Talk:Mughal Empire

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

add "मुग़ल साम्राज्य" under the English name Wikibaric (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wikibaric Which language is it? -Lemonaka‎ 01:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

its hindi Wikibaric (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:INDICSCRIPTSRegentsPark (comment) 04:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Recently Reverted Edit

@Fowler&fowler : You recently undid one of the edits I made, starting this section to discuss and close.

The edit in question says "Reduced subsequently to the region in and around Old Delhi by 1760 by Maratha Empire, the Mughal empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

The reason you gave was - "Marathas were not the only ones; the Afghans played a role. Nader Shah had already depleted Delhi in 1738".

After Aurangzeb's death, any number of actors raided Delhi, so the question is not who raided Delhi, but who weakened the power of Mughals. On this one, most consice account is give by Gordon Stewart in The Marathas (1600 - 1818) - Cambridge History of India Vol. 2 Part 4. To quote from pages 135, 138, and 139,

" The third "frontier" was considerably north from Maharashtra. Khandesh, for example, was in no sense a frontier at this period. The Peshwa and the Nizam had been jointly ruling the province for more than twenty years, and it was a prosperous, paying proposition. The Marathas, as we have just seen, gained complete control of the province in 1751 with a minimum of damaging warfare.7 In Gujarat, also, there had been little fighting since the Dabhade rebellion of 1731. Mughal authority was entirely gone, except for Ahmedabad and Surat, and the

revenue was divided principally between the Gaikwad family and Nana Saheb.8 In Malwa, also, Mughal authority disappeared after the Treaty of Bhopal (1738), and the Peshwa's administration - as we shall

shortly see - rapidly developed, along with the new polities of Shinde and Holkar.

...

In the 1750s, the "frontier" extended north to Delhi. In this period, the Mughal government directly controlled little territory further than fifty miles from the capital. Even this was fiercely fought over. Jats and Rohillas disputed for the territory; factions fought for the throne, and the Afghan king, Ahmad Shah Abdali, periodically descended on the capital.

...

For the Marathas, probably the two most significant events of the whole chaotic period in Delhi were a treaty in 1752, which made them protector of the Mughal throne (and gave them the right to collect chauth in the Punjab), and the civil war of 1753, by which the Maratha nominee ended up on the Mughal throne."

So it was really Marathas that restricted the Mughals to Delhi. Nader Shah may have raided Delhi from time to time, but it was because Mughals had been weakened by Marathas. It was Marathas who conquered and controlled the territories that Mughals lost in this period, not Afghans.

Nonentity683 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is not about the Marathas. It is unimportant who restricted the Mughals to Delhi. It is the fact of being restricted, that the lead emphasizes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Following that logic, British Raj should not be mentioned either. Nonentity683 (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That phrasing was the result of an administrator-supervised consensus. If you want to change it, you will need to garner a new consensus, not make a data dump from this source or that. WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Gordon Stewart is not "this source or that". The work cited here is from Cambridge History Of India Series, which is about as authoritative a source as it can be. In any case, I don't see any refutation of facts here.

Following this logic, are we saying that every single change needs an RfC? Nonentity683 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I know the book, Stewart Gordon's, The Marathas 1600–1818. It is sitting right here on my bookshelf. It is about the Marathas, and thus, more focused on them. This page is about the Mughals. The Marathas, like the Rajputs and the Sikhs, are a category of native elite, that received governing ambitions and military experience under the Mughals. They are not an important presence in a broad scale history of the Mughals, that the lead is. Note that the Marathas have undergone a grade inflation on Wikipedia in being characterized as an empire, as have the Sikhs. The Cambridge series grants the name "empire" only to the Mughals, witness: John Richard's The Mughal Empire.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In other words, there is more than one reason that the British considered only the Mughals to be their predecessors in India, and continued to mint coins under the name of the Mughal emperor in Delhi, well into the late 18th-century. Please view those coins in Company rule in India Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler : Slightly taken aback at the bias and factual errors.

As for "The Marathas, like the Rajputs and the Sikhs, are a category of native elite that received governing ambitions and military experience under the Mughals."

1. Marathas did not gain "governing ambitions and military experience" under Mughals. Marathas have historically served in armies of all 3 Deccan sultanates, as well as Mughals. This is true of neither Rajputs, nor Sikhs. Rajputs were almost always exclusively allied with Mughals, and Sikhs were allied with none.
2. Difference between Maratha Dominion and Sikh dominion is that Sikh dominion never spread beyond present day Punjab, Haryana, and (small) part of Kashmir. Contrast this with Maratha dominion, which spread over almost all of Northern and Central India at its peak.
3. Difference between Marathas and Rajputs is that Rajputs were never united under a single banner, and as such cannot be said to be one political entity. They are just that, an elite class. Also, Rajputs almost never controlled area beyond present day Rajasthan, and parts of Madhya Pradesh.

As such, Maratha Polity cannot be said to be in same class as either.

As for "coins",

1. The coins that you are referring to were minted by East India Company, which had no authority to mint coins in its own name. It is not as though British Monarchy minted coins in name of Mughal Emperors.
2. Reason why they minted coins in name of Mughal Emperors was that Marathas did not dethrone Mughals from Delhi, so Mughals were still "Emperors" of Delhi (although they were emperors of just that).

In any case, lets not consider British Raj accounts / views as a reliable source. They are responsible for much of pollution of Indian History. Copy-paste from First Chapter (INTRODUCTION: HISTORIOGRAPHY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY) of The Marathas 1600–1818 -

"Within a decade of the British conquest of Maharashtra (1818), two developments spurred the indigenous interest in Maratha history. The first was a series of reports by early British administrators of the conquered territories. These usually were based on both a search for documents of the previous Maratha government and questioning of clerks and others (mainly Brahmins) who had served the Marathas. Much of what became "Maratha" history was created out of the questions of the British, the answers of their informants, and misunderstandings on both sides.

...

Finally, there is no question but that Grant Duff was proud of the British conquest and celebrated the brave acts of the British military involved. He emphasized great failures, especially the character of crucial leaders of the Maratha polity, which allowed for British conquest.

...

It is now almost fifty years since independence and perhaps time to stop writing Maratha history as a gloss on Grant Duff, as only the failure of a resistance to colonial rule. It is time to stop combing the records for some historical figure to blame for the British conquest.

...

This volume will respectfully draw on this body of history, both older and modern, produced both inside and outside Maharashtra. The overall perspective is to allow the Maratha polity to stand on its own as a significant part of India's history.

"

This is not saying that Indian writers do not have fair share of blame for pollution in question.

There is considerable difference of opinion as to characterisation of Maratha polity, but few things can be said for certain -

1. Marathas were united under a single banner (if we ignore the complication around the competing and co-existing claims on Shivaji's throne by the Chhatrapatis of Satara and Kolhapur)
2. At its peak, Maratha Empire / Confederacy / Dominion held sway over almost entire Northern and Central India. This is also roughly the same area that previously fell under Mughal dominion. See File:India1760 1905.jpg.
3. It was Marathas who critically damaged the power of Mughals in Mughal-Maratha Wars, and then conquered almost all Territories previously held by Mughals.

Any number of sources can be cited for point 3 above.

Not sure how you are relying on Cambridge series to say that Mughals are the only Empire, but refuse to accept the facts from same series around northward Maratha expansion.

"They are not an important presence in a broad scale history of the Mughals, that the lead is. "

If Marathas crippled Mughal Power in Mughal-Maratha wars, and then subsequently conquered almost all territories earlier held by Mughals, where is this sentence coming from? Nonentity683 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't respond to data dumps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to facts either, by looks of it. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to have an RfC if you'd like, but this is the extent of my engagement with you here. Per WP:BRD the WP:ONUS is yours, and thus far you have not demonstrated in my reckoning that a mention of the Marathas in the lead is not gratuitous. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Is addition of locator map an improvement?

Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb rule

The empire at its greatest extent in c. 1700 under Aurangzeb

Nauman335 has tried to add the locator map on the left "for better understanding". How does it improve readers' understanding of the topic? There are already four maps in the article, including the one on the right. That one comes from a reliable source, whereas the locator map does not clearly say what source(s) it is based on (the commons map from which it is derived says "Partially based on Atlas of World History (2007) - The World 1600-1700, map"). What else is it based on, and why does its southern border look distinctly different from the map on the right? --Worldbruce (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Worldbruce makes excellent points. You need to answer here Nauman335, not edit war. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@Fowler&fowler was your concern about mention of Babur as a Timurid chieftain or that Uzbekistan was changed into Central Asia? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Both. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag

The several flags have been added into the infobot in the past. Several have been fictional.

This flag however contains a source (is based on this painting) therefore should be added into the infobox. SKAG123 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't know what the flag represented (its presence in a painting doesn't mean much).

The lead line : Mughal Empire as well as Mughal kingdom

Its not factual to say that "Mughal Empire" lasted till 1857. Infact, for around 100 years, it worked as a protectorate of Afghans, Marathas and British. Thats why I feel that the intro line needs a fix. Its not that the term "Mughal kingdom" hasn't been used by historians. We have Decline of Mughal Kingdom in India by Henry George Keene. Also, the term "kingdom" isn't used only for its last 100 years. In Humayaun's period too era too, it got confined to a small kingdom, as noted in these sources:Its not factual to say that "Mughal Empire" lasted till 1857. Infact, for around 100 years, it worked as a protectorate of Afghans, Marathas and British. Thats why I feel that the intro line needs a fix. Its not that the term "Mughal kingdom" hasn't been used by historians. We have Decline of Mughal Kingdom in India by Henry George Keene. Also, the term "kingdom" isn't used only for its last 100 years. In Humayaun's period too era too, it got confined to a small kingdom, as noted in these sources: Dympies (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Keene who died in 1864, used "kingdom" for the entire period because in his view, there was only one empire, the British. The word "empire" is commonly applied to the entire period of the Mughals in the reliable and due literature, i.e. from 1525 to 1858 (despite all the caveats). Sources abound. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Marathas on the other hand are not unanimously considered an empire even during the height of their raiding days in the mid-18th-century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The the references to the "Mughal Empire" with the years "1526 to 1857" in books published by University Presses. There are dozens. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mughal Empire" is apparently the common name that (conventionally) covers the whole period of Mughal rule, as used by many sources. There are alternatively names though, such as "Mughal India". Regarding "Its not factual to say that 'Mughal Empire' lasted till 1857". This really depends on how you define the term "empire", but the state itself still existed (as an empire in some form or at least in name) in the period between 1761 and 1857. Instead, I think it is probably more correct to say that the so-called "Mughal Empire" did not exist at all between 1540 and 1555, when its whole territory was conquered by the Sur Empire. Considering such issues I do not doubt that the intro line may need a fix. --Wengier (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No one ever calls it the so-called Mughal Empire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I simply meant the "empire" did not exist between 1540 and 1555. But there is no doubt that "Mughal Empire" is an accepted name for the empire in the general period. --Wengier (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I misunderstood. The Sher Shah Suri years, although major in some ways for Indian history, (e.g. his Grand Trunk Road was the one that the British modernized, not the near-mythological Mauryas') are usually not acknowledged by reducing the Mughal span. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

In the picture representing the Mughal Empire in 1700, it's more appropriate to use the term "Pakistan-India Subcontinent" rather than "India" to encompass the broader geographical region. 92.16.42.39 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka‎ 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding variant "Mughal Kingdom" to the lead and fixing period in infobox

I propose to make two changes to the article :

• Add the variant "Mughal Kingdom" in the lead line.
• Change the period in infobox from existing "1526-1857" to "1526-1761".

Its not correct to say that "Mughal Empire" lasted till 1857. Infact, for last of its 100 years, it functioned as a puppet in the hands of Afghans, Marathas and British. And 100 years isn't a small period, thats around one-third of the entire period of Mughal rule. The noteworthy point is that mainstream tertiary source like Britannica notes "1526-1761" as the period of Mughal Empire.

I feel that the intro line needs a fix. Its clear that it couldn't continue as an "empire" throughout its journey and it gradually became a kingdom towards its end. The term "Mughal kingdom" has been used by historians. We have Decline of Mughal Kingdom in India by Henry George Keene. Also, the term "kingdom" isn't used only for its last 100 years. In Humayun's period too, it got confined to a small kingdom, as noted by William Wilson Hunter here.

Some important quotations from other sources:

• Page 309 from A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-eighteenth Century by Salma Ahmed Farooqui, Pearson Education India (2011) :

The period of the great Mughals constitutes a glorious era in medieval Indian hisory; but the empire collapsed with dramatic suddenness, within a few decades of Aurangzebs death in 1707 CE.

• Another one from the same page :

The invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali further weakened the empire. The once glorious Mughal Empire was now reduced to a small area around Delhi.

• Page 751-752 from The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume Two: The History of Empires (2020) by Rajeev Kinra:

The nascent Pashtun-Durrani Empire on India's northwest frontier, the Maratha Confederacy emanating from the western coastal region of India's Deccan Plateau, the brief rise of a state of expatriate Afghans known as Rohillas in the eastern Gangetic Plain, peasant resistance among the Jats in northern and central India, a rise in Sikh militancy in the Punjab, and the practical-if not entirely official-secession of erstwhile Mughal provinces in Hyderabad, Awadh, and Bengal: all contributed, among other factors, to the devolution of Mughal power in the first half of the eighteenth century.

From the above noted points, its clear that the Mughal power became non-existent as an "empire" after 1761. Also, it has been referred as kingdom by authors, sometimes as a synonym of empire and sometimes due to its small size.

Pinging Fowler&fowler, Wengier, Kautilya3.

References

Dympies (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies: Please understand that making a proposal is not tantamount to achieving consensus for making a change in the text of an article, least of all in the lead the writing of which was supervised by a Wikipedia administrator. Besides, there is a vast and deep chasm, akin to the crevasses in Antarctica, between a statement in support of which a few sources exist and a statement of due weight.

In other words, you can't come breezing into an article and have your way with the finely-wrote prose of due weight and amend it with a text that is substandard. You are most welcome to leave your proposal here, as many IPs do, and wait for people to bite. A consensus for change, especially in the lead, cannot be done overnight. It takes several weeks

Please be aware that Henry George Keene's book does not constitute current scholarship. He wrote his book in 1876 and died in 1915. Were he alive, he'd be preparing for his bi-centennial.

Pinging @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, El C, Titodutta, and Abecedare: just in case Dympies's edit-warring continues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)