The Mughal ruled, lived and died in Indian soil, yet they’re labelled as “Thieves”?

0
1017

What is the definition of invincible?

When a country is plundered by foreign attackers, and the attackers loot the treasures of the country and leave, then the attackers can be called thieves. However, when the attackers make their way into the country and settle in the country, they cannot be called thieves, rather they can be called migrants or settlers.

In this regard, Alexander, Mohammed Bin Qasim, Ghazni, Sasani, etc. were migrants to India and Arya, Mamluk, Mughal etc. were settlers. They were not even refugees.

The Mughals, Mamluks did not see their native land over and over again after taking hold of India. They ruled India, built buildings, canals, roads and shelters for the betterment of the people.

After the victory of Akbar in the battle of Panipat, he received the Kohinoor diamond from the family of King Vikramajit, but he did not send his home country. But till then the attacker Nadir did not rob him. These are the same people whose leader Nawab Siraj was preparing to kick out the British from India, but Seth Jagat and Rarwa Rai hired Mirakasim to kill Sirajuddaula. Not only this, these notorious and self centered elements were also responsible for the killing of Tipu Sultan.

The story is long. You can criticize a Mughal or a Muslim ruler, but how can the whole Mughal Empire be tainted as “bandits” or “thieves”, should one also call the “Hindu” community as liars and betrayers because of the betrayal of Seth Jagat, the whole Vaisya Community should be called betrayers then. The basic question is how were the Mughal dacoits?

LEAVE A REPLY