Comments by "suraj s" (@surajs5913) on "Sanskrit texts show Medieval Indians loved foreign goods, luxury and not just temples" video.

@funny-timekillers7038 did the mughals themselves identify with India that is Bharat? If so why was the official language used in mughal courts a non Indian language (persian) despute there being no shortage of Indian languages - prominently hindustani - which the people of India spoke? What about thw composition of courtiers and ministers in the mughal courts? Were they all of Indian origin or where persian elite brought in to specifically ensure that the Indians were subdued and outnumbered even in the mughal court?
4
 @funny-timekillers7038 Indianness is not defined by birth or death but by deeds and thought. Because India is Bharat...
3
@user-gf5dr5nq6l its funny you should say that since the mughals certainly thought there was hindustanis and hindustan - that being the reason they ensured that the mughal court always did not have a majority of hindustanis and instead imported persian elites to India. In fact the whitewashed akbar also promoted persian as the court language and official language even though hindustani was a much more preferable solution. To the mughals there existed Hind and Hindustani and the mughals wanted to ensure they were never associated with either of those things that was the creation of pagan kafirs...
1
@grapeshott it doesnt matter why I am raising these arguments. What matters is the validity of the arguments. Do you understand the meaning of empire? queen victoria adored the title "empress of India", does that mean that she was Indian? As for Bharat being a cultural concept, it certainly was - it was neither a political concept nor a nation state. But the mughals were keen to ensure that they were in no way associated with that cultural concept and were always perceived as outsiders who conquered kafirs - their self identity that they have self declared in the vast enormity of their court records is sufficient to understand their thought process and their attitude towards the forefathers of a majority of Indians and any concept of Bharat at that time. That is a sufficient reference point for modern Indians to evaluate whether the mughals deserve to be celebrated as important contributors to modern India or mere occupiers who did more harm than help and pursued islamic colonisation of the similar nature as british colonisation. That is the reason why hindutva ideology considers India to have been colonised for 1000+ years instead of just 200 years.
1
@grapeshott Rahul gandhi is perceived as a foreigner because according to him India is not a nation but a mere union of states. The person who wrote "union of states" has explained exactly why India is a union and not a federation, which historical example (american civil war) led to Dr. Ambedkar give a unitary tilt to the nation, etc. but rahul gandhi still uses the privilages of his MP position to claim India is not a nation. But instead you use such stawman arguments rather that coming to the core of the issue. You rely on taunts and strawman arguments, you qute things you want your opponents to say instead of addressing what they actuallt say. Wrapped in that cucoon of ignorance you feel content in the perceived perfectness of your chosen ideology. Not everyone can afford such luxuries...
1
@djsjsjjejebfbdj did akbar, shajahan and aurangzeb ever identify themselves as the sons of the land they ruled over? You dont need any arbitrary construct to evaluate their Indianness, there actions speak volumes more than the words of any common man living in 2023. These mughal kings pludered the wealth of hindus and used to send a part of their wealth to mecca medina and various islamic caliphates. This gives ample Idea of what mughals thought of as their homeland and whether they consider themselves as Indian. As for the views of us hindutvawadis on who is a true Indian, you can refer to VD Savarkars enunciation of the Idea of Indianness - he for whom India is considered to be both the land of his ancestors and the holy land, he is a Indian or hindu , but the mughals fit neither category by their own self declaration and by their actions. Those who consider their ancestral land as uzbekistan and their holy land as mecca, those who have acted on these beleifs to siphon wealth out of the geographical region of India to other regions by virtue of their self identity are essentially colonisers. They are not Indians by their own damnable deeds.
1
@ViswaMitrann they can be Indian if they continue considering India as the land of their ancestors and their cultural homeland. If there is a disconnect in this regard they will not consider themselves Indian and rightly so - best example is the romani people of eastern europe who were decended from hindus who were victims of the islamic slave trade. They know that they are the descendents of Indians but their history and identity has warped them to such am extent that neither they nor we the modern Indians consider them as Indians. But if a romani were to come now to India to live here, thinking India as his homeland and cultural wellspring then he will be considered Indian. This has been true for non hindu communities like parsis and jews too. The Tatas considered themselves as Indians though they have persian origin. But generations of them have lived in peace in India without persecution because they accepted India as their homeland and Indians as their bretheren. Same is the reason why the jews were never persecuted in India. So the problem of identity has many complex dynamics but the fundamental of fraternity matters a lot and goes a long way to establish Indianness...
1
@djsjsjjejebfbdj you are the one defining nationality by virtue of birth and lineage. I am sure you will use such outdated medieval constructs and disproved "sciences" like eugenics to justify your argument when it is convinient. The parsis are more Indian than any mughal ruler - they are celebrated by the entire nation because it is reasonable to judge a man based on his deeds rather than his birth in the modern age...
1
@selftalks254 use of court language was merely one example of a deeper systematic attitude of the ruler. While Raja Ranjit Singh rebuilt gurudwaras and oversaw a period of sikh cultural and artistic renaisance , the mughal mongrels like aurangazeb are famous for trying to eradicate the indigenous civilisation of India. The action of every historical leader is sufficient to judge him and the actions of mughals was very much against the aspirations of the majority of the Indian populace and the indigenous civilisation and cultures of India. If you want more examples read all my comments in this comment thread, maybe that will help you refrain from making stupid arguments.
1
@selftalks254 tu based on blood bol rhe ho toh koi Indian nhi hai, sab african hai - hitler bhi african hai aur mohamed bhi
1
@djsjsjjejebfbdj there is no such thing as Indian DNA, it is a erroneous construct. If you want to assign nationality based on birth and lineage then by that standard the mughals were african, hitler was african and so was gandhi , mao and emperor hirohito... This so called blood logic is stupid and reeks of a medieval alchemical logic. But if that is the level of thinking that you want to endorse instead of calling it out for what it is, then I can only pity you...
1
@djsjsjjejebfbdj i never claimed it was your construct, i claimed that you endorsed this construct to create an oppurtunity to argue with someone else - thereby perpetuating this construct. Cant you read or think?
1
@selftalks254 yaar i dislike and denounce this convinient choice of dates for the sake of argument because history is a continuum. As for ghar wapsi to africa i see you still endorse this logic of blood and want to drag me down into this construct rather than uplift yourself out of the pit you have dug yourself into. The modern popular Indian evaluation of history is based on culture and civilisation rather than blood or lineage. Do you accept that or will you continue digging into the hole you have trapped yourself in?
1
@selftalks254 look punjab was never the centre of our civilisation and the shahis of punjab were no popes but you seem like you are comparing their fall with the fall of constantinople and the collapse of the eastern roman empire. Meanwhile chinese historians claim that there is only one civilisational nation state in the world and that is china - all despite the fact that mao zedong oversaw the cultural revolution that wiped out vast swathes of chinese civilisational heritage and values. The modern nation state of the Republic of India is not a civilisational state, it is a nation state presiding over multiple civilisations, the most prominent of which is the Bharateeya civilisation. As for our glorious civilisation, honouring it is not worshipping its ashes but to tending the flame. The indigenous civilisation of India is far from dead or extinguished, it lives and thrives in the modern age and is resurgent as a consequence of the democratic system of governance in the nation state of the republic of India. Most importabtly in the entire context of this discussion the term "Indian" when it refers to mughals refers to neither the modern nation state of the republic of Indian nor any imaginary construct of lineage but to the history of the India, specifically the indigenous civilisation of India and how these mughals interacted with the same. Finally only a person that wishes the death of Indian civilisation would announce it in advance. Fact of the matter is that Indian civilisation is resurgent in the modern age and is evolving and expanding accordingly. There is a american way of thinking, a chinese way, a european way and a resurgent Indian way of thinking - but the Indian way hearkens back (atleast in the past 9 years when the nation state was governed not by those who are english by thought and action but Indian by appearence) to the arthashastra, etc. And the most ironic aspect to liberal minded individuals but the most obvious fact to most grounded individuals is that this resurgance of Indian civilisation and the rise of an Indian way of thought is a direct consequence and inevitable eventuality of the rise in democracy and access to information in India.
1