General ramblings, History, Indian Politics, YouTube

Growth of the Mughal Empire

I found a video on Youtube that shows the gradual change in the span of the Mughal Empire from 1500 A.D till 1900 A.D.

This map shows India in 1947, right before the independence and the partition.

It’s interesting to note that Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir were the only princely states that did not accede to either India or Pakistan.

Wikipedia provides some interesting facts about the Indian Mutiny. There is too much to write here. I could probably do a 50 pages paper on it. So, I’ll leave it upto you to read it (that is, if you are interested).

This is how Cawnpore (Read: Kanpur) looked in 1857:

You can also check out this link for more pictures.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , ,


26 thoughts on “Growth of the Mughal Empire

  1. I have read a lot of those things in History actually and well,they were too boring 😐

    Ya know what the best thing about the Mughals was?

    Mughlai Food 🙂

  2. I liked History in 9th grade because our teacher was pretty cool.It does depend on the teachers actually..either they are extremely boring and that’s what makes you hate the subject.

    What I liked about History basically was the Patriotism part.I mean you should always read about History but there shouldn’t be any exams on it cause learning the silly dates is too much of a pain in the backside.

  3. What about down fall of Mughal empire? They ruled well, but they had left such bitternes which some people still feel it. The Muslims aimed to totally destroy the Superstructure associated with the Hindu period. The term Superstructure** which the Muslims aimed at destroying included a wide spectrum of aspects of social life including Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), language (Sanskrit and its various vernaculars), universities (like Nalanda), traditions of learning (ashramas, gurukulas), architectural symbols (temples, Chaityas, Viharas, Stupas), etc. The policy during the 700 years of Muslim occupation of India was to totally replace the superstructure of the Hindu period with a typical Muslim one.

    Towards this end the Muslim invaders undertook the desecration of places of worship, destruction of universities like Nalanda, the wholesale slaughter of the monks and priests to wipe out the intellectual bedrock of the people they overran. Such tyrannical polices which the Muslim rulers folllowed since their rule was established in 1194 C.E. they left a trail of bitterness in the regions which passed under their domination. Hindu tradition survived only in remote corners of the country like in Orissa, Assam and parts of South India.

  4. “..Don’t you know that our MVP will be very angry?..”
    Thats right I am very angry. There is not even a single city of MP mentioned.

    “ you mean thirtykill?..”
    very soon it will be thirty-one kill.
    Where do u live again?

    btw, interesting video. I wonder if the animator was trying to represent blood by using red color for mughal empire.

    actually other than kashmir and hyderabad, junagadh also has a quite a bit of history of accession.

    I am reading a book on kashmir by former indian ias officer (a bong!), and its just funny how every decision (pre and post partition) in during that time was dominated by british strategies. They didnt quite leave in 1947.

  5. ekawaaz,

    Yes,you are probably right. The rule of the Mughals did change a lot in India. This can be attributed to the cultural differences. But it would be wrong to assume that all that the Mughals did was destroy the temples, universities and the Sanskrit language etc. Persian, Arabic and Hindi were mixed to create Urdu ( a language which everyone loves). By the way, there was great religious tolerance under most of the rulers, except maybe Aurangzeb. If you remember, Akbar introduced Din-i- Ilahi. He made Fatehpuh Sikri as the capital of the Mughal Empire in order to spread the message of religious tolerance. But again, he did everything in a “different” manner. Let’s not talk about Aurangzeb now. He was pretty much responsible for the downfall of the Mughal Empire. The Mughals did bring in lots of good too. Even though there was political uphevel, you must not forget about the advancements made in music, art, literature, language and most importantly, the architecture. Some of the best monuments had been constructed during the Mughal Period. What about the Taj Mahal, Red Fort and Humayun’s Tomb?

    The empire covered almost the entire peninsula under Akbar, Shah Jahan and later, Aurangzeb. This was probably the first time that the entire country and its neighboring regions were governed by a single ruler.

    Like ish said, Mughlai food is mouth-watering too.
    I can probably go on and on. But you get the general idea about what I’m trying to say 🙂 I think I’ll do a post on this the next time!


    Which book are you reading? Have you read “Freedom by Midnight”?

    • kedaar says:

      Just for your information some of the facts of strategic importance in ‘Freedom at Midnight’ are flawed.
      It does often happen that history is interpreted in different ways (facts are overlooked) – so don’t take Freedom at Midnight as history.
      The facts are overlooked so that the strategic balance of the Indian Sub-continent remains imbalanced to the favour of the western super-powers.
      So would suggest you also read the history noted by Dutch and Portuguese settelers at the same time. Its facts and feelings do say something different.
      But Mughals were responsible for trying to wipe out the old civilization. Why they did it … am not aware; but would like to know if anyone knows.

      Also, the school textbook history taught in India and Pakistan is different – i mean about the partition … I know the Indian history textbooks – similar lines of Freedom at Midnight.
      Can anyone tell what the Pakistani textbooks tach about it? Can anyone type and paste it here? I heard its different than the Indian history and even Freedom at Midnight – aimed to keep hatred against India.
      Thx in advance.

  6. cotton,
    i am reading war and diplomacy in kashmir by c dasgupta.
    Its probably not the popular one. Ijust picked randomly from library.
    Its to the point and talks about most of the commonly ignored facts abt indo-pak partition.

    i did nt read freedom by midnight. may be i will next. is it good?

    btw, i agree with ur views on mughals. What is really worth thinking is if mughals or brits or both never enetered india, what india would have looked like. I doubt if u and i would have been here in usa, blogging, under any of those scenarios. ..!

  7. 30kill,

    I have heard about this book. I would love to read it. Perhaps in a couple of weeks time. “Freedom by Midnight” is an awesome read. I think you won’t regret reading this book. Do check out some reviews on the internet if you are not too sure.

    Even “Culture and Imperialism” by Edward Said.

  8. I think its freedom AT midnight, (by larry collins and domnique lapeirrie?)

    I just checked in my library. its available. may be i will check out sometime.

    Its ineteresting that none of the authors is a brit or indian. (one is american and other french).
    I generally find american story tellers bit tweaky aby history compared to their european or indian counter parts..but i am just generalizing it too much. I will surely check it out.

  9. 30kill,

    Sorry, yes it is “freedom at midnight” and not “freedom by midnight”. Yes, its written by Collins and “Dominique Lapierre”.

    I don’t know about Americans being more tweaky here…I would say that they have a higher chance of being neutral about the whole issue! But yes, we definitely can’t generalize people’s opinions based upon their nationality.

  10. Yup, “Freedom at Midnight” it is, and a pretty interesting book it is.
    The Mughals had their mix of good and bad points, they did serve to unify almost the whole country (probably the first people to do it after Ashoka), but given that the whole structure was dependent on the whims and fancies of the emperor, it could be pretty bad (Aurangzeb was one example).
    They build up some beautiful structures, and introduced new things to add to the diversity of Indian culture, but they also were firm proponents of Islam. Akbar’s ‘Din-i-Ilahi’ was based on his interpretation of religion, and was so unnatural that it died out after his death. But the structure of religion based rule was pretty much in place, which enabled Aurangzeb to enforce jaziya and other discriminatory practises (

  11. Wairavan says:


    “Hindu tradition survived only in remote corners of the country like in Orissa, Assam and parts of South India”.

    Do you really believe these are remote corners and BIMARU states form the core of India?

    Hinduism was taken to the Far East & East by the Cholas & Kalingas. The north Indians were never seafarers.

    Your views on Moguls & Muslim rulers are equally biased. The Hindus ‘destroyed’ Jainism & Buddhism in India. The major credit goes to Adi Sankaracharya.

    There certainly were fanatics among Muslim rulers. But most kings and emperors and zamindars understood well that money alone mattered!

    History again is not about dates & dynasities. Try reading Romilla Thapar or Irfan Habib.

  12. muhammad umar says:

    Invading muslims never get the figure of a lakh plus in any battle excep Nadir shah of Iran and mostly when they conquered some area they hire local hindus train them and many generals of even earlier sultan (mahmood of ghazni )were hindus.If muslim harm hindus religious places then how its possible for much lesser in number muslim to rule india for a period of 1000 years

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s