Talk:Mughal Empire

It should be Eastern Afghanistan in the northwest

Rectify this please, northern Afghanistan was in the Khanate of Bukhara. 2A02:8428:809E:6701:AC63:FF8E:60BB:1E1E (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t call Empire overdose

If u Have any Issue just Tag me Say which Source you Need for which Empire and Seriously You calling this A Empire overdose? Haven’t you Looked Portuguese Empire Article Yet AdityaNakul (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the "empires" in your list are not even mentioned in the article let alone discussed as preceding or succeeding ones. They should not be included in that long list that you are adding to the article. Please note that any material that is not sourced can be removed (see WP:V).RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Succeeding & Preceding Empires List on the Article of Portuguese Empire is Even More Long And I can Provide you Each & Every Source, Even the War Conflict Articles Are Present for those Empires, So should I Start? I will start with Giving u the Sources of Preceding Empires when you Will reply AdityaNakul (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have sources, reliable ones, that explicitly state that "xyz empire is a successor to the Mughal Empire" or "xyz empire is a predecessor to the Mughal empire", then sure. But note the "explicitly". RegentsPark (comment) 23:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I would add the Maratha Confederacy and the East India Company as both are mentioned in the sources and large portions of Mughal territory were succeeded my them. SKAG123 (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I Am Adding Bengal Sultanate, Gujarat Sultanate & Malwa Sultanate.

Articles on their Annextions Are Present

Here the Following

For Bengal Conquest

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_conquest_of_Bengal

For Malwa Conquest

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_conquest_of_Malwa

For Gujarat Conquest

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_conquest_of_Gujarat DeepstoneV (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Kabul kingdom

I think establishment of baburs empire in kabul and all the years he grew his empire from there is very importstant in the history section! With dates and the armies he rose. 178.232.61.65 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Under `Succeeded by`, the list ought to mention the Sikh Misls or the later Sikh Empire

The Sikh Misls were directly formed in Punjab as a result of the power vaccum left by the downfall of the Mughals, so they ought to be mentioned in this list since they succeeded rule over Punjab after the Mughals. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination

i think its time to start considering for this article upgrade to GA class article. the coverage is more than enough, and i saw there is very small portions of bias in language currently, perhaps just streamlining some references and trimming some dubious lines. Ahendra (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity in Infobox

I planned to add the ethnic groups to the infobox

Mughal Empire
Ethnic groups	Persians Turkmens Chagatais Uzbeks Rajputs Pashtuns Gujaratis Pathans Rajput Balochis Siddi Arabs Punjabis Mappila

of course i have plenty of english reference source which i think credible enough to be included

What do you think? Ahendra (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure this would improve the article. I haven't seen any other major articles for empires/historical states do this. The infobox is already quite crowded as it stands. It would be better to add this information to the Demographics section. Revolution Saga (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

i think youre right. at this moment seems the infobox quite overcrowded, until someday we know how to make more additons while still being convenient for readers Ahendra (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox edits

@Curious man123, please use this talk page to discuss your edits to the infobox here and try to attain a consensus. You need to attain consensus here to include them. Please understand that having citations doesn't automatically give you to the right to include specific information to the article. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123: @PadFoot2008: Can you guys resolve the disputes here without resorting into WP:EDITWAR ? Ahendra (talk) 13:30, 21 April 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)

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)