Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mughal empire Indo-muslim?

Can we add "Mughal empire was an Indo-Muslim empire" in the lead? Because there are many WP:RS sources which says this

If I am wrong here, Then make sure to correct me, Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The quote you provide does not use the term "Indo-Muslim". We would need adequate citations for that particular phrase. Remsense诉 05:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"Indo-Muslim" merely means "Indian muslim" and the citation i provided does call Mughal empire Indian. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It matters both that we arrange terms according to sources, and use terms that readers will recognize in sources. We don't get to invent our own nomenclature on Wikipedia, that's a form of improper synthesis. See MOS:NEO. Remsense诉 06:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

So can we call Mughal empire Indian/Indo-Muslim considering the quoted citation is WP:RS and it specifically says "Mughal empire was Indian" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I would wait until other editors have had time to comment. Remsense诉 06:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my deep apologies. I edited the lead section of the article before reading this comment of yours. I thought we had an agreement here. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem! I am not as familiar with Mughal historiography as I would like to be and have not contributed much to this article, but I figured I could help explaining how we make decisions like this. Given my lack of familiarity with sources, I would want to establish consensus with other editors who know more first. Remsense诉 06:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem with that, Thank you for your concern. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Moreover consider reading

Even this specifically uses the term "Indo-muslim" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. I wonder what other editors think. Remsense诉 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your concern, I am editing the lead section based on this discussion.

If other editors have any problem with this and they provide a better alternative with proper cited sources, we will change it to that. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

i think its sufficient. not to mention that Babur were deliberately abandoning the entirety of Yasha code of Mongol custom & prefer to characterize his penal codes with Islamic ones... so i agree with you Ahendra (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind, I agree with you as well. It is sufficient. PadFoot2008 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Appreciate it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think there is a problem here. Firstly, my first question was what does the term “Indo Muslim” in this specific context means to the author?

“Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent

save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an

Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.”

(Pg 2, don’t click on other formats, it just leads to another book for some reason) https://archive.org/stream/iB_in/1-3_djvu.txt

From my understanding of the reading, “indo Muslim” was a term to describe a culture that had arisen before the Mughal empire, I believe during the age of the delhi sultanate, which the dynasty later inherited according to the text. (Minor note, it can be used to describe both foreign and native dynasties)

“For a few

decades in the mid-fourteenth century, the Sultans of Delhi ruled over

an empire extending over most of the subcontinent before it broke

apart. Thereafter, the locus of Indian Muslim political power reverted

to regional kingdoms.” (Pg 1).

Now I can start getting to the point. The author claims that there was a rise of an indo Muslim state/culture that existed prior to the Mughals, which they later also adopted.

The source does appear to be reliable, however there is another historian that I can confidentially say is more authoritative on this subject . That is Satish Chandra, and here’s what he has to say on the matter.

Last time I cited his long quote that was too long so I’ll try chopping it up. It would be best to read the rest on your own for more context or on the talk page of the khalji dynasty.

“It has been suggested that with the rise of the Khaljis, and the end of Turkish monopoly of high offices, an "integrated Indo-Muslim state" emerged in India, i.e., one in which different sections of the Muslims, including Indian Muslims, were admitted to the nobility, and high offices filled on the basis of efficiency and the pre-dilections of individual rulers, rather than on the basis of their ethnic origins…”(goes through a large breakdown) “Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state. The position of converted India Muslims from the lower classes hardly changed.”

https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf Here’s the source

(Page 268 or you can look at the talk page over here for the entire quote Talk:Khalji dynasty, topic was “indo Muslim nobility”).

There was no rise of an indo Muslim state prior to the Mughals as is claimed by John F Richard, which means the Mughals couldn’t have adopted that type of tradition. There were many reasons for this according to Chandra. For one, the foreign rulers strongly believed in the superiority of their own blood over the natives and typically gave high offices to members of a linked clan/family. The position of Indian Muslims as a whole hardly changed.

I can explain more if needed but to conclude, there was no “indo Muslim state” according to satish chandra so there was nothing for the Mughals to inherit in this regard as John F Richard claims. On a final note, I mentioned that satish chandra is more authoritative, but didn’t really go into details. Both are historians of South Asia and have a focus on Mughal history but Chandra is described as “as one of India's leading scholars of the Mughal period and one of India's most influential historians. His book, Medieval India, has been widely used as a textbook in schools and colleges around India.” Satish Chandra (historian)

However I will say that both are very reliable regardless. Maybe you can add a summary of both arguments in the body paragraph, but not in the lead, because there is another very reputable source that contradicts that statement.

That’s just my take. Sorry for the long read, but there was a lot to write about. @Remsense

@Malik-Al-Hind

Pinging you two and one more.

@HistoryofIran

hello! I pinged because I don’t know any topic experts and I don’t believe we interacted yet but I was curious to see if you(historyofiran) have any incite you could share about this. Apologies for asking out of nowhere. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed you are right and i have no issues with this. But the pages i cite specifically says "The empire became indisputably Indian"

So i mentioned "Indo-Muslim" in the lead. I can change Indo-Muslim to "Indian" if that suits better? Moreover thank you for the concern. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally don’t think the change to “Indian” would make much sense either. Satish chandra clearly states that the position of Indian Muslims hardly changed. Also I’m not sure but doesn’t that fall under MOS:Ethnicity? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context. Even if it doesn’t, I think it’s best that you leave it out of the lead for the reasons satish chandra listed. Instead if you really want, you can put down the opposing views in the body paragraph, state how John f Richards believes the empire to be Indian but also state that satish Chandra holds the opposite view and explain why for each historian. That’s just one suggestion. But yeah definitely not in the lead. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Does Satish Chandra anywhere says that the Mughal Empire wasn't Indo-Muslim though? You only Gave the references of his opinions over Delhi sultanate. But yes, If he does oppose this view that Mughals weren't Indo muslim, I am ready to change it from the lead, But if he doesn't, then I am really sorry but I cant. There were numerous viziers in the Mughal empire who were Indian, Numerous empress consorts were Indians, Numerous Generals were indians.

Mughal empire was different from Delhi sultanate. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

He clearly states that there was no rise of an indo muslim nobility after the rise of the khalji dynasty. I know your thinking that this means that he never mentioned the Mughals but the point that John f Richard was trying to make is that the Mughals had adopted the idea of indo muslim culture/state they had copied from the Delhi sultanate. Your source clearly states that the Mughals were heirs to this Indo Muslim culture that they ADOPTED from a previous dynasty. I cited the text many times proving that. If there was no rise of an indo Muslim state within the Delhi sultanate then the Mughals couldn’t have been indo muslim because Richard claims they adopted it directly from their predecessors, which we know isn’t true. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

How was there no Indo Muslim state after the rise of khilji dynasty when we see Indo Muslim states like Gujarat Sultanate?

The sole reason why Richard calls Mughals "Indo-Muslim" was their interests and futures of all concerned were in India, and not in central Asia.

Moreover even my source clearly doesn't call Delhi sultanate "Indo muslim". By "Indo muslim" it refers to numerous regional states which emerged and gained independence Delhi which was ruled by foreign elites.

"Behind this frontier line Muslim generals built new states commanded by Turkish, Persian, Afghan, and other foreign Muslim elites. For a few

decades in the mid-fourteenth century, the Sultans of Delhi ruled over an empire extending over most of the subcontinent before it broke apart. Thereafter, the locus of Indian Muslim political power reverted to regional kingdoms"

Page 2, Richard John. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, Just pointing this out, "Indo-Muslim state" existed prior to the Mughals, Which you concluded as Delhi sultanate, But after The end of Tughlaqs, There were various local Indian Muslim states such as Gujarat Sultanate which were indeed Indo-Muslim and were conquered by the Mughals later on. Including Indo-Muslim sultanates like Berar Sultanate, Ahmednagar Sultanate etc. Which were conquered by the Mughals. So to say Indo-Muslim state didn't exist prior to the Mughals wouldn't be right. Even in the Delhi sultanate, Dynasties like Sayyid Dynasty were Indo-Muslims.

I hope you are getting what I am trying to say, There were indeed numerous local Indian Muslim kingdoms prior to the Mughals (Not counting lodis for now) which would be "conquered" by them. And the source I cited mentions Mughal empire to have become "Indisputably Indian" and it is indeed a WP:RS source.

Though I can change "Indo-Muslim" to "Indian muslim". There is no problem in bringing this to the body section instead of the lead too. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

All the dynasties you mentioned were founded long after the foundation of the Delhi sultanate which was my point. It began with the Delhi sultanate first. You mentioned the sayyid dynasty, I’m not sure if you know this but that dynasty was also part of the Delhi sultanate. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes but those states existed prior to the Mughals. Gujarat Sultanate for example, it existed long before the arrival of Mughals and would be only conquered by Akbar, Same with Kashmir Sultanate, Ahmednagar Sultanate, Even Bengal Sultanate. Most of these were Indian muslim and will be conquered by Mughals later on. So to say Indo-Muslim states didn't exist prior to the Mughals isn't convincing.

Sayyid Dynasty indeed was a part of delhi sultanate but it was of Khokkar Punjabi origin making it Indian. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay I don’t think you understand the point I tried to make here. I’m saying that it is sometimes argued that there was a rise of an indo muslim nobility during the age of the Delhi sultanate, which Chandra points out. This means it started there before it branched out to any other dynasty. If it didn’t exist prior, the Mughals couldn’t have adopted it, understand?

and btw, there are other theories of the origin for the sayyid dynasty including Arab according to eraly. But that’s kind of irrelevant and off topic from this discussion. If the sayyids were khokhar, then that means they would be ethnic Indians. That doesn’t apply to the Mughal empire or other foreign based dynasties. As you know, the Mughals were Turco-Mongol. So the discussion about whether there are Indian Muslim or not is irrelevant because unlike the Mughals, they are ethnically Indian. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that Indo Muslim state in the Delhi sultanate is argued. But my source specifically refers to "Indo-Muslim states" as "regional "states which took independence from "Delhi sultanate". And Mughal empire is an Indo Muslim state because it's interest and futures were "In India". Which was indisputably real. And Mughal empire started becoming Indo-Muslim after the conquest of those Regional lands.

I have sayyid dynasty as an example of Indo Muslim dynasty in the Delhi sultanate, Indeed Mughals were turco Mongols, no doubt.

But i again quote Richard and his reason for calling Mughal empire "Indian" or Indo muslim:

"Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."

Richard John,Page 2. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Dropping one last message here. Like I said, Richard Johns specifically calls Mughal Empire Indo Muslim because of its concerns laying on the future of India and it employing several Indians in high ranks such as Grand Viziers, Generals, even Supreme Empress consort of the Mughal empire. If Satish Chandra specifically rejects this, I am ready to change "Indo-Muslim" thing from the lead, if it's not the case, Then I am sorry brother but i cant. Because then it would be considered as WP:OR since Satish Chandra nowhere even talks abt this. Richard John is one of the Leading Historians of Mughal empire in United States. , So his reference should be enough. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I am not convinced that the Mughal empire wasn't Indo-Muslim is because of numerous Empress consorts like Mariam-uz-Zamani being indian, Numerous high rank posts like for example Grand Viziers of the empire like Abul Fazl being Indian, Numerous Generals and numerous commanders being indian.

It was really different than the Delhi sultanate. It's concerns laid in the future of India, Which is again one of the primary reasons why Richard calls it "Indo Muslim". Which you seem to ignore here.

If you can give me Satish Chandra's single reference about Mughal Empire not being Indo-Muslim or Indian, I will readily change it. But if you can not, then sorry, but I can't.

If He said there was no indo-muslim nobility after the khiljis, he refers to the Indo-Muslim nobility in the Delhi sultanate. But after its fragmentation, Numerous regional states which were predecessors of Mughals apart of the Delhi sultanate were Indo-muslim.

I hope you are trying to get my point here. Mughal empire was "Indian" or "Indo Muslim" because it's concerns laid in the future of India and numerous Indians were given high rank posts, which is what Richard said. But again I point this out, If Satish Chandra is against Mughal empire being "Indo-Muslim" or "Indian" then I am ready to change it from the lead. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I already know that the source you cited was reliable but I cited another source that I found to be just as if not more so. So since there is two sources that contradict each other, it shouldn’t be added to the lead. If you want to add it to the body paragraph, write down both opposing views down so the readers can make their own informed decision, instead of insisting that one is correct.

As for your latest comment: You cited one of the same quotes I put down. And im not sure how this changes anything.

when did I say that the indo muslim state didn’t exist prior to the Mughals according to Richard? You’re putting words in my mouth. I said that it first began during the Delhi sultanates time which your source also clearly states. Satish chandra however, clearly disputes this, and states that an indo muslim state was never founded.

The examples you showed are just dynasties of presumably indic origin. The Delhi sultanate and Mughals were both foreign born for the most part with the possible exception of the sayyids but we aren’t sure about that either. In one case you’re talking about cultural assimilation, in the other you’re talking about ethnicity.

“I understand that Indo Muslim state in the Delhi sultanate is argued. But my source specifically refers to "Indo-Muslim states" as "regional "states which took independence from "Delhi sultanate". And Mughal empire is an Indo Muslim state because it's interest and futures were "In India". Which was indisputably real. And Mughal empire started becoming Indo-Muslim after the conquest of those Regional lands.But my source specifically refers to "Indo-Muslim states" as "regional "states which took independence from "Delhi sultanate". And Mughal empire is an Indo Muslim state because its interest and futures were "In India". Which was indisputably real. And Mughal empire started becoming Indo-Muslim after the conquest of those Regional lands. “

right you cited the same thing again here. The point is that two sources are clearly in disagreement about the idea of an indo muslim state. So instead of leaving in the lead, you should add both viewpoints in the body paragraph, that way readers can make their own informed decision. Otherwise you’re just forcing your own opinion here.

Again you made another comment: This is more or less something you’ve already written. You do realize that even satish Chandra mentioned that there was high ranking Indian Muslims in the Delhi sultanate but despite that, it didn’t change the fact that the dynasty wasn’t indo Muslim. Let me cite it.

“The Khaljis ended the Turkish domination or policy of Turkish exclusivism. They did not discriminate against the Turks, but threw the doors open to the talents among various sections of the Muslims. Thus, Alauddin's wazir was Nusrat Khan Jalesar, and Zafar Khan his Mir Arz. Both were famous warriors but were non-Turks, possibly Indian Muslims. Another non-Turk who rose to power was Malik Kafur. It seems that there was an influx of a large number of non-Turks including Indian Muslims into the nobility during the latter years of Alauddin Khalji. This alone can explain the rise to power, even though very brief, of the Baradus, an uneducated but fighting group of Rajputs under Khusrau Khan, following the murder of Mubarak Khalji (1320).” page 268

Recruiting natives in the nobility is nothing new and a relatively autosomal approach for foreign leaders trying to assert their rule. It didn’t change the fact that the khaljis weren’t Indo Muslim, and that the Mughals were foreign.

Chandra states that the admission of some Indian Muslims into the nobility “should not be interpreted to mean that Indian converts from the upper castes had now become a dominant element in the nobility”, and that was during the Delhi sultanates era.

as for your final points, you kind of just cited the same sources I’ve already read. Satish chandra states that there was no creation of an indo muslim nobility. Your source clearly states that the Mughals had adopted a different form of governing from the previous indo muslim rulers like Delhi. Indo muslim according to Richard is a term used to describe a dynasty either foreign or native. why would it just be describing regional states that broke off from the Delhi sultanate? And btw, satish chandra wouldn’t describe every breakaway region as indo muslim either.

“It was one of these nobles who would set up the Bahamani kingdom in the Deccan, and another in Gujarat”.

Point is there was never a rise of an indo Muslim state during the era of the Delhi Sultanate so there’s no way the Mughals could have adopted it like your sources clearly state. You do understand that right? Your source states that the Mughals inherited it from previous rulers, but if those rulers weren’t actually indo Muslim as satish Chandra clearly states, than the Mughals couldn’t have been indo muslim. And I’ve already breaker down the point about Indians in the nobility.

Again if you really want , you can summarize both arguments in the body paragraph so readers can make their own assessment. That sounds like a perfect compromise. Simply put, that sentence shouldn’t be on the lead if there is another source that contradicts it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We probably shouldn’t bludgeon this talk page anymore. If need be, we can do an rfc. I’m curious to know what other users think anyway.

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I am okay with that. Let others decide it. I am stopping here. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't contradict at all. Your source talks about Delhi sultanate while my source talks about Mughals. My source specifically states that Mughal empire was Indo-Muslim based on numerous factors, Which ofcourse, Satish Chandra doesn't point out. You said The Indo Muslim state didn't exist prior to the Mughals as per Satish Chandra, which Richard Johns clearly agree with. By Indo-Muslim he refers to the Regional Muslim states which were predecessors of Mughals. And no, not all Examples I showed are of Indic origin, specifically Bengal Sultanate.

Delhi sultanate appointed High rank officials in it, but this wasn't anyway even close to the amount of Natives given high ranks by the Mughals, Including even the Hindus.

Source of Richard Nowhere says Mughals adopted "Indo-Muslim state" from Delhi sultanate, Infact it clearly calls Delhi sultanate "foreign" ruled by foreign elites namely the Afghans and Turks.

"Behind this frontier line Muslim generals built new states commanded by Turkish, Persian, Afghan, and other foreign Muslim elites. For a few

decades in the mid-fourteenth century, the Sultans of Delhi ruled over an empire extending over most of the subcontinent before it broke apart. Thereafter, the locus of Indian Muslim political power reverted to regional kingdoms"

Page 2, Richard John.

So how can he say Mughals adopted it from Delhi sultanate? He doesn't say that. The Mughals adopted this from the Regional states states it conquered later on like Gujarat Sultanate, Kashmir Sultanate etc.

"Recruiting natives in the nobility is nothing new and a relatively autosomal approach for foreign leaders trying to assert their rule. It didn’t change the fact that the khaljis weren’t Indo Muslim, and that the Mughals were foreign."

Indeed, But if those empires were centred in that specific regions, And if their concerns lays on the future of that specific regions, if the rulers permanently decided to live in those regions. Then it can be a different thing you see? Which was clearly in the case of Mughals, Their concerns laid in the future of India, they fully assimilated in India, By even adopting Urdu by the end by the reign of Shah Alam.

My point is,You are right about Satish Chandra saying No indo muslim nobility being present in The Delhi sultanate. But this would be different in the case of mughals. Mughals were undoubtedly Indo-Muslim. Because of several factors given by John Richards. Which Mughals adopted from the indigenous dynasties they conquered, If you can't point out a single unequivocal statement given By Satish Chandra where he specifically states Mughal Empire wasn't Indo-Muslim. Then how can I change the lead? That's WP:OR. You are interpreting the fact that "Mughals" weren't Indo-Muslims because the nobility didn't exist in "delhi sultanate" as per a Historian. Richard John clearly states Mughal Empire was indo-Muslim, and it doesn't say it "adopted" this nobility from Delhi sultanate specifically rather the assimilation of it with various Indigenous dynasties it conquered and it's permanent settlement in india and it's concerns being laid in the future of India.

So again, Either give a source which directly goes against the narrative of Mughals being Indo-Muslim or let others decide it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Fyi, Malik-Al-Hind is part of a Indian pov pushing discord group [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant and I am not, focus on the thread. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty relevant considering what you're trying to do here. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I see, wasn’t aware of that fact until now, thank you. Do you have any suggestions for what should be done here? Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's disputed by other sources, I fail to see why "Indo-Muslim" should be there. If Malik-Al-Hind continues to engage in WP:SYNTH (a common practice by the Discord group), I would not address it and instead just call them out for WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH has no place here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your input. I’ll keep it mind :) Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It kind of seems like I’m repeating myself. I don’t really want to hogg the talk page any further but I decided to summarize my points and respond to some new ones again in the mean time while we wait for more activity in the talk page and possibly an RFC if needed.

“You said The Indo Muslim state didn't exist prior to the Mughals as per Satish Chandra, which Richard Johns clearly agree with.”

How does he clearly agree with this? I’ve already cited the passage multiple times where he states that the Mughals burrowed the tradition from their indo muslim predecessors according to Richard.

“As heirs to the Indo-Muslim political tradition, the Mughals found

conditions favorable for political centralization.” (2 introduction)

So clearly it did exist according to Richard because the Mughals inherited it.

“Delhi sultanate appointed High rank officials in it, but this wasn't anyway even close to the amount of Natives given high ranks by the Mughals, Including even the Hindus.

Source of Richard Nowhere says Mughals adopted "Indo-Muslim state" from Delhi sultanate, Infact it clearly calls Delhi sultanate "foreign" ruled by foreign elites namely the Afghans and Turks.”

You do realize that Richards definition of an “indo Muslim” state greatly differs from your own? You’ve been essentially making up your own interpretation of the word. I’ve already cited this before, but once again I’ll cite it again.

“By 1500 Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent

save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an

Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.” (2 introduction). Notice how he mentions indo muslim rulers of foreign origin? Your definition of indo Muslim just seems to be “Indian Muslim” as you’ve stated before but that’s clearly not the case here with Richard because he mentions foreign indo Muslim rulers. Although satish chandra may possibly have a different definition. Regardless, the statement you cited doesn’t contradict anything because Richard clearly mentioned that indo muslim tradition extended to foreign rulers so that quote is irrelevant.

Your other points here seem baseless. Do you have a source that specifically states the Delhi sultanate had less Indian born nobles/higher ups than the Mughals? I already showed you a sources detailing that both dynasties recruited Indians at times in certain positions. This does not mean the dynasties themselves were indo muslim or that the nobility was dominated by Indians because it wasn’t.

“So how can he say Mughals adopted it from Delhi sultanate? He doesn't say that. The Mughals adopted this from the Regional states states it conquered later on like Gujarat Sultanate, Kashmir Sultanate etc.”

He’s saying that the Mughals inherited an indo muslim tradition which was passed down from various indo muslim predecessors including the Delhi sultanate and other dynasties. And I cited a quote already where he mentioned that majority of India except the extreme south was under indo muslim rule by 1500. The biggest political power in the region at the time was the lodhis and there were various other Muslim dynasties besides them that had controlled territory in India.

I’m not sure what made you think the only dynasties the Mughals inherited the indo muslim tradition from were the ones you mentioned. Do you have a source? You mentioned one about how the power of Indian Muslims reverted to regional powers but I’m not sure how that means they only inherited the tradition from those specific dynasties. Regional kingdoms probably just means all the kingdoms in India, and what does this have to do with the tradition? The Delhi sultanate was essentially the first/second(depends on if you count the ghurids) major Muslim kingdom founded in India. So clearly it began with them and spread. As I mentioned before, the term “indo Muslim” also refers to foreign based rulers according to Richard. So again it extends to not only the Delhi sultanate but various other regional kingdoms in India. However it obviously began with the Delhi sultanate because it was the first Islamic kingdom in India.

“So again, Either give a source which directly goes against the narrative of Mughals being Indo-Muslim or let others decide it”

I already have? But I feel like I know what you mean and let me tell you, that wasn’t the point. Yes satish chandra wasn’t directly talking about the Mughals in the passage I cited, I never made the claim that he did. But it still contradicts the source you cited because it states that the Mughals inherited an indo muslim tradition from its predecessors. But if it’s predecessors did not actually run an indo Muslim state as Satish Chandra clearly states, then there is nothing for the Mughals to inherit in that regard. They couldn’t have been heirs to an “indo Muslim tradition” if it never existed/was irrelevant.

For these reasons I don’t think it should be mentioned in the lead, nor do I think “Indian” should be left in the lead for the reasons I already mentioned in my previous comments. I already gave my suggestion as to what should be done if you still really want to quote what John f Richard writes in the article as a compromise. But you would need to make sure you actually frame both arguments fairly for the readers sake. And even then, I don’t think all that is necessary, just cut what needs to be cut.

also outside of all the other reasons I mentioned, why should we leave it in the lead when we don’t even allow ethnicity in there? I mean I guess you can argue it’s a nationality but I would still say in spirit it seems to be breaking that protocol in this specific context. It doesn’t make sense to leave the Mughals actual ethnicity down below it. That just makes it confusing for the readers who otherwise wouldn’t understand that this is originally a foreign dynasty. Also more clarification would be needed anyway since the first two emperors were not Indian according to Richard. But regardless non of that matters because it shouldn’t be in the lead. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not going to reply in an essay again since this might prolong the talk page and make it very time consuming for the readers, but We may have a confusion here so let's get to the main point, can you quote specifically where does Richard say Mughals "Inherited" the Indo-Muslim nobility from the Delhi sultanate?

I specifically repeat, "delhi sultanate". Because this is where the entire crux of our discussion remains. And that's how you are interpreting it as a "dispute"

Regardless, We can mention Mughals as "Indo-Muslim" because the source which is WP:RS say it. And Satish Chandra nowhere rejects the indo-muslim nobility of theirs, Although this would be different if Richard says Mughals Inherited it from the Delhi sultanate (which i couldn't find). So, it would be good if you give a direct quote of Richard where he says Mughals adopted indo muslim tradition from Delhi sultanate.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is unclear to me why we need to add the term "Indo-muslim" to the lead sentence and the fact that one (or even a few) sources refers to it as such doesn't mean we should include it. The Mughal empire was an empire in South Asia, the majority of its subjects were not muslim, and the majority of its muslim subjects were Indian (i.e., they were both Indo as well as muslim). The Mughal dynasty was muslim, and we should say that, but the empire, not so much. Adding a religious identification to qualify the empire no sense in that context and I suggest leaving it at "was an early modern empire in South Asia" or some such formulation. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  There are several sources I can cite which calls the empire indo-muslim. The sources I cited is WP:RS. John Richards himself says that the dynasty wasn't Indian but the empire indeed belonged to the Indian subcontinent and was Indo-Muslim Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is contesting the existence of sources that call it Indo-muslim. The issue (as Afv12e below also points out) is that the term is too restrictive for the lead. The nuances of the demographic diversity of both the management of the empire as well as the population are better addressed in the article body. The lead is not the place for nuanced terms. RegentsPark (comment) 18:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  How about i mention this in the article's body then? Your suggestion seems good indeed, Though the source is WP:RS, I am ready to remove it from the lead and add it in the article's body if that sounds nice?

  Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're going to need consensus for that as well. Generally, if only some sources use a term, you need to get consensus for how to present that term (why only some sources use it, what are the alternative terms, etc.). But, that's beyond my current time availability and I'll let you all get on with it! RegentsPark (comment) 23:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  There are many sources which use the term "Indo-Muslim" Mughals, I will only cite 3 to not overkill the citation. But i can cite here if you want. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree.

  labeling it solely as an Indo-Muslim empire oversimplifies its rich and multifaceted nature.

  The Mughal Empire was characterized by its assimilation of diverse cultural and religious traditions. Akbar’s court, for instance, was a melting pot of various cultural influences, including Hindu, Jain, Christian, and Zoroastrian representatives. This inclusivity goes beyond the binary of Indo-Muslim synthesis.

  Reference: Abu'l-Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari details the diverse cultural and religious environment fostered by Akbar.

  The Mughals, especially Akbar, adopted policies that promoted religious pluralism and sought to transcend the religious divisions of their time. Akbar’s establishment of Din-i Ilahi was an attempt to create a syncretic religion that included elements from multiple faiths, reflecting a vision that extended beyond a simple Indo-Muslim framework.

  Reference: Akbar’s religious policies are discussed in detail in Vincent A. Smith’s Akbar the Great Mogul, 1542-1605.

  The administrative practices of the Mughal Empire were heavily influenced by Persian, Central Asian, and Indian traditions. The Mughal administrative system, including the Mansabdari system, integrated elements from various cultures and cannot be solely attributed to an Indo-Muslim synthesis.

  Reference: John F. Richards in The Mughal Empire (The New Cambridge History of India) explores the diverse influences on Mughal administration.

  The Mughal military was not exclusively Muslim but included a significant number of Hindu Rajputs and other indigenous groups. The political and military integration of these groups demonstrates that the empire was more inclusive than an Indo-Muslim characterization suggests.

  Reference: Satish Chandra’s Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals highlights the role of Rajputs and other non-Muslim groups in the Mughal military and administration.

  The economic policies of the Mughals, such as Akbar’s zabt system, were designed to integrate various regional practices and cater to the diverse agrarian economy of India. This economic inclusivity indicates a broader integration of Indian economic traditions rather than a simple Indo-Muslim framework.

  Reference: Irfan Habib’s The Agrarian System of Mughal India provides an in-depth analysis of the economic policies of the Mughal Empire Afv12e (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed the Mughal empire was very diverse, culturally rich and secular, But we are talking about "Nobility" here. You quoted Richard John, who Himself calls Mughal empire an "Indian" empire, Moreoever he calls it Indo-Muslim. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind I understand that you don’t want to blungeon the process any further but ignoring all my other points isn’t in your best interest because I’ve already answered the same question you’ve already been asking repeatedly.

again your acting like I didn’t just send you a bunch of quotes. I’m not just talking about the Delhi sultanate. Richard clearly states that the Mughals inherited their indo muslim tradition from the previous indo muslim rulers which not only includes the sultanate but also various other empires within the region. However it obviously began with the Delhi sultanate as I’ve stated because they were the first Islamic kingdom in India.

“By 1500 Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent

save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an

Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.”

The tradition clearly began before the Mughals.

”As heirs to the Indo-Muslim political tradition, the Mughals found

conditions favorable for political centralization.” (2 introduction).

You need to read my re read my comment again for more context. You just asked the same question I was trying to answer.

So again, “indo muslim” or “Indian” should not be mentioned in the lead. Once again I’m back to repeating myself.

Also as regent park already pointed out, even if satish chandra didn’t write anything about this, there is still several issues with leaving it in the lead. It’s too restrictive of a lead and it will only serve to confuse readers. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I did read your response and I didn't ignore any of your quotes. Your entire point revolves around Mughals inheriting the Indo muslim nobility from Delhi sultanate, right? And that Delhi Sultanate wasn't indo muslim so there was no way Mughals would inherit a nobility from someone who didn't belong to it.

The point is, the references you quoted don't seem to point towards it. Does it? It nowhere says that the mughals "inherited" the indo muslim nobility from the Delhi sultanate.

You gave the following quote:

“By 1500 Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.”

Although please quote the page no. Of the quote, the quote indeed is right. Every part of India had been under an Indo muslim rule, Bengal sultanate in Bihar, Jharkand and Bengal, Jaunpur sultanate in Uttar pradesh, Deccan sultanates, Gujarat sultanate, Madurai sultanate in the south and so on.

Your next quote was:

”As heirs to the Indo-Muslim political tradition, the Mughals found

conditions favorable for political centralization.” (2 introduction).

However this nowhere seems to say that the Mughals adopted this tradition from the Delhi sultanate either. Like I said, it could be through the regional states it conquered. This is clearly WP:OR unless you provide a claim which specifically says Mughals adopted the Indo-Muslim nobility from the Delhi sultanate?

So it quite seems like this is perhaps your own interpretation. And I don't see Satish Chandra anywhere contradicting Mughals being Indo-Muslim. And indeed Regent park is right and maybe I should remove it from the lead and add it to the body article. I am ready to do that. But I am not at all ready to accept the claim that Mughals being an Indo muslim nobility is disputed. Atleast based on our discussion. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I no longer believe the fact that you cared about bludgeoning the process, because you’re still willing to write long responses to me whilst ignoring the previous points I made. It seems like you’re cherry-picking the responses because most of your points were refuted quite comprehensively which is why you didn’t bother to respond to majority of the comment I posted. This is irritating because every-time you end up asking me the same question I’ve already answered.

“Your entire point revolves around the Mughals inheriting indo muslim nobility from delhi sultanate right?” See? Exactly why I told you to read my comment before responding. I just said that indo Muslim was a broad term for Muslim kingdoms in India so it included not only the Delhi sultanate but also the every other Islamic empire in the region And I literally pointed this out. I never said the Mughals only inherited from one kingdom in particular. It was an amalgamation of dynasties. I do believe it’s very well possibly that a indo muslim state first began with the Delhi sultanate, but that’s irrelevant and I’m not saying the Mughals only inherited it from that one kingdom. First let me quote you and than myself.

“So how can he say Mughals adopted it from Delhi sultanate? He doesn't say that. The Mughals adopted this from the Regional states states it conquered later on like Gujarat Sultanate, Kashmir Sultanate etc.”

He’s saying that the Mughals inherited an indo muslim tradition which was passed down from various indo muslim predecessors including the Delhi sultanate and other dynasties. And I cited a quote already where he mentioned that majority of India except the extreme south was under indo muslim rule by 1500.”

I said that they inherited an Indo Muslim tradition from their predecessors which included the Delhi sultanate, and any other Islamic dynasty in the region like for example the bahmani sultanate. I didn’t say that it specifically came from one dynasty in particular which is why I mentioned “other dynasties”. Although I don’t believe Richard specified that the Delhi sultanate was the only indo Muslim kingdom that they could have inherited from. He’s saying the Indo Muslim tradition was something that was spread all throughout the subcontinent except the extreme south. As you can see from the quote, I mentioned “other Islamic dynasties” because the Delhi sultanate was not the only Indo Muslim kingdom according to Richard.

to go further, I supported this point using Richards quote.

“By 1500 Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.” (Chapter 2 introduction).

Previously you made the claim that indo muslim was a term exclusively used for Indian Muslim kingdoms and not foreign ones. You were wrong there as indo muslim includes foreign born rulers according to Richard. This included the lodhi dynasty(Delhi sultanate) which was the dominate power in the north. So yes this mentions various dynasties including Delhi. This is going to be more important later.

Anyway the point is, the Mughals inherited the indo Muslim tradition from their predecessors which Richard clearly specifies. Obviously indo Muslim tradition would have had to begin with the delhi sultanate because they were the first Islamic kingdom there but even if you must contend that point, it doesn’t really matter because my point is that they inherited it from their predecessors. It was an amalgamation, not just a singular dynasty.

If you think this tradition came from a specific regional kingdom instead then you would need to cite a source. In fact I feel I should ask, when and where do you think an indo Muslim nobility was actually formed? Obviously it doesn’t really matter for my arguments sake because it doesn’t need to be from the Delhi sultanate for this to work, however, what other dynasty would have formed the first indo Muslim state?(to clarify, I’m not saying the Mughals that tradition only from them) Satish chandra also clearly mentions that the “indo Muslim” nobility was first said to begin in the Delhi sultanate after the Khilji revolution, which he later refutes.

Going back to the important point I mentioned previously. Your definition of indo Muslim clearly differs from Richards definition of indo Muslim. I wrote about this but this was one of the many arguments that were ignored.

“By 1500 Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.”

Your definition of indo Muslim just seems to be “Indian Muslim” as you’ve stated before but that’s clearly not the case here with Richard because he mentions foreign indo Muslim rulers. So I think you might be possibly misinterpreting Richards source. I’d be curious to know what his actual definition of indo muslim is.

anyway there is clearly a contradiction here. Mughals couldn’t have been heirs to a tradition if it never existed according to Chandra.

Anyway my main contention was leaving in the lead anyway. If you’re going to add it to the body, make sure you take into consideration all of our suggestions. Regent also mentioned the fact that the empire was actually very diverse and should not be seen as “indo muslim” as its an oversimplification so even if you want to add it to the body, you need to make sure you present all arguments including the fact that the fact that the empire perhaps may not have been indo Muslim, not just according to Chandra, but also based on the fact that it was a diverse empire with a Hindu population ruled by a foreign population. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You are again replying with the same quotes to which I have already responded to. I obviously don't want to buldgeoning the process, But you are replying with the same quotes/references I have already responded to.

Indo-Muslim nobility indeed existed before Mughals, Not in delhi sultanate but in other regional sultanates of India indeed. But Richard specifically nowhere says Mughals 'inherited" it from the Delhi sultanate. It says they Inherited it from their predecessors. There were many predecessors of the mughals, many of whom were Indo-Muslim. So there is no contradiction here. Also not to mention the fact that Satish Chandra nowhere goes against the narrative of Mughals being "Indo-muslim". Anyways, Like i said, I will remove it to the lead based on what Regent has said but will add it to the article's body.

"It was a diverse empire ruled by a foreign population". That is mentioned in the article in several places, Mughals were timurids, so that simply not needs to be mentioned. Though I will indeed mention in the article's body that:

"Mughals were Indo-Muslims, although some scholars point this out that they Inherited it from the Delhi sultanate, But Delhi sultanate according to some scholars wasn't Indo-muslim to begin with (citing Satish Chandra), So the inheritance of the nobility from who exactly by the Mughals is debated".

This is the least I can mention.

"He’s saying that the Mughals inherited an indo muslim tradition which was passed down from various indo muslim predecessors including the Delhi sultanate and other dynasties. And I cited a quote already where he mentioned that majority of India except the extreme south was under indo muslim rule by 1500.”

You included the term "delhi sultanate" there. Where does it specifically says "Including the Delhi sultanate"? That is WP:OR. Moreover much of India being under Indo-muslim rule can't specifically refer to delhi sultanate once again, since every region had been under an Indo-Islamic rule.

The more we are discussing, the more i am realising that there is no contradiction. I can't even see where Satish Chandra specifically says Mughals weren't Indo-Muslims, one thing which he indeed says is "delhi sultanate wasn't indo muslim". But like I said, then I am unable to see where Richard John specifically says Mughals inherited the nobility only from the Delhi sultanate. I don't see a single contradiction. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Regentspark has made it pretty clear that you need consensus if you want to add in the body paragraph. You don’t have consensus yet, so you shouldn’t be adding it until consensus is reached.

As for the rest of your arguments, it’s getting ridiculous because you basically just did the same thing again, IE ignore majority of the points I made and cherry pick the ones you want to respond to.

“You included the term "delhi sultanate" there. Where does it specifically says "Including the Delhi sultanate"? That is WP:OR. Moreover much of India being under Indo-muslim rule can't specifically refer to delhi sultanate once again, since every region had been under an Indo-Islamic rule”

So first and foremost, you never answered my question conveniently. But I’ll get to that in a second. I didn’t say it used the exact words “including the Delhi sultanate”. I just wrote that so you would understand that Richard is saying all these dynasties were indo muslim and that was the legacy that the Mughals inherited. I’m not saying it comes from the Delhi sultanate specifically, that’s what you’re misinterpreting and something I’ll get to in a second.

“By 1500 Hindu society in nearly every region of the subcontinent save the extreme south was conditioned to accept the authority of an Indo-Muslim ruler - whether of foreign or Indian origin.”

In 1500, the Delhi sultanate still controlled north India and was a dominant power. Every region except the south was ruled by the south according to Richard. So clearly the Delhi sultanate is implied to be “indo muslim” according to Richard. Let’s go through more evidence.

“Delhi was especially fitting as the old

Indo-Muslim center of empire in North India. The author of an early

eighteenth century geographical compendium observed, “[Delhi] was

always the dar al-mulk [seat of the empire] of the great sultans and the

center of the circle of Islam [markaz-i dairah Islam]." 19 The tombs and

monumental buildings of the early conquerors of Hind were to be

found there.” That’s about as clear as can be. (The online archive of the book is a little messed up but the page is between the numbers 123-126, some parts of it are glitched out making it difficult to see the actual page number but that’s where it is.

Now I can get back to my previous question that you didn’t answer. Which is, where exactly do you think indo muslim identity first formed? Because it clearly doesn’t mention anything there in the text supporting your claim that it came from regional kingdoms outside of the Delhi sultanate. If you’re going to write another answer to this comment without addressing any of the questions I have, then I’m just going to keep asking them.

another thing I pointed out which you ignored is the fact that your definition of indo muslim differs from Richard definition of indo muslim. Previously you claimed that “indo muslim” is not a term used to describe foreigners, only “Indian Muslims”. But clearly Richard disagrees with your definition because he specified that indo Muslim rulers could be foreign or native. The fact that richards definition of “indo muslim” greatly differs from your your own is a key point I’ve been trying to make, because clearly you have misinterpreted his definition.

this argument is getting pointless and a little irrelevant given the new events that transpired in the talk page. You can disagree all you want but now we will see the consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: Usage of "Indo-Muslim" in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to use the term "Indo-Muslim." SnowFire (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

---

There has been edit warring over the past weeks over whether or not to use the wording of "Indo-Muslim" in the lead, particularly in the first sentence. (see rev 1224577943 for example) There was a previous discussion over whether or not to include it [2] but little consensus was achieved, perhaps on the side of not including it but the opposing side kept adding the wording. The wording was later moved to the second paragraph of the lead [3] but this may be controversial as well.

1. Use the wording of "Indo-Muslim" in the first sentence as done in revision 1224577943
2. Mention the wording of "Indo-Muslim" later on in the lead but not in the first sentence as done in revision 1225236552
3. Do not use the wording of "Indo-Muslim" at all.

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Added category "Religion and philosophy" (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Isolated term. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC}
• Option 2. Mehedi Abedin 11:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 seems better. There are numerous sources such as which calls it Indo-muslim. And John F. Richard is an esteemed historian renowned for his expertise in Mughal history, making his work WP:RS. Moreover Sources mentioning Mughals as "Indian Mughal dynasty" or "Indian Mughal Empire" & "Mughal Indian Empire" proving the empire to be Indo-muslim: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The dynasty indeed was foreign but the empire was definetly Indo-muslim. All are WP:RS sources. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 No reason for inclusion has been given and the references above (I am definitely not impressed by the WP:REFBOMB) are dubious. Take the first two, for example. All they are saying is that the Mughal Empire was in "India". Since that India doesn't exist anymore, our formulation ("in South Asia") captures this perfectly. Indo, or Indian, in the context of the Mughal empire which also spanned modern Pakistan and Bangladesh, just doesn't fit. RegentsPark (comment) 16:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 short synthetic labels are always fraught and "Indo-Muslim" is especially so. What is the "Indo" part supposed to denote: the geographic location of the empire (for which, as RegentParks indicates, South Asian is preferable) or the "character" or non-colonial nature of the empires as in the Richards quote (in which case, one needs to spell it out as Richards does)? And does "Muslim" refer to the religion of the Mughal emperors, subject or the state? Both the article lede and body can discuss the geography and character of the empire without trying to label it as something that has little to no currency in the relevant literature and is more likely to to mislead than edify the reader.

PS: how are the citations listed by by Malik-Al-Hind, which are the result of simply searching JSTOR for "Indian Mughal dynasty" and "Indian Mughal empire", relevant to the discussion? Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 3: Outside of the fact that there is a source which clearly contradicts the one that was cited in the article(I’ve already given went over that point many times), I’m going to focus on a few other major issues.

Firstly Maliks definition of “indo muslim” doesn’t even seem to match Richards. That user stated that indo muslim means “Indian muslim” and doesn’t apply to other ethnicities but as I’ve already cited, “indo “

Muslim” can include foreign based dynasties as well according to the author. So it’s like abecedare is asking, what does indo muslim even mean in this context? We would essentially be leaving a term inside the lead that we don’t even truly understand.

There’s just no reason for an inclusion. I can probably further explain if needed but I’ve already went over this.

The question is, does it serve to benefit the reader, or not? In my opinion, all it would succeed in doing is confusing and misleading them. Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 as described by RegentsPark and Abecedare

— DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 19:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Unclear and uncommon term as mentioned above. Regarding the meaning, the location is already clear in the lead. If the aim is to cover Islam in some more explicit fashion, it would be better to craft something a bit clearer to casual readers. CMD (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 No sources that use this specific term have been provided. The ones listed above by u:Malik-Al-Hind use different terms ("Indian Mughal dynasty" or "Indian Mughal Empire" & "Mughal Indian Empire"). I'd reconsider my !vote if this term is shown to be widely used. Until then let's simply explain that the empire was located in India and its rulers were Muslim. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Common language' in infobox

IMO we either need some (sourced!) gloss about the languages included in the infobox along the lines that Arimaboss added in this edit or we should exclude the field from the infobox altogether and discuss the issue in the body of the article instead. As it stands the infobox claims that Hindustani, Persian, Chagatai and Arabic are common languages of the Mughal empire and it is unclear what that means (common amongst the population, commonly used in administration/court, or...?) Can we briefly discuss the issue here and arrive at a consensus?

(A similar issue arises for the Religion field in the infobox too where it is unclear whether we are talking about the religion of the emperors, state, or population but lets start with the language question first.) Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

All this is true, & the answer is that such complicated matters should be excluded from the infobox (like the endlessly-debated "official name" - see above). Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare, Per the documentation at Infobox country and the example provided, the common_languages parameter needs the common languages of the region and the official language parameter needs the official language. And the religion is supposed to be the common religion(s) in the region. Also I don't see why you should remove the Grand Vizier parameter as it a long-standing one and all former country articles mention the deputies/representatives. Also as a side note, the official name can't be excluded from the infobox as it is a mandatory parameter. PadFoot2008 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that {{Infobox former country}} supports a field for "official language" but perhaps its just not documented. In any case, do do we have sources for the common and the official language(s) of the Mughal Empire? Once we know how they discuss the topic we can decide whether to include it in the infobox and/or the article body. (To keep the discussion in this section focussed lets table the discussion about the other infobox fields.) Abecedare (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes the infobox does support those parameters. As for sources, have a look at this [29]. PadFoot2008 11:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd prefer if we can find a source by an actual specialist in Mughal history because, although Verghese may well be right, searching Google Books for a particular "fact" (as in "official language of Mughal Hindustani language") always risks hitting upon some random work that makes that claim, whether justifiably or not. But I'll let others chime in for now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Mughal Empire spanned 400 years and the notion of common languages probably shifted in that span. Chagatai might have been spoken by the early Mughals but unlikely that it was spoken by the common people or by the later Mughals. Arabic is also unlikely to be widespread. My guess is that Hindustani and Persian are the only likely common language candidates. As I express above ("official name"), I think it is better not to use a field rather than to do so just because it exists. RegentsPark (comment) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • 400?? That takes you (from 1526) to 1926. Effectively all imperial power was lost before the 200th anniversary. But you are right. We are of course (as usual) ignoring Tamil and all the languages of the south. It's too complicated for an infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    Poor (basic) math skills obviously :) RegentsPark (comment) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Title of Mughal monarch

Additionally, @Abecedare, you had asked about 'which convention' I was following when I changed Emperor to Shahenshah. When titles like Sultan, Shahenshah, Shah, Nawab, etc. was used by a dynasty, then that is preferred over King or Emperor. See Ottoman Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Sassanid Empire, Pahlavi Iran, Oudh State. PadFoot2008 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Afaik:

1. Each individual Mughal emperor adopted personalized boroque title(s) (as on Humayun's tomb)
2. English-language history books commonly refer to the Mughal rulers as emperors rather than using the term 'Shahenshah' (contrast with even English language books on Russian history using Tsar/Czar rather than emperor)

Can you provide some evidence to establish that Shahenshah is the term preferred by HISTRS sources that we aim to reflect? Abecedare (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked German Empire. I think "Emperor" is fine here (similar to the German Empire infobox). PadFoot2008 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mind, it's not all reliable sources, but specifically English-language reliable sources that we survey when deciding which names to use. Remsense诉 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

Rename the heading of Mughal empire to "empire of hindustan" or "Hindustani empire" as it was before. They called themselves the Hindustani empire , and this term has been used in various other pages which redirect here. TuberGotTubed (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the infobox header rather than the page title, please participate in the above discussions on the same info to gain consensus to change the header — edit requests are not for making potentially controversial edits, and they should provide sources as well to support the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Mughal Empire is Hindustan ?

The Mughal Empire, also historically referred as Hindustan

This first sentence seems ambiguous and Hindustan is an ancient term much before Mughals Persian used call present day india. Afv12e (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous and that was the closest name of the Empire. The term "Hindustan" is of Persian origin, it's a persian word for the Indic word "Sindhu". This was the the other name of the Mughal empire, As the empire expanded, so did "Hindustan" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sir,

Mughal entity was Hindoostan هندوستان during 1526-1858.

Before that term was held by Lodhis. Abirtel (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan was the 2nd official term of the Mughal empireMalik-Al-Hind (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche I still don't understand why are you removing it from the lead? It was the 2nd official term of the empire. Even the name section only talks about hindustan. I had a discussion with @Ramsense over this yesterday and he himself agreed to put it. As long as there is only 1 name, There is no need of footnote. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I made it a footnote, which is the more proper solution. Please see my edit summary of my latest edit for more info. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Please relax, it's really not that big of a difference, let it stay in a footnote if other editors disagree. There's more important things to worry about. Remsense诉 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not the WP:ENDOFTHEWORLD if you can't always get your way, Malik-Al-Hind. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My point is, Footnoting only occurs when there are more names and terms. If you really want to footnote it, then add more names, But no need to do that since I did that already. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Our point is: it matters even more that you're able to collaborate with others, and that sometimes involves points that aren't exactly how you like them. Whether you intend it or not, that often fosters a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Just let it be for now. Remsense诉 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In Arabic it was Hindiyyah

In persian it was Hindoostan

In Urdu (Historic Hindi) it was also Hindoostan ہندوستان Abirtel (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abirtel, in addition to the extra names being unnecessary, you continue to cite primary sources for them, which are unideal for these claims at best. We don't interpret primary sources ourselves, we have secondary sources do that for us. You need to find a work of modern scholarship that says this name was used, not go to a contemporary book of poetry and interpret it yourself. Remsense诉 12:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned citations can be verified from Primary sources. So they are not technically primary sources.

I think as a multilingual empire it is very much informative to add autonymous names of that specific entity.

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you're making a very specific claim about historical importance and provenance that is not what the primary source is itself saying. That is your additional interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY. Remsense诉 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think when an emperor himself used a specific term in his epithet, then we can reasonably conclude that term was the endonymous identity of that entity.

If you have still doubt, with due respect you can verify the titles of Emperor Akbar, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb page of Arabic wikipedia.

Arabic speaking lands knew mughal entity as Hindiyyah. Abirtel (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No one wants to take your or my word for that. If that's certain to be the case, you can find a secondary source that says it explicitly. Remsense诉 12:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also totally unacceptable to quietly readd the material as if this conversation has been resolved with acknowledgement of site content guidelines. Remsense诉 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

okay Abirtel (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox official name

Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, you recently reverted my edit so I opened this discussion. You weren't pretty clear on what you meant by "no need" in you edit summary. Per the documentation in Template: Infobox country :

{{Infobox country
|micronation = <!--yes if a micronation-->
|conventional_long_name = <!--Formal or official full name of the country in English-->

You can see that the conventional_long_name parameter requires the official name not the common name which is already mentioned as the first word in the lead and the title. PadFoot2008 03:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We've always (as far as I know) had the infobox header for this article as "Mughal Empire" even if that is technically not the "offical name". I don't think the conventional long name should be confused with the native name, which in this case if in English would be Hindustan, whereas the conventional long name would just be Mughal Empire — it's fine if the article title and the infobox title are the same. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, If something has been wrong for a long time that doesn't automatically make it correct. It's not fine if we are using the wrong thing. The conventional long name is Hindustan and the common name is Mughal empire. Look at West Germany, Soviet Union, Ottoman Empire, Sassanian Empire or especially British Raj. PadFoot2008 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see those examples — I know what an official name is, and I'm not saying we shouldn't use the official name in the infobox. It's just not really clear what the official name is here, and Hindustan seems to be the short version, not the long version, as the name section says. Maybe change the infobox title to "Dominion of Hindustan"? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. PadFoot2008 03:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, I think we should perhaps use the English translation of Bilad-i-Hind: Land of Hindustan, Country of Hindustan or Empire of Hindustan. Wilayat can mean multiple things and it's translation doesn't appear very accurate. Bilād seems to be much more an official designation of a country and used very commonly. PadFoot2008 04:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So which one is it? Empire of Hindustan seems the best choice here if you don't want to use the existing name. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best choice as well. PadFoot2008 05:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, one more thing, per convention, as you will see in the above-mentioned articles as well as other articles, the official name is mentioned in the lead as well, in the following construct: "The (Article name), officially the (official name), was ..." PadFoot2008 09:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, for now, let's use just "Hindustan" in the infobox and the lede paragraph. "Empire of Hindustan" is, as of now, not sourced until I find sources. Additionally, many modern-day countries articles like Japan and Malaysia use a single word official name in the infobox, as well as former country article infoboxes like Canada (New France). PadFoot2008 04:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've reverted the change because I don't see any sources that call this empire the "Empire of Hindustan". Please attempt to get consensus here. RegentsPark (comment) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please provide reliable sources that clearly state in English that the empire was officially called "Empire of Hindustan". Note the emphasis on official and on English, both are required. RegentsPark (comment) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are sources which specifically calls it "Dominion of Hindustan" Or "Sultanate of Hindustan" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Malik-Al-Hind, RegentsPark asked for sources on "Empire of Hindustan", not those. PadFoot2008 08:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. I know regentspark asked sources for "Empire of Hindustan". But I think "Sultanate of Hindustan" is pretty much "Empire of Hindustan" if translated to English. Moreover, Even if this is still an issue, can't we add "Dominion of Hindustan" and "Sultanate Of Hindustan" on the infobox? Because this is well sourced. I don't know about specific mention of "Empire of Hindustan". Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Empire of Hindoostan would be Riyasat -i- Hindoostan ریاستِ ہندوستان

  In persian. Abirtel (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Malik-Al-Hind, Sultanate of Al-Hind (Not Sultanate of Hindustan) would be a primary source and we don't have a secondary source explicitly mentioning it as an "official name" as of now. I'd like to find a better source for "Dominion of Hindustan" for now. I think we should use just "Hindustan" in the infobox for now and in the lede as well (official name of the state is mentioned by convention in the lede). PadFoot2008 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I kind of agree. But how is the source for "Dominion of Hindustan" not good enough? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Malik-Al-Hind, I am going to include the citation from that source in this article a bit later. That source includes half a dozen different names which the imperial administrative records used, but we don't know which one is the primary one, so it would be better to find more sources for the same before adding the same. So should I add "Hindustan" to the infobox and lede? PadFoot2008 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, As long as we are still finding other sources. Add "Hindustan" in the lead/infobox.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Please desist from adding alternate names in the lede and infobox w/o discussing the sources (and relevant quotes) on the talkpage to ensure that they satisfy both WP:RS and WP:DUE. We don't want to end up with WP:OR or cherry-picking trivial mentions from random Google/GBooks/JSTOR hits. If some information is worthy of including in the lede or infobox it should be easy to source from one of the many standard academic texts that focus on the subject of this article, ie, the Mughal empire. Abecedare (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hindustan is already been there but to mention in infobox i dont think it will add value because Hindustan is not merely for the mughal empire but more of a geographical connotation. Every power that ruled Delhi use to called them ruler of Hindustan (because delhi been the epicenter) one way or the other for instance Delhi Sultanate. And also now, Hindustan is much more a geographical connotation rather than the name for particular realm. Curious man123 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. The Name section of the article does mention "Hindustan" as "an official name for the empire was Hindustan, which was documented in the Ain-i-Akbari" but that is not what the cited source says exactly. Instead Eugenia Vanina says that in Ain-i-Akbari the term Hindustan was used in several senses: to refer to an entity "coterminus with India"; the area between Ganga and Jamuna; and, the core of the Mughal empire. And that it was only later that the meaning broadened and "to a considerable effect was an official name of the empire as such." Abecedare (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Abecedare, The thing is that we can not have "Mughal Empire" in the conventional_long_name parameter in the infobox. That parameter is for the official name which "Mughal Empire" was definitely not, as clearly mentioned in the source. Hindustan was not the official name of the Delhi Sultanate. On the other hand, Hindustan was indeed the official name of this entity. If sources are in question, I can without any problem provide the same. Hindustan was the official name and so per rules, must be mentioned in the top parameter of the infobox. Hindustan is not an alternate name but the official name here. PadFoot2008 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  The conventional long name parameter is not a required parameter (I've blanked it for the time being). You should only fill it if there is an actual English language official name and if the sourcing is excellent. RegentsPark (comment) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't use "Empire Of Hindustan". Can't we just use "Dominion of Hindustan" or just "Hindustan" perMalik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well I couldn't find any mention of "Dominion of Hindustan" in any of these sources, and there was no mention of Hindustan in your second source and only a quick mention in the first. There needs to be much better sourcing, as RegentsPark said, and a definite prominent long name between these sources. There's too much conflicting information over whether it is Empire of Hindustan, Dominion, or just Hindustan. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can't we mention all these then? My third source clearly says how Hindustan was the "official" name of the empire. And besides that it clearly says

• "Later, the meaning of 'Hindustan broadened with the expansion of the Mughal empire and to a considerable extent was an official name of the empire as such, while the term 'Mughal' was not used for this purpose. The regions of India which were not a part of the empire or hosted anti-Mughal movements were never attributed to "Hindustan'. After the disintegration of the empire, 'Hindustan' was applied to the territories that remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Padishahs (Bayly 1998: 39-41)."

-Eugenia Vanina in Page 47

The other source of mine also clearly states:

"Mughal administrative records were moreover not for public circulation. In referring to Muslims, writers would use such expressions as ummat-i Islam (the community of Islam), or ahl-i Islam (the people of Islam) or simply musalmänän (Mussulmans): in referring to their habitat, terms such as Bilad-i-Hind (the country of Hind), wilayat-I-Hindüstan (the dominion of Hindustan), sultanat-i mamlikat-i Dihli (sultanate of the country of Delhi), mumalik-i mahrüsa (the fortified or protected countries, i.e. those ruled by a sovereign), were used. The three categories of reference, the personal, the spañal and the political, were not conflated"

-Nehemia Levtzion in page 69

• So My question is. Can't we mention these two i.e Hindustan and Dominion/Empire of Hindustan? Like in the case of Safavid Iran? There are also 3 names used in the infobox there. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so. Though the Mughals may have used these terms to reference their "habitat", there is no evidence that these were official names of the country. These are already mentioned in the section titled "Name", and that is the appropriate place for them. RegentsPark (comment) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if you read the references i gave but I will share it once again.

"Later, the meaning of 'Hindustan broadened with the expansion of the Mughal empire and to a considerable extent was an official name of the empire as such, while the term 'Mughal' was not used for this purpose. The regions of India which were not a part of the empire or hosted anti-Mughal movements were never attributed to "Hindustan'. After the disintegration of the empire, 'Hindustan' was applied to the territories that remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Padishahs (Bayly 1998: 39-41)."

-Eugenia Vanina in Page 47

It clearly says "To the considerable extent was the official name of the empire"

Moreover my other sources:

"Mughal administrative records were moreover not for public circulation. In referring to Muslims, writers would use such expressions as ummat-i Islam (the community of Islam), or ahl-i Islam (the people of Islam) or simply musalmänän (Mussulmans): in referring to their habitat, terms such as Bilad-i-Hind (the country of Hind), wilayat-I-Hindüstan (the dominion of Hindustan), sultanat-i mamlikat-i Dihli (sultanate of the country of Delhi), mumalik-i mahrüsa (the fortified or protected countries, i.e. those ruled by a sovereign), were used. The three categories of reference, the personal, the spañal and the political, were not conflated"

-Nehemia Levtzion in page 69

It clearly says "Mughal administrative records" used these names i.e The court records. So they are clearly above anything else here. Like I said, we can just add "Hindustan" and "Dominion of Hindustan" in the infobox. Because Hindustan clearly was the official name of the empire while "Dominion/Vilayat of Hindustan" was used in several court records. So We can use more than 1 name like in the case of Safavid Iran. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Malik-Al-Hind, "considerable extent" is a qualifier which implies uncertainty. As for the second reference, if administrative records used these terms, that doesn't mean that they were official. Once again, please don't use the infobox as a dumping ground for uncertain information because it is important for Wikipedia to be right. There is an entire article below for dealing with nuances. RegentsPark (comment) 14:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The reference clearly says "Hindustan" was the official name of Mughal empire to a considerable extent, I agree this has uncertainty, but This is still way better than putting "Mughal empire" in the infobox. Because this name was not the official name of the empire at all, Infact the term "Mughal" wasn't even used for the empire as whole.

  Moreover my reference clearly states:

  The regions of India which were not a part of the empire or "hosted anti-Mughal movements were never attributed to "Hindustan'. After the disintegration of the empire, ''Hindustan' was applied to the territories that remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Padishahs

  This clearly states how those territories which weren't under the empire were never called as "Hindustan", Moreover in the end it clearly says how Hindustan applied to those territories which remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi padishahs. And this has no uncertainty here.

  And as for the Administrative records, they were court records and they are above anything else here. Even if this is uncertain (which it doesn't look like but let us agree for the sake of this discussion) then it is still way better than putting "Mughal empire" in the infobox. Because this is closer to the actual truth. As we know, "Mughal empire" is a modern name given to the empire by historians. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like much else on the internet, you will find references for anything. The point is that we don't have certainty, actually far from it, what the "official" name of the empire was, whether different emperors used the same or different administrative name (often, probably, different names in the same administration), etc. What we do know is that the common name of the entity, as it is known today, is "Mughal empire" and that is one that is overwhelmingly used by academic sources. Therefore, we should stick to Mughal empire as the common name and refrain from including an official one. It isn't necessary to use the conventional_long_name parameter, just use common_name.RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Dominion of hindustan

As mentioned in the #Name of the article . The official name of the empire was Wilāyat-i-Hindustān , which is the Dominion/empire/sultanate of hindustan.

Chinese sources also mention it as Hindustan.

The official name should be changed to "Domination of Hindustan" while the common name should be kept as Mughal Empire .

The same problem is with the Mauryas , where they called their land Jumbudvipa and never called themselves as mauryas.

TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the prior discussion above on this topic and continue there if you have some new sources or arguments to present. Abecedare (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes Mughal Empire right? Just because it has been used for a long time doesn't make it right. Sure empire of hindustan might not be 100% correct either

But its way better than Mughal , a term never used by the "Mughals"

At this point just change it to "hindustan" and wait until we discover something about the prefix (empire or dominion or Sultanate) TuberGotTubed (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion would violate wikipedia's core policies of WP:V and WP:DUE; we can't just make up placeholder facts. Keep in mind that content presented to the reader is not dictated by any internal documentation or fieldname for some infobox template but by content policies. And following those, we use "Mughal Empire" because that is the terms reliable sources overwhelmingly use to refer to the empire. Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Including Vakil-i-Mutlaq in the infobox

the Vakil-i-Mutlaq should be included in the infobox. This is an important position in the Mughal Court. If the grand vizier is included, I dont see a reason not to include the Vakil. SKAG123 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Dominion of Hindustan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was called the Dominion of Hindustan

As it has been sourced by me and in the article name section aswell

It is the closest we have, so why don't we use it? Mughal was never used by it.

I have seen earlier talk topics regarding this? Why is this stibprness here?

The British Raj is officially called "India" , so why not Mughals?

Please allow me to change it , i don't want to wage in an edit war. PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You were asked to read the existing discussions in the archives of this talk page before asking everyone to go through the same arguments again. Remsense诉 19:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read other topic page regarding this "hindustan dominion", and there seems to be no conclusion, the conversations have ended abruptly , all the conclusion i found is that " hindustan Dominion" is the closest term. Theres no else term that was used as widely as that historically

The emperors of Mughal empire were called "Emperor of Hindustan"

Mughal was never used by the empire ,I have no idea what the hell is this even about? How is Mughal any better than hindustan dominion, it's basically false information which is being masqueraded as real because "Mughal" has been there for a "long time". PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you don't get your way. It is wrong to continue to change the article if you can't convince anyone why it should be so. Wikipedia operates via consensus. No one wants to repeat basic site policy like WP:COMMONNAME to you over and over. Remsense诉 19:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hindustani Empire

The empire was called Dominion of Hindustan or the Country Of Hindustan

Hindustan refers to India (subcontinent)in English

So change the infobox name to either

Dominion/Empire of Hindustan

Or Empire of India (for English name ) PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You would need to first establish which "official name" is the most prevalent in reliable sources, and if there is no clearly prevalent official name, it's perfectly fine leaving the parameter blank. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure "Mughal Empire" is the most widely used terms, but just like the Ottoman Empire , they are historically called "turkish empire"

While Mughals are historically called "Hindustani empire" I will get some source and get back to you. PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hindostan refers only Mughal entity before British.

Republic India (Even the word India is actually a latinised for of Hindiyyah which was the name of Mughal empire in Arabic) does not officially hold Hindostan. Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sikh Misls as a successor state (of Punjab)

Hi,

I had previously added the Sikh Misls and the later Sikh Empire in the "Succeeded by" list of the Infobox, and saw that it was removed... Can anyone explain why?

I see that a similar question was raised for the Maratha Confederacy, however, I don't believe the same arguments would work in the case of the Sikh Misls... AnyBurro9312 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you think analogous arguments would apply? Remsense诉 07:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it's misleading to suggest that the end of the Mughal Empire heralded the introduction of the British Rule over India when there's roughly a whole century's worth of intermediary history that's getting skipped over.

I read your perspective on the matter of the infobox and how it would be confusing to the layman reader, but at the risk of "summarizing" history for the infobox, the article risks being historical inaccurate when it suggests that the British rule "succeeded" the Mughals. In doing so, it completely undermines the rise and fall of Sikh rule over Punjab.

The other issue is that the coin argument doesn't apply in the matter of the Sikh Misls because coins minted during this time featured either Sikh religious figures or writing in the Punjabi language rather than any of the former Mughals.

The infobox ought to list out the various territories that rose to power after the Mughals in the name of accuracy. If a layman reader is confused, then that's fine, because history is often confusing. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not myself made any "coin argument".

Because it's misleading to suggest that the end of the Mughal Empire heralded the introduction of the British Rule over India when there's roughly a whole century's worth of intermediary history that's getting skipped over.

In the broadest strokes, this was the case. The decline of the Mughals during the 18th and 19th centuries is a story featuring many important polities and events filling the vacuum during what was ultimately a broad Mughal → British transition, but the Sikh Empire is broadly analogous to the Marathas here, as it was dissolved into the Raj before the end of Company rule following a longer campaign to achieve that result.

The infobox ought to list out the various territories that rose to power after the Mughals in the name of accuracy.

No it should not. That is far too complex a task, and an infobox cannot contain that. If it does, it is a deluge of contextless, conflationary information that is useless for a general audience, as the arcane diagram is unexplained to them even excusing its size.

We have an article to properly talk about these things! Read the article! Remsense诉 00:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

but the Sikh Empire is broadly analogous to the Marathas here, as it was dissolved into the Raj before the end of Company rule following a longer campaign to achieve that result.

I don't dispute that the Sikh Empire was annexed into the British rule, since this is a matter of history. However it very clearly succeeded Mughal rule over Punjab for ~100 years, therefore it is a successor to the Mughal Empire (at least over Punjab).

That is far too complex a task, and an infobox cannot contain that. If it does, it is a deluge of contextless, conflationary information that is useless for a general audience, as the arcane diagram is unexplained to them even excusing its size.

Out of curiosity, why is this "too complex of a task"? It's just appending a name to a series of links? In terms of usefulness for a general audience, I fail to see how you've arrived at the conclusion that the layman reader would find this information "useless". And if this is a problem of a lack of proper explanation, then why can't the complexity of the matter be explained? I doubt we're the first people to realize the complexity of post-Mughal empires in South Asia. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Did Sikh rule fully separated from Hindostan or it accepted the Delhi rulers as ceremonial head? Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you define "Hindostan" in this context?

The answer is likely no because my use of "Sikh rule" refers to the "Sarkar-e-Khalsa", which would have viewed Lahore as it's capital and Maharaja Ranjit Singh (and his successors) as their rules instead. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Succession section in infobox

After 1719, over the period of time Hyderabad State, Carnatic Sultanate, Bengal Subah and Oudh State become independent state. So i suggest to include all this state in infobox as this are not some region and have imp area in terms of history. Curious man123 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems plausible

As long as u could provide the evidence those kingdoms really inherit the administrations from Mughal empire 139.193.50.17 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

All that state i mention have amply references, in there respective article, of being Autonomous in there administration and was considered an independent state in every sphere of administration and were sovereign in terms of decision making. Curious man123 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok i think its fine. Dont forget to cite the reference to for eaxch of them 139.193.50.17 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If there are not rebuttal, i assume we can add that on Succession list Curious man123 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The mentioned states are not successors, they nominally remained a part of the Empire. The other IP is might be the same editor. Also IP support generally doesn't count as talk consensus. PadFoot2008 16:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 There was no such as nominal rule over these states. Aforementioned state have a sovereign rule over the area and there were no say of mughal emperor in the administration, tax collection, going war with anyone and these are the credentials of a sovereignty. Yes, these rulers were paying a sum of annual tribute to the empire but that doesn't undermine the sovereignty of these ruler. And as far as this talk concern, before assuming anything else and making accusations, i never said consensus were established. And if you see my last reply on this talk page, i added these after waiting more than a week of no response assuming there were no rebuttal for this edits. Curious man123 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten my opossition then. As I said, get support for your edits from an editor, preferably not an IP or a sock. Also you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "nominal". And lastly, do not proceed to argue with me with baseless arguments; you do not have my consensus. PadFoot2008 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Well, arguments are involved in establishing consensus, with factual information for which you called mine as baseless. While you havnt shared any citations for voting against those edits. Well, here is the source which explicitly says

Certainly as the example of both Murshid Quli Khan in Bengal and Mubariz Khan in Hyderabad illustrate, the habits and beliefs in Imperial service could have been resurrected among Mughal nobels and technocrats. Instead, during Muhammad Shah's regin, the empire slipped into loosely knit group of regional successor states.

So, calling them as successor state is not something unestablished amongst historians. Curious man123 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @RegentsPark @Vanamonde93 @Kautilya3 for their views on these. Curious man123 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Mughal state seems like a textbook case where this parameter can be a bad idea. The state had complex multi-tiered relationships surrounding the imperial core over time, and acquired and lost territory in long arcs of centuries in incredibly complex geopolitical circumstances. My position is that we shouldn't use this parameter at all, since it's simply too complex for the infobox to contain. Remsense诉 08:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it could be seen like that, but we should mention at least the notable state that succeeded because this timeline has placed itself in an important part of subcontinent history. So in my opinion we should mention it. Curious man123 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think if we do include it, a very zoomed-out, parsimonious list like what is there currently is ideal. Remsense诉 09:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think skipping Hyderabad State and Bengal State in succession would be a great idea because the former existed as a state even till Indian independence and later was the important region in terms of economy and overall history of the British Empire in India. If we want, we can skip Carnatic as it was only suzerainty under mughals. And also, technically, British Raj was not succeeded from mughals but from the company rule after the Government of India Act 1858, so it can be removed too. Curious man123 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

pinging @RegentsPark @Kautilya3 for their views about this addition. Curious man123 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is a complicated question but the outcome for us is straightforward. Complicated, because the Mughal empire did fracture into many self-governing states, many of which, while independent, continued to nominally be part of the empire (Bengal being the best example) while a few (the Sikh empire being the best example) were actually independent. However, on Wikipedia the outcome is straightforward and this is why we have the WP:OR policy. If we can't find numerous reliable sources that unambiguously state that xyz state was a successor to the Mughal empire, we can't say it either. In other words, no, we don't include all those states. RegentsPark (comment) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  What about Hyderabad state, even after 1857, Hyderabad state existed till 1947. It could be included as a successor state, isnt it? Curious man123 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Only if multiple reliable sources state that Hyderabad State was a successor state to the Mughal empire. Drawing your own conclusions about the extent of independence of a state is WP:OR.RegentsPark (comment) 20:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Hyderabad state was part of British Raj. The only reasonable "successor" to the Mughal Empire is British Raj. If that is not acceptable, we should leave it blank. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  What constitutes a "'reasonable' successor"?

  At a high level, this looks like a singular entity (the Mughal empire) was succeeded by many smaller entities, all of which were later themselves succeeded by another singular entity (the British Raj).

  [Mughal Empire] ->

  [[Hyderabad State],

  [Carnatic Sultanate],

  [Bengal Subah],

  [Oudh State],

  [Maratha Confederacy],

  [Sikh Empire]] ->

  [British Raj]

  I maintain that it's historically inaccurate to simply skip over the intermediary states for the sake of simplicity. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is quite literally how the historiography is broadly summarized. There's a difference between accuracy and precision, you know. This presentation is imprecise but accurate, à la specifying the year someone was born but not the day or hour. Again, our options are this or nothing, as the infobox is not designed to diagram at the level of fidelity you consider appropriate. Remsense诉 00:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  If this is an all or nothing scenario, then it may be better to leave the field blank instead.

  Skipping over ~100 years worth of a region's history is neither precise nor accurate. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then your problem is with each work of history that summarizes by describing the Raj as succeeding the Mughals in dominion over the subcontinent. The more you appreciate the details, the more you generally understand when they need to be withheld. Remsense诉 00:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  And pray tell, why do these details need to be withheld? AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  If I've said it once here, I've said it a dozen times: the purpose of an infobox is to summarize the key facts of a topic at a glance. The less an infobox contains, the better it serves this purpose. It's not our personal spreadsheet to fine-tune and chisel. If it needs a footnote or is in any way counterintuitive for a general audience, then it is simply defective. (And yes, this means most infoboxes are defective. Someday, we will have fixed them all.) If one would like to know more detail, that is what the actual article is for, where such details can be adequately related in prose. Remsense诉 01:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of the history is being skipped over. I wish you would look into the discussions above. None of the states like Hyderabad, Marathas, Bengal, etc. claimed sovereignty from Mughal rule, and in 1858 became a part of the British Raj, which formally succeeded Mughal rule. As for the Sikhs, the territory (Punjab) remained a nominal part of the empire (albeit in rebellion), until 1757, when it was ceded to the Durrani Empire by the Mughal emperor. Thus, later, when the Sikh territory became independent, it became independent from the Afghans and not the Mughal empire. PadFoot (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  As for the Sikhs, the territory (Punjab) remained a nominal part of the empire (albeit in rebellion), until 1757, when it was ceded to the Durrani Empire by the Mughal emperor.

  Citation Needed

  Thus, later, when the Sikh territory became independent, it became independent from the Afghans and not the Mughal empire.

  Citation Needed

  I really feel like we're splitting hairs over a non-issue... It's not like the Mughals just packed up their bags and let the British "succeed" their rule. I can't speak for the history of the other states, but this was certainly not the case for Punjab. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your closing sentence sheds light on the issue: you're only interested in the Punjab here, not the overall presentation or broad strokes. When consensus is ignored, this is called "tendentious editing". Remsense诉 08:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm concerned with Punjab in so-far as correcting it's exclusion from South Asian history, such as that pertaining to the Mughal Empire.

  In terms of the infobox, I still see no reason why a single field cannot simply include a list of values, like the "Successor" field containing a list of the succeeding empires. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Curious man123, you seem to be absolutely determined to continue your editwarring even after 2 months. Firstly, per WP:NOCONSENSUS you can't change the successor list to Company rule without consensus as British Raj is the long-standing version. Get a consensus for your change first, before change long-standing content. You would see @Kautilya3, as well as other participating editors, also supports that the only successor entity in the succession list should be British Raj. PadFoot (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @PadFoot2008 I insist you to read this whole discussion and compare it to those edits. This discussion is totally different from what you assume it to be. This was for addition of aforementioned state which i suggested. Clearly it was not supported by fellow editors. So i didnt added that. And as far as your presumably allegations of edit wars are concerns, if you could see here i didnt "added" Company rule in India and removed British Raj, both were included in the succession list for over decade as "long standing version". I simply removed British raj because it didnt succeeded from mughals. British raj started after Government of India Act 1858, in that document, the transfer of power happened between the company authorities and British crown and not between mughal as such which i did explain in that edit. Also, Kautilya3 also said if not agree to it we should keep it blank which you conveniently left out. And "NOConsensus", what you said about based on above chat is for, not to mentioned my suggested edits and not for anything else. Curious man123 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  The current consensus (in this as well as other discussions) seems to be to only include British Raj, the arguments for which have been provided nearly a million times by me and other editors. PadFoot (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Confederacy as a successor state

I added the Maratha confederacy as a successor state as most former Mughal territory including Delhi was succeeded by the Marathas. I have also added the British East India Company which also succeeded some Mughal territory. SKAG123 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

As given, it's totally misleading at a glance. This is why the history should be treated primarily in prose—y'know, in the actual article—and parameters like these in the infobox should be used with care and only if it's not going to mislead the average reader. Remsense诉 04:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone with no prior knowledge read that section as presented, they would come away with a totally inaccurate idea of the political progression in the broad strokes. If something needs nuance or a footnote to explain what it actually means, it shouldn't be in the infobox at all. Remsense诉 05:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The coins of the East India Company well into the 1830s were issued in the name of the Mughal emperor. I own a few, one of which I've added to the Company rule in India. Incidentally, the Marathas did the same. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If political progression is the criteria for a successor then nearly every infobox about Indian empires including the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire would have to be reorganized. The successor in nearly every other Indian empire recognized by the state that occupies the most territory of the preceding state. SKAG123 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is clarity and immediate coherence. Infoboxes are not meant to look pretty, "full", or support what we consider to be undervalued perspectives; they are meant to communicate key information at a glance. If that is not possible, then unclear communication is not preferable.

As such, in any case:

nearly every infobox about Indian empires including the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire would have to be reorganized

Correct; see also WP:OTHERCONTENT. Fixing the huge quantity of defective infoboxes onwiki is a big task—sometimes it feels Sisyphean. Please help out if you can. Remsense诉 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be difficult as formal succession didn’t occur in most of Indian history. Most empires were conquered by others and weren’t formally succeeded. Other articles such as German Confederation also list various successors of the territory of the former state in this manner.

In this article, most territory under the Delhi sultanate was conquered by the Mughal empire therefore it is listed as a predecessor. Most former Mughal territory was succeeded by the Maratha Confederacy. There was not formal succession in either situation.

I don’t see an issue with using this criteria as most similar infoboxes have been have been stable in this way for a while. SKAG123 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point I'm making, which is that simplification or omission is preferable to unexplained, misleading, or contrived presentation. The "formality" or "officialness" doesn't matter as long as "succession" is accurate to how sources describe a political situation. And I wish I did not have to reiterate that longevity is not a good excuse for something to be defective: mere longevity is the weakest form of consensus, as it only proves that nobody noticed or went out of their way to fix something. If something is confusing or defective, it should be remedied. Cf. WP:BEENHERE.

To be clear, I'm only interested in discussing this article and will not be bogged down in extended discussions about other articles: my entire point is that you can't just lean on what other articles say per WP:OTHERCONTENT. I'm saying they should likely be remedied as their presentation is confusing to the average reader, but I'm not actually on that project right now myself. Remsense诉 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

the issue is that political succession did not occur in most Indian empires as one empire typically just occupied another. The Mughals never succeeded the Delhi sultanate as Babur never became the sultan of Delhi.The Mughal empire did politically succeed the Timurad empire, however they had no power at the time. Similarly the Marathas never officially succeeded Mughals instead subdued them. It is inaccurate to say that the Mughal Empire was solely succeed by the British raj as the emperor has no real power in 1857 and was a puppet under the Maratha Confederacy and later East India Company.

Therefore Im proposing this format

predessor 1 - Delhi sultanate (as most former Mughal was under the Delhi sultans prior)

prodessor 2 - Timurad Empire (as the Mughal empire did politically succeed the Timurads)

succesor 1 - Maratha Confederacy(as most former Mughal territory was captured my the Maratha Confederacy and the Mughal emperor in 1758 onwards was a subordinate of the Maratha Confederacy)

succesor 2 - East India Company (as the Mughal emperor in 1803 had control of the city of Delhi as a subordinate under the East India Company)

successor 3 - British Raj ( as the British raj politically succeed the Mughal emperor however the emperor has no real power at the time)

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks SKAG123 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just leave these fields blank, except perhaps for the Delhi sultanate. It is all far too complicated for an infobox, and takes up too much space. There are also the Jats, Sikhs, Afghans, Persians .... Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Seahawk-2023 Discuss here please rather than edit warring, and please use edit summaries when you edit. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The only successor was British Raj. Company rule and the Maratha Confederacy both were under the suzerainty of the Mughal emperors. Your claim that the Mughal emperor was subordinate to anyone is unsourced (the Marathas always acknowledged Mughal suzerainty) and has been discussed a million times in the Maratha page as well as here. PadFoot (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue, for the third time, is that it is not clear what is being communicated to the average reader. This isn't our personal research project where we try to fill out all the tables—it's an encyclopedia, and readers are meant to be able to quickly understand the key facts of a topic by glancing at the infobox. This way of using it fails those readers. As @Johnbod said (and also I did several times above): when we can't communicate facts intuitively in the infobox, we shall not communicate anything, and instead treat them with the space and nuance they deserve in the article body. Remsense诉 07:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Mughal "suzerainty" over anyone was wholly nominal by 1720 or earlier, and it would be misleading to recognize it (if only by implication) in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

any person with no idea of indian history will casually miss 200 years of indian history, we should come up with a solution for successor problem WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We say in the Early Modern History section of the India page,

Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajput, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience. Expanding commerce during Mughal rule gave rise to new Indian commercial and political elites along the coasts of southern and eastern India. As the empire disintegrated, many among these elites were able to seek and control their own affairs.

I haven't really read the discussion above carefully, but a successor state, as far as I'm aware, is a concept that became current quite a bit after the Mughals. To put it differently, if "Hindustan" under the Mughals had been a member of the UN, it is unlikely that the different regional elites mentioned in green above would have been able to call themselves "Hindustan," at the UN were they to seek membership. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)