I mostly share history, art, culture, food, attire, traditions, and heritage of the Indian Muslim community. Sometimes I delve into politics & current affairs.
Joined December 2023
- Tweets12.8K
- Following122
- Followers29.3K
- Likes14.6K
Indian Muslim Archives retweeted
Muslims (Mughal India Rep.) consisted of three primary classes: feudal, artisan and peasant -- with artisans forming the largest group (not peasants).
This might sound somewhat inaccurate until you understand few aspects:
1) Muslims population in India [rep] when Aurangzeb reigned was not more than 7.5% (it was 13.4 by 1941, about 2x increase).
2) As central Mughal authority fell, the industries [karkhanas] went into decline for various reasons (not our topic).
For comparison, Kashmir had 40,000 looms under Alamgir Bahadur, 12,000 under the Durranis, and 24,000 under Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
You see? Even a powerful regional ruler couldn't restore the Mughal-era flourishing of artisan industries. With looms directly tied to the Julaha biradari, one can imagine the impact on their livelihoods.
During a century of Company rule, Mughaliya karkhanas were systematically undermined. By 1921, after 62 years of Crown rule, one can imagine the extent of ruin suffered by Mughaliya artisans.
3) UP (United Provinces) is the most reliable basis for understanding Mughal demographics, having united parts of the imperial capital subahs of Dihli and Agra with Awadh (seat of the Nawab-Wazir) and Allahabad Subah (also under the Nawab-Wazir).
We have some statistics from the 1921 UP Census. (remember the earlier discussion on the ruins of Mughal-era industries, which ultimately diminished the artisan class and forced many into other occupations.. keep this in mind.)
So in 1921;
27.8% UP Muslims and 83.2% UP Hindus while were ordinary cultivators, foresters and fishermen.
3.4% UP Muslims and 1.4% UP Hindus were feudal aristocracy.
33.07% UP Muslims and 7.04% UP Hindus were engaged jn skilled/unskilled artisanry.
I think.. this is enough!
———
I would also like to clarify that there were not merely three primary classes (feudal, artisan and peasant) as I stated, but also numerically significant class of imperial servants (from foot soldiers and clerks to officers and bureaucrats).
I did not name them separately because they either arose from or were ultimately were assimilated into these classes.
This is straight up historical revisionism lol
>Armenians
>Greek Phanariots
>Marwaris
>Jains
>Parsis
>Jews
>Chettiars
These were the kafir market-dominant minorities who were indispensable in financing the major trade routes of the premodern Muslim world. Barring the few mercantile ethnicities, most of whom were littoral communities, Muslims were either part of the feudal equestrian class, or peasantry (latter being the majority).
Muslims (Mughal India Rep.) consisted of three primary classes: feudal, artisan and peasant -- with artisans forming the largest group (not peasants).
This might sound somewhat inaccurate until you understand few aspects:
1) Muslims population in India [rep] when Aurangzeb reigned was not more than 7.5% (it was 13.4 by 1941, about 2x increase).
2) As central Mughal authority fell, the industries [karkhanas] went into decline for various reasons (not our topic).
For comparison, Kashmir had 40,000 looms under Alamgir Bahadur, 12,000 under the Durranis, and 24,000 under Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
You see? Even a powerful regional ruler couldn't restore the Mughal-era flourishing of artisan industries. With looms directly tied to the Julaha biradari, one can imagine the impact on their livelihoods.
During a century of Company rule, Mughaliya karkhanas were systematically undermined. By 1921, after 62 years of Crown rule, one can imagine the extent of ruin suffered by Mughaliya artisans.
3) UP (United Provinces) is the most reliable basis for understanding Mughal demographics, having united parts of the imperial capital subahs of Dihli and Agra with Awadh (seat of the Nawab-Wazir) and Allahabad Subah (also under the Nawab-Wazir).
We have some statistics from the 1921 UP Census. (remember the earlier discussion on the ruins of Mughal-era industries, which ultimately diminished the artisan class and forced many into other occupations.. keep this in mind.)
So in 1921;
27.8% UP Muslims and 83.2% UP Hindus while were ordinary cultivators, foresters and fishermen.
3.4% UP Muslims and 1.4% UP Hindus were feudal aristocracy.
33.07% UP Muslims and 7.04% UP Hindus were engaged jn skilled/unskilled artisanry.
I think.. this is enough!
———
I would also like to clarify that there were not merely three primary classes (feudal, artisan and peasant) as I stated, but also numerically significant class of imperial servants (from foot soldiers and clerks to officers and bureaucrats).
I did not name them separately because they either arose from or were ultimately were assimilated into these classes.
This is straight up historical revisionism lol
>Armenians
>Greek Phanariots
>Marwaris
>Jains
>Parsis
>Jews
>Chettiars
These were the kafir market-dominant minorities who were indispensable in financing the major trade routes of the premodern Muslim world. Barring the few mercantile ethnicities, most of whom were littoral communities, Muslims were either part of the feudal equestrian class, or peasantry (latter being the majority).
The Mughal star (an esoteric symbol) is distinct from the Magen David (Jewish Star of David).
The Mughals did not associate the magen david with Daud, Sulaiman or the Yahoodis.. here is is a Mughal painting of Nabi Sulaiman, where is the star?
To anybody reading this..
Those men belonged to persecuted Muslim minority of India. The Muslims and Christians are regularly targetted over beef, and denied the basic right to a globally recognised and historic food choice.
Those who try to exercise their food choices are mob lynched to death or, if they somehow manage to escape alive, face brutal and inhumane legal punishment like the one above.
While they love to pretentiously pose as secular and take the moral high ground on blasphemy, etc., it remains hidden from the world's eyes how draconian blasphemy laws are imposed on Abrahamic minorities.
Look at this hilarious numerical entry on Wikipedia, a product of colonial historiography.. a repeated across all wiki-pages concerning Indo-EIC battles.
Here is a contemporary EIC letter in which British dignitaries exaggerate Siddi strength to cover the shame of their defeat.
I know you are being sarcastic.
This generation does not realise that the Congress of old is what the BJP aspires to become, yet it is not even a fraction of the former.
Congress practised a far more intelligent, robust, sinister and effective form of Hindu majoritarianism.. the entire Hindu majoritarian character of the Indian state, constitution, administration, legislation and judiciary, owes almost all to Congress.
Even the ideal of Ram Rajya (‘Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram’) it the legacy of Congress.
After 1947's transfer of power, the curtailment of Muslim identity (including Urdu), suppression of Muslim representation in govt jobs (eg: police, army, and civil servants) and political sphere became among the early priorities of the Congress.
Almost all of its fortification visible today were commisioned by the Muslim monarchs (the Bahmanis and Nizam Shahis).
This imposing 240-acre fort was a majestic sight to behold while the Nizam Shahi Sultans reigned supreme.. it fell into ruin after their downfall.
A group of Ind-Ms built this Shajahani signature in 2011 (just 15yrs ago)
Taj Mahal is just one specimen of the vast, diverse and cosmopolitan Indo-Muslim architecture, not an inch² of it belongs to the Persians or Turks.
If we went by the Turkish boasts, even the Pyramids were built by the Turks (pic 3)..
The thing is, the Turkish claim rests solely on the fact that Babur the Mongol was an extreme turkophile and hated his own (still did not call himself a Turk).
The Timurid Barlas family is a recorded (undisputed) Mongol dynasty, where the correspondences of Babur's successors (I.e., Indo-Mughal dynasty of India), even if Aurangzeb, are filled with this association..
In Emperor-Caliph Jahangir Bahadur's commisioned work, Muhammad Baqir Khan demonstrates a clear cut distinction of Indo-Mongol dynasty:
"Under his sovereignty are the east and west, the Turks and the Dailamites (Iranians) are his slaves.."
The Turkish claim has absolutely no limbs to stand out, we should not even entertain this ridiculous postrste ..
———
The Iranians, on the other hand, are wrong to call Taj Mahal an Indo-Persian architecture. Still, their outrageous and sinister terminology is bearable as long as it remains strictly academic and unless ut becomes a tool for appropriating Indo-Muslim heritage.
After all, negligible elements of the Taj Mahal's structure are natively Persian.
The pietra dura, the art that breathes magnificence and glamour into the Taj Mahal, is an Italian (Venetian) art form. Primary accounts do tell us that European artisans and engineers were engaged in the building project.
The muqarnas that adorn the Taj Mahal's interiors are an Abbasid-era invention. The arch is not a native Persian element, but an adopted. The chhatris and corbels, meanwhile, are native Indian elements.
In any case, architecture is a field of cultural exchange. If we started tracing chains of credit and ownership, we would end up wiping out the heritage of many civilisation -- even the Romans.
And to be honest, this is not the deed of Iranians, but rather that of Western academia, where corrections to bigoted terminologies are needed.
If our historiographers [among the most worthless globally] were competent, this issue would not have arisen.
Recently, a Turkish historian rightfully denied that the Safavid dynasty was Turkic [they indeed were not]. The entire Turkish mass, from Twitter to Facebook to major news channels and YouTube, emerged to abuse him.
Such is the robust historical consciousness (albeit built on misleading and false premises) among them and other descendants of previous Islamicate civilisations.
For the last four days, Romans (like below) and Iranians have been appropriating the Taj Mahal, yet no Indian Muslim has replied. Eurorpeans did, even certain honest Iranians countered the Romans, but no Ind-M.
When there is no historical consciousness, even those who possess it feel discouraged. Why should we write this and that argument and waste energy and time typing? For what? 1.5K views?
——
Coming back to the issue of terminology.
How ironic is it that Median architecture is labelled as Persian [Fars-i] by virtue of geography, when the Persians [Fars-i] were their arch-enemies. Moreover, many architectural elements that Persians appropriate were borrowed from foreign cultures. Yet they claim the Taj Mahal as their heritage, despite all the "Persian" architectural elements already existing in the Indo-Muslim sultanates 400yrs before Taj was built.
Terminology Matters.
In fact, the Taj Mahal's dome is an innovation upon the Jaunpuri dome. A dome of the Taj Mahal's specific form is virtually absent in Iran but abundantly represented in India.
Visit these links:
1) nitter.cf/Rustum_0/status/204843…
2) nitter.cf/Rustum_0/status/204844…
Like Romans adopted various events of the Egyptians, Assyrians (which was present under the Selucids of Syria), Egyptians.. they developed their own signature.
The Shahjahani signature is found nowhere but where Indian Muslim polities and Indian Muslim guilds influenced.
(continue)
Taj Mahal is just one specimen of the vast, diverse and cosmopolitan Indo-Muslim architecture, not an inch² of it belongs to the Persians or Turks.
If we went by the Turkish boasts, even the Pyramids were built by the Turks (pic 3)..
The thing is, the Turkish claim rests solely on the fact that Babur the Mongol was an extreme turkophile and hated his own (still did not call himself a Turk).
The Timurid Barlas family is a recorded (undisputed) Mongol dynasty, where the correspondences of Babur's successors (I.e., Indo-Mughal dynasty of India), even if Aurangzeb, are filled with this association..
In Emperor-Caliph Jahangir Bahadur's commisioned work, Muhammad Baqir Khan demonstrates a clear cut distinction of Indo-Mongol dynasty:
"Under his sovereignty are the east and west, the Turks and the Dailamites (Iranians) are his slaves.."
The Turkish claim has absolutely no limbs to stand out, we should not even entertain this ridiculous postrste ..
———
The Iranians, on the other hand, are wrong to call Taj Mahal an Indo-Persian architecture. Still, their outrageous and sinister terminology is bearable as long as it remains strictly academic and unless ut becomes a tool for appropriating Indo-Muslim heritage.
After all, negligible elements of the Taj Mahal's structure are natively Persian.
The pietra dura, the art that breathes magnificence and glamour into the Taj Mahal, is an Italian (Venetian) art form. Primary accounts do tell us that European artisans and engineers were engaged in the building project.
The muqarnas that adorn the Taj Mahal's interiors are an Abbasid-era invention. The arch is not a native Persian element, but an adopted. The chhatris and corbels, meanwhile, are native Indian elements.
In any case, architecture is a field of cultural exchange. If we started tracing chains of credit and ownership, we would end up wiping out the heritage of many civilisation -- even the Romans.
And to be honest, this is not the deed of Iranians, but rather that of Western academia, where corrections to bigoted terminologies are needed.
If our historiographers [among the most worthless globally] were competent, this issue would not have arisen.
Recently, a Turkish historian rightfully denied that the Safavid dynasty was Turkic [they indeed were not]. The entire Turkish mass, from Twitter to Facebook to major news channels and YouTube, emerged to abuse him.
Such is the robust historical consciousness (albeit built on misleading and false premises) among them and other descendants of previous Islamicate civilisations.
For the last four days, Romans (like below) and Iranians have been appropriating the Taj Mahal, yet no Indian Muslim has replied. Eurorpeans did, even certain honest Iranians countered the Romans, but no Ind-M.
When there is no historical consciousness, even those who possess it feel discouraged. Why should we write this and that argument and waste energy and time typing? For what? 1.5K views?
——
Coming back to the issue of terminology.
How ironic is it that Median architecture is labelled as Persian [Fars-i] by virtue of geography, when the Persians [Fars-i] were their arch-enemies. Moreover, many architectural elements that Persians appropriate were borrowed from foreign cultures. Yet they claim the Taj Mahal as their heritage, despite all the "Persian" architectural elements already existing in the Indo-Muslim sultanates 400yrs before Taj was built.
Terminology Matters.
In fact, the Taj Mahal's dome is an innovation upon the Jaunpuri dome. A dome of the Taj Mahal's specific form is virtually absent in Iran but abundantly represented in India.
Visit these links:
1) nitter.cf/Rustum_0/status/204843…
2) nitter.cf/Rustum_0/status/204844…
Like Romans adopted various events of the Egyptians, Assyrians (which was present under the Selucids of Syria), Egyptians.. they developed their own signature.
The Shahjahani signature is found nowhere but where Indian Muslim polities and Indian Muslim guilds influenced.
(continue)
Notice one thing: in older Hindustani cinema (basically advanced version of nataks), they always managed to get the face right.
Here, they wanted to portray Amir-ul Mumineen in a negative light, and they found the perfect face and make-up for it.
Rajputs, Brahmins and other upper castes of Awadh would neither consume nor cultivate potatoes during the Mughal and Nawabi periods, condemning them an inferior food [as they grew underground as tubers].
This changed in the British Raj..
🥔 आलू नहीं खाते, तो मूँगफली क्यों खाते हैं? क्या इसका कारण सिर्फ जमीन के अंदर उगना है? जैन धर्म में आलू जैसे कंदों के त्याग के पीछे सूक्ष्म जीवों और अहिंसा की भावना से जुड़ी मान्यता है, जबकि मूँगफली एक बीज है।
#Jainism #JainFood #JainDiet #JainAahar #JainLifestyle
Indian Muslim Archives retweeted
This khayal bandish was composed by Naimat Khan, a descendant of Nuabat Khan for Khalifah Muhammad Shah Bahadur:
"O charming Muhamad Shah! O my beloved, charming Muhammad Shah! Now that you are absent, my beloved, neither the days nor the nights hold any charm for me."
Grandson of Khalifah Bahadur Shah 'Zafar' and the son of Mirza Jawan Bakht.. he received 5400 rupees per annum as pension (could buy 3.7 kg of the 24-c gold).
Pic 1 (box) - Mirza Jawan at the age of 17yr
Pic 2 & 3: Mirza Jamshed (Jawan's son)
These hostage-pics don't do justice
Some will tell you that Khalifah Muhammad Shah was nicknamed Rangeela, as though it were an insult.
They are victim of ignorance of terminological evolution (eg: laundiya meaning slave girl to a young girl).
Rangeela was a compliment:
Romantic / Charming