a source which says X thing (that they were Turks) and you are interpreting Y thing with that (that they didn't become Indians).
- They indeed were Turks who became indians, which is our point. And as long as you don't share a source which contradicts this viewpoint specifically saying "they didn't become Indians", The issue will still remain the same.
Now I request you, it is NOT appropriate to argue and buldengeon the voting process session, take this issue to the other category.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Um, all due respect, but writing a big response before calling me out for bludgeoning the process, seems like a contradiction. I made like 2 comments previously in total outside of the vote. Same as you. How did I bludgeon the process? To clarify, I don’t plan on responding to any other users except you in this case because you replied to me, so hopefully depending on you, this will be my last comment as long as we agree to stop.
- But there are some points I want to address as quickly as possible because you just made them.
- “I never said Persian was totally replaced. I just said Urdu became official language of the empire since the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah”
- Yes but your source clearly states that Hindustani/Urdu replaced Persian as an official language so these are indeed contradicting claims from two sources.
- “Persian continued as the official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan in the 17th century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language.” That’s a quote on the same page you showed.
- moving on: ” No one argues that they weren't Turks or didn't have relations with uzbeks while staying in india, They did, But ur ignoring how they became "Indians" and were "Indianized" and their concerns laid in the future of India (per most reliable historians), And ur other sources talking about Mughals being Turks nowhere contradicts our point.”
- I don’t think you understood that point very clearly. I stated that there is no need for a source which directly states that the Mughals weren’t Indian. In our last discussion, most people weren't even voting against the use of the term “indo muslim” because a source contradicted it(except me). They just objected on the grounds that the Mughal empire was too nuanced of an empire to be assigning them terms like “indo muslim”, and the fact that pre 1947 India is not the same concept as post 1947. In other words these are two separate entities. There was just no real reason to add it.
- Also why do you even think I added those sources? It wasn’t to prove that the Mughals were turks. It was just to show that they are plenty of sources which don’t use the term “indianized”. Your entire argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding as to why I cited those sources.
- “Most of the sources say Mughals were indianized or became Indians, for example these which comprised the members of the imperial House of Babur”
- I’m sorry, but how does this prove most sources claim the Mughals are indianized?
- Sending me a refbomb of the same claim does not in any way confirm most sources state that the Mughals were “indianized”. That’s not how it works. I mean I know you said you had more sources, but your telling me a handful(currently 5 but I’m guessing you have a few more) of people making this claim proves that majority of historians have written about the Mughals being indianized? There’s literally probably no way you could confirm what majority of historians think in this case. There is no statistic here. You’re just showing me a bunch of people who agree with you. That’s why I asked, and this answer simply doesn’t cut it. I know you obviously can’t get a statistic so your claim is impossible to prove.
- I felt I needed to respond because it seemed like you didn’t really understand my argument at all and kind of misrepresented it(assume good faith, it was probably an accident), so I wanted to give you a better read on it.
- Anyway I’m happy to just end it here (unless you still have concerns you wanted to hash out), and let the vote go on. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you accidentally replied to another thread, No problem. I will make a quick short response to clear our Miss understanding here so we don't buldengeon the process.
- First of all My source doesn't say Urdu "replaced" persian. It says Urdu took the place of official language of the empire. 2 languages can indeed take place as the official language of the empire, can't they? It also clearly says Persian continued to be used in administration.
During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period
- Besides for that. I didn't find any other important thing in your essay worth replying to or mentioning to, But I assume we have 2 different beliefs and ideas here, for you, Mentioning "Indian" isn't necessary just because many sources say it is, And has no real reason to stay on the lead, For me, That isn't the case, The Lead is incomplete for now and the term "Indian" or "Indianized" clearly should be included because many reputed scholars and researchers on Mughal history say this. Fair enough till here? (If i miss-represented your viewpoint then forgive me).
- Now let us wait for others to vote and know their opinions and not buldengeon the process. Please take this to other category , thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t, he moved it.
- that sounds good. I’m mostly fine with that, and am ready to stop commenting after this.
- anyway I’m fine with moving forward now. You asked a question about the source which I’ll answer for you. I just want to to say that the source you used very clearly states that Urdu replaced Persian as a court language. I made a lot of other really important points to my argument that you didn’t go over but that’s okay because anybody reading this conversation can read it. In fact this is a minor point but yeah, your source is pretty clear on that.
- “Persian continued as the official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan in the 17th century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language.”
- says it continued to be the official language until the reign of shah Jahan when Urdu took the position of official language. “Official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan.
- Also many sources don’t mention “indianized” as I’ve shown. And nobody really answered the question as to “why do a great deal of sources not mention the term indianized”?(a similar question was asked by regent park last conversation) Yes obviously plenty do, but that still was a question meant to be answered and it never was. And just to let you know, sources even refer to the empire as persianized while not using the term indianized(as I’ve shown above) but for some reason we don’t have an rfc for that. I wouldn’t support either because it muddies up the waters, this dynasty was mixed.
- Anyway the Urdu part is a minor point.
- I think we did go over all the misunderstandings and we can stop here. Anybody can read our arguments from now on. There was a bit more clarification needed but I think we are on the same page. Let’s wait this RFC out now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cool, I think I already responded to your relevant points but okay, discussing here is actually better. Just to let you know that my source doesn't say Persian was stopped using as an official language. Let me quote it again.
During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period
- My source clearly states that Persian replaced Sanskrit in everything possible including court proceedings, But after hindustani came, it started being used in the court. That till here obviously refers to the court language, Persian was used in the court till the reign of Shah jahan, But my source also says later that the Persian remained the language which was used in administrative purposes. It only states that in the court, Hindustani started being spoken by the emperors by the reign of shah jahan. (I can cite few more sources which says this).
- However this doesn't mean Persian wasn't an "official language" though, Because it was still used in the administrative purposes, Like in the official farmaans/Letters, or Imperial announcements etc as per the same source. Persian was totally erased off only by the reign of Britishers.
- Coming to your other points, "why do plenty of sources dont mention the term Indianized or indian".
- This isn't a good question to be asked, Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absence, Same can be asked as in why no source in the world specifically states "Mughal empire wasn't indianized or indian", The actual question should be, Why there are plenty of sources which do mention that the empire became indian? Including Satish Chandra (who calls it hindustani as I cited above), and Richards John F. I didn't count but i am sure I have atleast ten more sources which calls it Indian, and that also from legitimate scholarly institutions.
- As for "persianize" none of us disagree the fact that Persian language indeed influenced the Mughals (till Shah jahan), But that is different from Mughals becoming indian and dying here in India, Which they did. It is very similar to Bengal Sultanate and Bengal Subah, the emperors there weren't native in origin and were influenced by Persian heavily yet are regarded as "Bengalis"
- Anyways, I won't extend the topic, But when I was reading your reply i found something funny.
- "my argument that you didn’t go over but that’s okay because anybody reading this conversation can read it."
- Do you really think that anyone will care to read about the conversation which we had here? It's so messy and long, we have extended and buldengeon it so much, I remember I had to scroll more than eight times to reply to you when I was on the phone.
Now I suggest you to stop here, It is going to be an endless loop since we have totally different ideas, views and beliefs (as I have mentioned in my reply above), I believe when most reputed historians and sources call it Indian/Indianized, then it must be mentioned And extending this process will just make it very hard and time consuming for the viewers to read all this. This is why I have replied in such a way that it gets neutralized, Anyways cheers and happy editing! :) Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored and @Malik-Al-Hind, please continue your discussion here, not in the RfC below. I've moved both of yours discussion here in a seperate sub-section. PadFoot (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I think we have already cleared out our Miss understandings. Besides for that it is just the same loop, So I wouldn't like to continue and will rather wait for the opinion of other editors. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- That’s fine but you just don’t quite get it. Many times I make an argument, you simply don't understand what’s being stated and misinterpret the argument made.
- I’ve already wrote that nobody is arguing against the fact that some sources use the term “indianized”. RegentPark mentioned this too in our last discussion. But the issue which you don’t seem to get, is that not all sources use the term “indianized” or “indian” to describe the Mughals. If there are sources which claim that the Mughals were Persianized and don’t use the Indian to describe them, then by your logic we might as well add Persianized in the lead. There are plenty of sources which I’ve already cited that don’t use the term “indianized” and you keep talking about how the sources don’t contradict each other but I keep reiterating how that is not the point. The point is there are alternative viewpoints. If one says persianized and the other says indianized, then what do we use? This is a point you’ve actively ignored, but why should we put indianized over Persianized in the lead if there are sources which use the latter term? Your counter argument seems to be that the empire being Persianized doesn’t contradict the empire being indianized. Even if this is true(which it’s not), you still haven’t answered why we should put “indianized” in the lead over ”Persianized” when we have sources that support both claims? Thats why I think the empire is too nuanced for this kind of identification. They were mixed, simple as that. There’s multiple different viewpoints amongst historians so both of us can easily share sources which support our viewpoint. There’s simply no need to mention ethnicity in the lead. But this point gets pretty much ignored every time.
- “(I can cite few more sources which says this).
- However this doesn't mean Persian wasn't an "official language" though, Because it was still used in the administrative purposes, Like in the official farmaans/Letters, or Imperial announcements etc as per the same source. Persian was totally erased off only by the reign of Britishers.”
- …? I’m sorry but your source literally says the exact opposite.
- “ Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts”. You’re trying your best to come up with your own interpretation. But at this point im not even sure what you’re trying to argue anymore. I’ve noticed in many other discussions you tend to misinterpret what the sources have written a lot. But I’m sorry, what do you not exactly get here? It literally says it was an official language UNTIL/TILL the reign of shah Jahan. Afterwards Urdu took its place. Obviously Persian wouldn’t disappear completely from the public arena but how does that mean it remained an official language according to your citation? Remaining in the administration doesn’t change the fact that it was no longer an official language which your source makes pretty clear. And This contradicts the book I sent.
- “ As for "persianize" none of us disagree the fact that Persian language indeed influenced the Mughals (till Shah jahan), But that is different from Mughals becoming indian and dying here in India, Which they did. It is very similar to Bengal Sultanate and Bengal Subah, the emperors there weren't native in origin and were influenced by Persian heavily yet are regarded as "Bengalis"
- Anyways, I won't extend the topic”
- This doesn’t answer my question in the slightest. If there are sources which both use the term “Persianized” and “Indianized”, what’s the point favoring adding one viewpoint in the lead while ignoring the other? Why wouldn’t we add persianized in the lead by your logic? The other suggestion is to call it “indianized indo Persian” but then it brings the question as to why we even need to add the term “indianized”, especially considering “Persianized” is not being added? It just makes no sense and it ignores the cultural contributions from other ethnic groups.
- Also you know your free to disengage from the topic yourself if you don’t want to continue this? I’m not sure how asking me to disengage after writing a large response is supposed to get me to stop replying to your misinterpretation of the arguments made? Again I have no real plan on continuing this but you keep responding so obviously I’m going to reply back.
- Just remember that before I wrote a comment for Nietzsche, you literally were the one who responded to me. Asking me to stop when you were the one who started this makes zero sense especially if your still writing large responses in hopes of getting the last word
- I mean this respectfully of course. Your free to stop yourself if you’d like. This is my last piece if we agree to end it here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, since you have missed represented my points, I will correct it. First of all we have to agree on this that one of the most WP:RS sources use the term "Indianized" or "Indian" for the Mughals (even britanica) Even regent park has no problem with using the term "Indian/South Asian Mughal dynasty) (his own words) And we don't reject that Mughals were persianized, I don't know how many times will you make me repeat on that. Mughals were indeed deeply influenced by Persian language atleast until the reign of Shah jahan. But that "Persianization" is different from them becoming Indians, John F Richards says literally the same and I have quoted him over hundred times previously. He clearly states although the Mughals initially were culturally different from the Indians and they were recent immigrants, they indeed became "Indian" later. Either you just dont read my replies and skip most of them, Or you are just miss representing them (Although no disrespect here.)
- All of the sources I have quoted says Mughals became "Indians". Give me a single source which says Mughals became "Persians" and then I will have no problem with adding "persianized" in the lead. Also as for ethnicity, The term "Indian" is not an ethnicity, I repeat again, So your argument about not adding ethnicity in the lead makes no sense at all.
- 1)-Reputed historians from legitimate scholarly institutions clearly say Mughals became Indians despite of the cultural differences initially
- 2)- The term "Indian" is not an ethnicity.
- Simple as that.
"I’m sorry but your source literally says the exact opposite. “ Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts”. You’re trying your best to come up with your own interpretation. But at this point im not even sure what you’re trying to argue anymore. I’ve noticed in many other discussions you tend to misinterpret what the sources have written a lot. But I’m sorry, what do you not exactly get here? It literally says it was an official language UNTIL/TILL the reign of shah Jahan. Afterwards Urdu took its place. Obviously Persian wouldn’t disappear completely from the public arena but how does that mean it remained an official language according to your citation? Remaining in the administration doesn’t change the fact that it was no longer an official language which your source makes pretty clear. And This contradicts the book I sent."
Quote the book you sent previously again. The source of mine clearly says (quoting again)
During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period
Notice the word "Court proceedings " It clearly says "Until Urdu took its place in the official court" which was my point. Urdu merely replaced it in the "court" by the reign of Shah jahan, But the same source later clearly says Persian continued to be used in the administration, Proving it wasn't declared unofficial.
That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period
I am not even interpreting anything here, it is clear what the source is saying by literally reading it. Urdu merely replaced it in the court. That is why the word "until" is used here. But persian still was used in administration as per the same source few lines later. Proving it wasn't declared unofficial, It continued to be used as an administrative language.
"This doesn’t answer my question in the slightest. If there are sources which both use the term “Persianized” and “Indianized”, what’s the point favoring adding one viewpoint in the lead while ignoring the other? Why wouldn’t we add persianized in the lead by your logic? The other suggestion is to call it “indianized indo Persian” but then it brings the question as to why we even need to add the term “indianized”, especially considering “Persianized” is not being added? It just makes no sense and it ignores the cultural contributions from other ethnic groups. Also you know your free to disengage from the topic yourself if you don’t want to continue this? I’m not sure how asking me to disengage after writing a large response is supposed to get me to stop replying to your misinterpretation of the arguments made? Again I have no real plan on continuing this but you keep responding so obviously I’m going to reply back. Just remember that before I wrote a comment for Nietzsche, you literally were the one who responded to me. Asking me to stop when you were the one who started this makes zero sense especially if your still writing large responses in hopes of getting the last word I mean this respectfully of course. Your free to stop yourself if you’d like. This is my last piece if we agree to end it here."
Because almost none of the source says Mughals became "Persians" while so many reputed sources clearly say how Mughals were from a different ethnic backround and cultural background but became "Indian". I am ready to quote Richard John F again here:
"Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent"
Quoting Britanica:
"The empire itself, however, was a purely Indian historical experience. Mughal culture blended Perso-Islamic and regional Indian elements into a distinctive but variegated whole. Although by the early 18th century the regions had begun to reassert their independent positions, Mughal manners and ideals outlasted imperial central authority. The imperial center, in fact, came to be controlled by the regions. The trajectory of the Mughal Empire over roughly its first two centuries (1526–1748) thus provides a fascinating illustration of premodern state building in the Indian subcontinent."
"The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state."
Even britanica agrees with the Persianization of Mughals initially but says the same on how they built an Indian state based on Indian historical experience
Notice the same argument was used by John Richard to call it Indian?
So again Mughals indeed were "persianized" initially, Even John Richard doesn't disagree with this, but they became " Indians ", Their concerns laid in the future of India and that was their home, The empire emerged from the Indian historical experience (John Richards in page 1-2). So it does answer your question. No one argues Mughals weren't "persianized" or influenced by "Persian culture" they ofcourse indeed were. But they became "Indians" Moreover I only replied your comment on flemmish merely because it isn't appropriate to debate in a voting session, There is a seperate channel for that already. And I am only replying you because you keep miss representing my points. Your questions were answered a long time ago yet you keep repeating it.
1)-"Indian" isn't an ethnicity, so it can be added to the lead
2)-Mughals were indeed from a different cultural background (persian backround) but they became "indian", all of the 5 sources i cited, None of them disagree with the fact that Mughals indeed were persianized. But they became "Indians" because of xyz reasons we have mentioned over a million times already. Their concerns didn't lay in persia nor Persia was their home. They soon even adopted Urdu over Persian as a court language (yet Persian was official and used in administration though).
Now I will stop here, You can keep continuing. But I may respond if you again miss-represent me in case (with all respect ofcourse).
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I read your comment and would like to share some of my thoughts. @Sutyarashi
- You mentioned a point that nobody in the opposition is really answering. Which is the fact that the empire was as you described, syncretic/multicultural. I also shared the same thoughts in my previous comments. The dynasty was highly influenced by Persianate culture, so calling it “indianized” makes no more sense than calling it “Persianized” in the lead.
- “The Mughal dynasty was a culturally Indo-Persian, Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turko-Mongol origin which ruled the Mughal Empire from c. 1526 to 1857”
- I don’t mind this per se, but I think maybe for now we should just go for a consensus to not use the term “indianized”/Indian” and than discuss changing the lead to one of your suggestions afterwards.
- Or alternatively you could add it on the body instead of the lead per RegentParks suggestion. If I had to modify it, I would write it like this.
- “The Mughals were patrons of Indo-Persian culture and Turco-Mongol in origin”
- Or maybe some variation of this, don’t really mind what we use. Honestly that’s if we really need to add all this including indo-Persian culture but, again I don’t mind.
- Anyway if I was going with RegentParks suggestion instead, maybe I would go with.
- “The Mughal dynasty was of Turco-Mongol descent, ruling in South Asia.
- or if we don’t want to add ethnicity,
- “The Mughals were a dynasty in South Asia”.
- Kind of like the main article on the Mughal empire which we already had a similar consensus on.
- and again we can add this in the body instead.
- Regent park wrote “south asian/indian” but I assume he actually just means South Asian as he previously mentioned that the preferred term would be South Asia instead of Indian anyway in the previous discussion, so he may have wrote “Indian” by mistake”(correct me if this is not a stance you stand by) @RegentsPark
- And I think we both came to the conclusion that Indian shouldn’t be used anyway because they were mixed, and originally not Indian anyway. And generally as RegentPark has previously stated, the preferred term on Wikipedia is “South Asia”
- For now, I think you should vote option 2 so we can get this sorted out first before we start changing anything up. After the RFC, we can have a separate discussion on changing the article.
- But that’s just my suggestion Sutyarashi, do whatever you feel is best. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- RegentsPark Can you please elaborate what you think the correct description would be? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the current version is the correct description. The ethnicity of the Mughals does not fit neatly into any category and is best discussed in the body of the article.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Quick question. I asked Nietzsche this but never got an answer.
- “being influenced by Persian culture is much different than adopting an Indian identity (of course not referring to the country here as that didn't exist until 1947 but the historical term)”. So outside of the fact that these “indias” are two different entities which he acknowledged but for some reason still forced a modern concept onto a historical world (no disrespect).
- The biggest question however is, “when did they start identifying themselves as Indian”? Nietzsche makes this point but never proves it. In fact nobody has really answered this. What is the point of adding “Indianized” in the lead or body when one could just easily say it was “Persianized”, as plenty of sources already do?
- @Flemmish Nietzsche
- do you have evidence that they adopted an Indian identity? To be knowledge they never stopped identifying as the house of timur. But that seems to be your main response to the Persian point. So I think this would actually be a very important source to share if you have it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. I wasn’t sure if this was a separate comment I never replied to or something. But I’ll promptly respond again.
- Okay all due respect, I seriously think you have trouble understanding the English language. Your source literally states that it was the official language “till the reign of shah Jahan”. What does till/until mean? It means that was the case, up until that point. Also did you not literally cite word for word where the source clearly states that the language remained the official one up until a certain point? I don’t get how you could deny this but then quote the exact same thing that supports my point.
- The citation has only stated that it remained in the administration. Not that it was the official language. You’re just trying to come up with your own explanation/interpretation, ignoring what the author has clearly written.
- “They soon even adopted Urdu over Persian as a court language (yet Persian was official and used in administration though).”
- Your source uses the word “official”, stop acting like it hasn’t. Also we clearly have another source which contradicts this point anyway(the one where I cited how Persian remained an official language until 1857).
- “Mughals were indeed from a different cultural background (persian backround) but they became "indian", all of the 5 sources i cited, None of them disagree with the fact that Mughals indeed were persianized. But they became "Indians" because of xyz reasons we have mentioned over a million times already. Their concerns didn't lay in persia nor Persia was their home.”
- I don’t know how many times am I gonna repeat myself. Let’s focus one point you keep repeating and I keep answering.
- “None of them disagree with the fact that Mughals indeed were persianized.”
- You keep repeating this but you have failed to answer my question multiple times. If there are sources which also use the word “Persianized”, why is there preference for the term “indianized” instead? One could just easily add that it was Persianized based on the argument you’re making. And despite not needing that term in the lead, I still think that latter term would be more accurate anyway.
- “Their concerns didn't lay in persia nor Persia was their home”
- Does not change ethnic and cultural identity, especially if they are still heavily influenced by said cultures. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- They indeed were influenced by Persian culture and were persianized like the Bengal sultanate, yet it is considered bengali. Is it not?
- Mughal dynasty indeed had many Persian elements yet it ruled from india, it's home laid in india and their concerns in future laid in india, It emerged from an "Indian historical experience"
- "do you have evidence that they adopted an Indian identity? To be knowledge they never stopped identifying as the house of timur. But that seems to be your main response to the Persian point. So I think this would actually be a very important source to share if you have it."
- They indeed never stopped identifying themselves as Timurids as afsharids never stopped identifying themselves as turkmens and Mamluks of egypt never stopped identifying themselves as Turks, but in the end, both, Afsharids and mamluks gradually adopted the identity of the place they ruled over. Afsharids became persian and mamluks became Egyptian. This is what Richard John says!
- "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
- So indeed they were timurids and identified themselves as one, which we never rejected but they became Indians per Most reliable sources, While considering themselves from the house of timur.
- Like I said, India is a land of numerous ethnicities , You don't necessarily have to be an Indo aryan or Dravidian to be called as one. Britanica sums it pretty well:
"A Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century. After that time it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century. The Mughal dynasty was notable for its more than two centuries of effective rule over much of India; for the ability of its rulers, who through seven generations maintained a record of unusual talent; and for its administrative organization. A further distinction was the attempt of the Mughals, who were Muslims, to integrate Hindus and Muslims into a united Indian state"[10]
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, firstly regent park has already stated that he prefers the term South Asia over Indian and previously voiced his concerns over the term “Indian” as well. His last comment mentioned Indian, but he still voted for option 2 and had already previously stated that he preferred the term “South Asia/South Asian”.
- Your entire response seems to be you repeating yourself, and citing more sources(refbomb) to prove your point when we already went over the fact that nobody is denying that some sources use the term “indianized”, the same way some sources use the term “Persianized”.
- There was so many unanswered questions. For example, why should we add indianized in the lead if there are also sources which refer to them as persianized? Why do you exactly have preference for one term over another? They were multicultural so leaving either classification would be undue weight.
- What do you mean by “the bengal sultanate is Bengali?” There were some Bengali emperors but the vast majority were foreigners, including its founder. It would be more accurate to say it’s syncretic.
- “h, Afsharids and mamluks gradually adopted the identity of the place they ruled over. Afsharids became persian and mamluks became Egyptian. This is what Richard John says!
- "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian”
- This does not say anything about identity. This is just an opinion put forward by Richard. You need an actual source that word for word states that the Mughals “considered themselves to be Indian” otherwise this is original research. The only sources which refer to their identity, talked about the house of Timur.
- You just keep citing sources without really answering any of my questions. Why are we ignoring the term “Persianized”. Your only explanation is that this term doesn’t contradict the empire being “indianized” but this doesn’t make any sense. Even if it didn’t contradict that term, why exactly do you prefer the term “indianized” in the lead, over “Persianized” if they are sources which also use the latter term? You and everyone else have failed to answer this question.
- So stop repeating yourself and answer me. Why the term “indianized” over “Persianized”? What’s the point of showing preference for one over the other? I’m just going to keep asking until you answer.
- And this was a question for Nietzsche anyway. I presume you keep interrupting because you don’t want his mind to be changed but this is a pretty serious question that virtually everyone in the opposition has failed to answer. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Sutyarashi
- Hey Sutyarashi. I wanted to discuss your vote. I’m not necessarily against adding “indo-Persian” to the article currently, I just think that you should vote for option 2 in the mean time to maintain the status quo. After this, perhaps we can have a separate discussion on adding “Indo-Persian” to the lead or body. I just want to finish up this RFC first so we can move on. Option 3 isn’t really a choice currently. But we can talk about adding that after we are done here.
- But that’s just my suggestion. Feel free to take whatever course of action you feel is best. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I wasn't notified about this comment. Hence replying again. So Again I would like you to quote the the book you sent previously again which says Persian was used as the official language till 1857. The source of mine clearly says (quoting again)
During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the official language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellectual languages during the Mughal period
The source literally says Persian was the official language in the administration specially in the court proceedings.
And it literally says Urdu took place of Persian in the court proceedings. Which is where it replaced persian from. But the same source, again i repeat the same source 4 lines later says Persian continued to be used as an administrative language.
And what are administrative languages? The languages used in the official administration. All the laws, announcements etc are written in an administrative language which is indeed an official language.
With all respect, either you have a problem in reading...Or you aren't even reading.
The source literally says "Persian was used in administration and court proceedings, Until the reign of shah jahan when Urdu replaced persian as the official language in the court.
You are ignoring the words "in the court". Urdu replaced persian only in the court. And 4 lines later it clearly says Persian continued to be used in the administration. Proving it was still official in the administration, which it was.
You are trying your best to turn it around the way you think it is, But this can't happen.
"You keep repeating this but you have failed to answer my question multiple times. If there are sources which also use the word “Persianized”, why is there preference for the term “indianized” instead? One could just easily add that it was Persianized based on the argument you’re making. And despite not needing that term in the lead, I still think that latter term would be more accurate anyway"
I have answered this over a thousand times. Anyone reading our discussion will agree on this. We prefer "Indianized" or "Indian" over Persianized because their concerns laid in the future of India and they considered india to be their home, Their concerns didn't lay in persia. They even slowly left Persian and started speaking hindustani.
The reason why we prefer "Indianized" over "persianized" is answered by Britanica:
Quoting Britanica:
"The empire itself, however, was a purely Indian historical experience. Mughal culture blended Perso-Islamic and regional Indian elements into a distinctive but variegated whole. Although by the early 18th century the regions had begun to reassert their independent positions, Mughal manners and ideals outlasted imperial central authority. The imperial center, in fact, came to be controlled by the regions. The trajectory of the Mughal Empire over roughly its first two centuries (1526–1748) thus provides a fascinating illustration of premodern state building in the Indian subcontinent."
Britanica agrees Mughal empire emerged from an Indian historical experience. The same reason given by Richard John to call it 'Indian':
Quoting John Richards;
"Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent"
Quoting britannica again: ""The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state."
Even britanica agrees with the Persianization of Mughals initially but says the same on how they built an Indian state based on Indian historical experience despite of the cultures they were influenced by. (Although even that is debatable and I would argue Mughals became more indianized than they were persianized but that's a different topic anyway)
"Does not change ethnic and cultural identity, especially if they are still heavily influenced by said cultures."
Already shared tonns of sources of their identity. They became Indians, Were indian emperors of Timurid origin. So their identity indeed was Indian. As for cultural identity, This won't change the fact that the place they considered their home, the place they ruled from and for, The place where their concerns laid, The language they started speaking from the reign of shah jahan were all Indian.
Persian influence in them won't make them Non-Indian. Like i said, India is a diverse subcontinent. You don't necessarily have to be an Indo aryan or Dravidian to be called as one.
I would again like to quote britanica because it sums this pretty well:
"A Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century. After that time it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century. The Mughal dynasty was notable for its more than two centuries of effective rule over much of India; for the ability of its rulers, who through seven generations maintained a record of unusual talent; and for its administrative organization. A further distinction was the attempt of the Mughals, who were Muslims, to integrate Hindus and Muslims into a united Indian state"
Despite of their influences from Persian and their Turko mongol origin. Mughal empire indeed was a United Indian state. It was indeed indian.
Again I am still wondering why would you purposely ignore the examples of Afsharids, and other dynasties which were clearly not the same ethnicity as the people they ruled over, But they still were considered as a part of them.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I have no idea what your goal is here, especially for the first point you made. Your source literally says word for word that Persian remained the official language until the reign of shah Jahan. It literally can’t get any more clear than that. I’m not sure if this is just a language barrier, but what do you think the author means by “till the reign of shah Jahan”? You keep ignoring that important piece of information. All you’re saying now is that the language remained in administration which nobody disagreed with. But that’s not the same as the official language. Your source literally uses the words “official language” to describe how Urdu had replaced Persian. But again, this contradicts another source I sent earlier. Again, remaining in the administration does not contradict the fact that your source claims the language was replaced as an official language. What exactly are you confused of here? And remember to answer the other previous question because you seem to be ignoring crucial information from the quotes you showed.
- You keep repeating the same sources over and over again, while not really responding to the points being made. You also seem to misinterpret them in a WP:OR matter. I’m not sure how quoting Britannica and Richard is supposed to help you here considering you’ve already done that multiple times.
- “Already shared tonns of sources of their identity. They became Indians, Were indian emperors of Timurid origin. So their identity indeed was Indian. As for cultural identity, This won't change the fact that the place they considered their home, the place they ruled from and for, The place where their concerns laid, The language they started speaking from the reign of shah jahan were all Indian.”
- So basically you admit they didn’t identify as Indian because you wrote that cultural identity doesn’t change the fact that they ruled in India(which doesn’t really matter). They identified as the house of timur.
- I’ve already shown sources that use the term “Persianized”. We clearly have sources that use both terms, so we shouldn’t have preference for one over the other. Quote
- “Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 20: "The Mughals – Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis – strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India”
- now here’s your quote “The reason why we prefer "Indianized" over "persianized" is answered by Britanica:”
- That is not an answer, you just cited another source which stated that the Mughals were an Indian state. Essentially the same thing you’ve been doing since the beginning of this conversation. But that doesn’t explain anything to me. Some sources like Eaton support the Indian assertion, while others like Canfield support the Persian claim. So the question is why do you prefer the term indianized over Persianized?
- “Persian influence in them won't make them Non-Indian. Like i said, India is a diverse subcontinent. You don't necessarily have to be an Indo aryan or Dravidian to be called as one.”. Yeah but in this case, the influence is very clearly foreign. It originates from Persia, not India. That is the main cultural heritage the Mughals adopted.
- Also there is plenty of kingdoms of the past that settled in territories far from home, that doesn’t mean they were always considered to have fully integrated into the cultures and peoples they conquered. (Check out the Seleucid’s for example. They may have integrated some cultural elements from outsiders into their kingdom but they were still considered a Greek power).
- “Again I am still wondering why would you purposely ignore the examples of Afsharids, and other dynasties which were clearly not the same ethnicity as the people they ruled over, But they still were considered as a part of them.”
- This argument falls flat. The Afsharids were a Turkic people heavily influenced by Persian culture thus are considered Persianized. The difference is, Persian was their sole/main culture outside of their Turkic origins which are already mentioned in those articles. The Mughals however, were influenced by multiple different cultures. In this case, Turco/mongol, Persians and, Indians. Or more specifically the ladder two. So this comparison makes no sense. In fact I would argue that the Mughals were more influenced by the Persians than any other society. But even if they weren’t, that’s a separate matter because the point is, you have two cultures here that the Mughals could arguably be a part of(outside of Turco-Mongols), it’s not so cut and dry. So why a preference for one over the other? Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see regents park anywhere saying he prefers south asian over indian. He is fine with both of these terms. Your entire paragraph again seems to be the same repeated arguments which we have answered over a Million times maybe.
- We prefer "Indianized" more over "Persianized" Because almost none of the source says Mughals became "Persians" while so many reputed sources clearly say how Mughals were from a different ethnic backround and cultural background but became "Indian". I am ready to quote Richard John F again here:
"Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent"
Quoting Britanica:
"The empire itself, however, was a purely Indian historical experience. Mughal culture blended Perso-Islamic and regional Indian elements into a distinctive but variegated whole. Although by the early 18th century the regions had begun to reassert their independent positions, Mughal manners and ideals outlasted imperial central authority. The imperial center, in fact, came to be controlled by the regions. The trajectory of the Mughal Empire over roughly its first two centuries (1526–1748) thus provides a fascinating illustration of premodern state building in the Indian subcontinent."
"The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state."
Even britanica agrees with the Persianization of Mughals initially but says the same on how they built an Indian state based on Indian historical experience
Notice the same argument was used by John Richard to call it Indian?
So again Mughals indeed were "persianized" initially, Even John Richard doesn't disagree with this, but they became " Indians ", Their concerns laid in the future of India and that was their home, The empire emerged from the Indian historical experience (John Richards in page 1-2). So it does answer your question. No one argues Mughals weren't "persianized" or influenced by "Persian culture" they ofcourse indeed were. But they became "Indians" Moreover I only replied your comment on flemmish merely because it isn't appropriate to debate in a voting session, There is a seperate channel for that already. And I am only replying you because you keep miss representing my points. Your questions were answered a long time ago yet you keep repeating it.
"What do you mean by “the bengal sultanate is Bengali?” There were some Bengali emperors but the vast majority were foreigners, including its founder. It would be more accurate to say it’s syncretic.
It is considered bengali and I can cite you numerous sources which calls it a "Bengali Sultanate."
"This does not say anything about identity. This is just an opinion put forward by Richard. You need an actual source that word for word states that the Mughals “considered themselves to be Indian” otherwise this is original research. The only sources which refer to their identity, talked about the house of Timur. "
Again, the opinion of historians matter way more. What you are doing is original research here. Your question was about their Timurid identity. I answered it how they became Indians despite of being Timurids? I can cite several more sources which says the same. We go by what scholars and experts say.
"And this was a question for Nietzsche anyway. I presume you keep interrupting because you don’t want his mind to be changed but this is a pretty serious question that virtually everyone in the opposition has failed to answer. "
The assumption is wild but almost everyone has answered this question of yours over a thousand times before, you just keep repeating your questions despite of the answers you get backed up with sources. If you are asking a question, You will get an answer.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- “I don't see regents park anywhere saying he prefers south asian over indian. He is fine with both of these terms.”
- Check the extended discussion
- “Also, if you do need to associate it with the subcontinent, the preference should be for South Asian rather than Indian. Because the modern entity India is different from the historical one, we need to be clear what entity we are referring to”
- He clearly prefers the term “South Asian/South Asia over Indian”. Now let’s move onto the rest of these arguments.
- I just responded to the Persian point in another comment after yours which seems to be repeated here, so I’ll focus on the rest of the claims made here.
- “What do you mean by “the bengal sultanate is Bengali?” There were some Bengali emperors but the vast majority were foreigners, including its founder. It would be more accurate to say it’s syncretic.
- It is considered bengali and I can cite you numerous sources which calls it a "Bengali Sultanate."”
- This is literally the same problem as the Persian point. I’m sure you can find sources which refer to the Bengali sultanate as being Bengali the same way other sources can consider it to be a foreign empire. It’s more accurate to say that they were influenced by many different people, not just bengalis. Majority of the emperors weren’t even Bengali, they were foreigners.
- “Again, the opinion of historians matter way more. What you are doing is original research here. Your question was about their Timurid identity. I answered it how they became Indians despite of being Timurids? I can cite several more sources which says the same. We go by what scholars and experts say”
- The only person doing original research here is you and I can point where you’ve done it for you if you’d like. I’ve already showed you a source which word for word states that the Mughals identified as the house of Timur/Timurids. What original research has been done here? It’s ironic that you are saying we rely on what the scholars say here, but than claim that the Mughals identified as Indians even though you don’t have a source which states that, which is actually originally research. Sources that refer to them as Indian, and the Mughals actual identity are two different things. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar (10 May 1909). The Indian War of Independence – 1857 (PDF).
- ^ Vanina, Eugenia (2012). Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Primus Books. p. 47. ISBN 978-93-80607-19-1. Archived from the original on 22 September 2023. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ^ Chandra, Satish (1959). Parties And Politics At The Mughal Court.
- ^ Peter Jackson (2003). The Delhi Sultanate:A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521543293.
- ^ Petersen, Andrew. Dictionary of Islamic Architecture. p. 198.
The Mughals were an Indian Islamic dynasty which ruled most of northern India (including the area of present-day Pakistan) from the beginning of the six- teenth to the mid-eighteenth century.
- ^ The Limits of Universal Rule Eurasian Empires Compared. p. 276.
From the time of Akbar, who resurrected the Mughal polity, to the last formidable Mughal ruler Aurangzeb (1658-1707), Mughal preoccupation with the Deccan was the single most important sign of the fact that these Timurids had become an Indian dynasty.
{{cite book}}
: line feed character in|title=
at position 29 (help) - ^ Otorbaev, Djoomart. Central Asia's Economic Rebirth in the Shadow of the New Great Game.
Babur, the founder of the Indian Mughal dynasty, was born in the Ferghana Valley.
- ^ Lorentz, John. The A to Z of Iran. p. 283.
As the 17th century unfolded, the Safavid rulers not only had the Ottomans to contend with, but also the new Russian Mus- covy that had deposed of the Golden Horde and expanded to Safavid borders, as well as the Indian Mughal Dynasty that had expanded through Afghanistan and into Iranian territory.
- ^ Richards, John F. (1995), The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2, archived from the original on 22 September 2023, retrieved 9 August 2017 Quote: "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
- ^ Britanica, Encyclopaedia (2024), Mughal dynasty, Encyclopaedia of britanica, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2, retrieved 9 August 2017
{{citation}}
: Check|archive-url=
value (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) Quote: "Mughal dynasty, Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century. After that time it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century. The Mughal dynasty was notable for its more than two centuries of effective rule over much of India; for the ability of its rulers, who through seven generations maintained a record of unusual talent; and for its administrative organization. A further distinction was the attempt of the Mughals, who were Muslims, to integrate Hindus and Muslims into a united Indian state"
RfC: Mughal dynasty lead
[edit]Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:
- "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
- Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
- No changes.
Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2
- I’ve already given my reasons for why but I’ll give a short summary. I’ve heard of all the arguments, and I’m still left with a lot of unanswered questions and issues.
- let’s start. There are a minority of sources which use the word “indian”(although I’m not sure about “indianized” and “indo Persian” to describe the mughals, and this appears to be an alternative view), but many others don’t. In this case, RegentPark had a wonderful answer which was promptly ignored.
- “Generally, if only some sources use a term, you need to get consensus for how to present that term (why only some sources use it, what are the alternative terms, etc)”
- While we went over alternative terms in minor detail, there was never an explanation for why many sources don’t include the Indian claim.
- Moving on, the mughals were mixed and multicultural, so why do we need to emphasize that they were “indianized” which is debatable? A common argument I heard is that the later Mughals became Indian but this ignores the fact that a lot of them were actually birthed to Persian mothers, which I went over in my previous comment. In origin they were Turco mongol, later they mixed with other ethnicities including Persians and Indians. Calling them “indianized” is way too restrictive because it ignores the various people that influenced them and lacks nuance. The term “indo Persian” is a little better in this case because it implies Persian characteristics,
- but I don’t think I’ve seen a source which directly calls the Mughals an “indo Persian” empire. Maybe they patronized indo persian culture but that’s not the same thing. We would still need a source.
- Also pre and post 1947 India’s are two separate entities. It makes no real sense to force modern day concepts onto a historical world which differed greatly from today.
- As RegentPark had previously stated, these terms are way too restrictive for the lead. And unfortunately topics like are a source of a lot of ethnic bias.
- There may be more revisions to this edit if there’s anything I forgot to add. But I stand with my choice.
- Edit: Indeed there are sources which refer to the empire as Persianized. So we definitely have contradicting sources. But this also proves my point. The empire was multicultural and mixed, which is why some sources refer to the empire as Indianized, while others typically don’t. Based on the fact that there is a source which states the empire was Persianized, does that mean we should add Persianized to the article now instead(obviously not)? This is why I prefer not adding ethnicity to the lead. The topic is so nuanced due to how mixed the mughals were. It would be better to just leave things as it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians_in_the_Mughal_Empire#cite_note-Canfield-1
- Option 1: A vast multitude of sources refer to the dynasty as an "Indian dynasty", the "Indian Mughal dynasty" or the "Mughals of India". Most historians refer to the dynasty as having a Turco-Mongol origin that was subsequently Indianized in all aspects including culture, language and ancestry. All the Mughals after Akbar had a mostly Indian ancestry, apart from a few who were half-Indian and half-Persian. All emperors that came after Shah Jahan, spoke the Hindustani language, and their culture was undoubtedly Indianized with some Persian elements. PadFoot (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: As the original proposer of that option, but restating my argument: The Mughals were originally a Turco-Mongol dynasty, who gradually Indianised through adopting of Indian traditions, culture, and identity.[1][2] Yes the Mughals were a multicultural state and dynasty, but the question here is what they became, not what cultures influenced them or they originated from; being influenced by Persian culture is much different than adopting an Indian identity (of course not referring to the country here as that didn't exist until 1947 but the historical term), which they certainly did. Ethnicity and culture is a nuanced topic but "Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin" sums it up pretty well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: As the above sources cited and per the reasons given by flemmish and padfoot, This is an undisputed fact that Mughals gradually were Indianized and became Indians despite being of Turco-mongol origin. This is supported by almost every historian including historian Richard John[3] who is known for his expertise and research in Mughal history and is One of the leading historians regarding Mughal history in the United States.[4] Their home was india and they died in India. They had the similar identity as of Afsharids in iran (Even afsharids weren't of iranian origin but shared a persian identity), Anyways, The lead summarises Mughals perfectly and tells a lot to readers about them. Unlike the option 2 which tells absolutely nothing about them. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: As per the sources I've read (Cambridge history of the Mughal Empire) I found them to be reliable enough, and I do think the Mughals were thoroughly Indianized as you can see through their clothing, etc. Sure they were originally Turco-Mongols but their interests and dominion laid in India (historical India not present day Post 1947's India), which they needed to prioritize. Many reputed historians have testified and admitted the fact that Mughals indeed became Indians and were Indianized, one being John F Richards, the same guy who's book I mentioned. Akshunwar (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 : I would go for status quo because even if i agree for a fact that later mughals are consider culturally indian by several historians, saying it in generic terms for a whole dynasty isnt helpful for the article and for readers as well because it is more complex thing to generalise for a whole dyansty as there are many ethnic mixes in mughals. And as RegentsPark suggested i still believes that suggested edits be more suitable as of now. Curious man123 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: Mughals were essentially a syncretic dynasty; they can't be characterized as simply Indian, Turkish or Persian. Lede, as it is now, is okay-ish. Mughals were, by and large, followers of Persian culture, and from their administration to cuisine and architecture followed Persian model, even if the dynasty had Indian cultural aspects. Ethnically, of coarse, they were not Indian. Hence in my opinion labelling the whole dynasty as Indianized does not make more sense than saying that it was a Persianized dynasty. If not the present lede, it can be modified as per the other syncretic Islamic dynasties like Timurid dynasty, Seljukids, Ghaznavids and others:
The Mughal dynasty was a culturally Indo-Persian, Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turko-Mongol origin which ruled the Mughal Empire from c. 1526 to 1857.
- In this way, all cultural and ethnical aspects of the Mughals would be properly emphasized. I would appreciate your thoughts over this. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 as per the reason showed by Curious man123. Mehedi Abedin 19:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 The correct description of this dynasty is "was a South Asian/Indian dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin". Calling it Turco-Mongol is incorrect because though its origins were Turco-Mongo, the dynasty itself was hardly that. Using the term "Indianized" appears to be a rough attempt at synthesizing the various sources that describe the changing nature of the dynasty and we should not be doing synthesis. Rather than attempting to force fit an ethnicity into the lead sentence, those nuances are best left to the body of the article. (Though, I'm open to some version of what I call "the correct description" above and I wish PadFoot had done a more thorough listing of options in this RfC). RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 Based on the arguments provided by Flemmish Nietzsche. Nxcrypto Message 17:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 No need to go in unnecessary details on lead which are ignored by most of the sources. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 based on the explanation given by earlier editors, The empire emerged from an Indian historical experience and it collapsed in india, It can be anything but Non-Indian Chauthcollector (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 Per @Sutyarashi:'s arguments. -- However, the idea of adding "Indianized" seems almost purely synthesized, and the sources provided by Flemmish Nietzsche are not from actual historians/scholarly sources, I see almost no reason for such a change at all. Noorullah (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Please discuss in the section above.
References
- ^ Chang, H.K. Civilizations of the Silk Road.
By the mid-17th century, the descendants of Genghis Khan and Timur had gradually been Indianized
- ^ Chandra, Yashaswini. The Tale of the Horse: A History of India on Horseback.
Since Babur was eyeing Hindustan from across the Khyber and Akbar had laid down strong roots, the Mughal dynasty had become a thoroughly Indianized one.
- ^ Richards, John F. (1995), The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2, archived from the original on 22 September 2023, retrieved 9 August 2017 Quote: "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
- ^ Gilmartin, David. "About John F. Richards". Guha, Sumit; Bhagavan, Manu. Society for Advancing the History of South Asia. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-05-02.