Quote from: Arjun Krishna Lal on February 01, 2021, 10:26:21
That's factually wrong and a bit disappointing to hear. For starters, by the mid-1600s, the Mughal royalty was almost completely assimilated: Shah Jahan was 3/4 Rajput. The commentator claiming this was whitewashing "terrorism from the Middle East," is also off the mark. The Mughals came from Central Asia -- they weren't from the Middle East. As for the question about the architecture, Mughal architecture in the 1600s exists BECAUSE of the exchange between local traditions and ideas from central asia and the middle east. I could go into specifics, but the most obvious external contribution was the free-standing dome, which wasn't a part of earlier Indian architectural traditions. There are countless examples of Central Asian architecture, such as the Registan in Samarkand that show continuity with later styles. Yes, the Mughals came to India as yet another in a very long line of invaders. Unlike the British, they assimilated, to the extent that Emperor Akbar founded his own religion. Did they persecute the local population? They did? Did they raze religious sites? Yes, they did. However, and this is the complexity of politics in the early modern period -- they actively invested in temple building as well. The entire success of the Mughal empire was based on their close ties to the Hindu Rajput nobility and the mutual respect there. The moment Aurangzeb broke that, the empire collapsed and India became ripe for colonialism.

Quote from: Aastra on January 31, 2021, 03:35:07
That's not Mughal architecture. That's indian architecture. It is like claiming native American architecture as European. Because Europeans are ruling America.
1. How is the Mughal architecture being same as local native Indian architecture.
2. Why isn't there a single similar architecture in Mughal homeland.
Basically these racism against indians continuing to this day.
Crediting every indian invention as outsider influence or their invention.

Aren't the Mughals related to the Mongols? And wherever the Mongols went, they interbred with the local women (with or without permission), influencing how the descendants looked, and their language and culture.

Therefore, northern India is not too different from northern China, and the other central Asian countries. You might have Genghis Khan's DNA. Welcome to the club!

That's factually wrong and a bit disappointing to hear. For starters, by the mid-1600s, the Mughal royalty was almost completely assimilated: Shah Jahan was 3/4 Rajput. The commentator claiming this was whitewashing "terrorism from the Middle East," is also off the mark. The Mughals came from Central Asia -- they weren't from the Middle East. As for the question about the architecture, Mughal architecture in the 1600s exists BECAUSE of the exchange between local traditions and ideas from central asia and the middle east. I could go into specifics, but the most obvious external contribution was the free-standing dome, which wasn't a part of earlier Indian architectural traditions. There are countless examples of Central Asian architecture, such as the Registan in Samarkand that show continuity with later styles. Yes, the Mughals came to India as yet another in a very long line of invaders. Unlike the British, they assimilated, to the extent that Emperor Akbar founded his own religion. Did they persecute the local population? They did? Did they raze religious sites? Yes, they did. However, and this is the complexity of politics in the early modern period -- they actively invested in temple building as well. The entire success of the Mughal empire was based on their close ties to the Hindu Rajput nobility and the mutual respect there. The moment Aurangzeb broke that, the empire collapsed and India became ripe for colonialism.

Quote from: Aastra on January 31, 2021, 03:35:07
That's not Mughal architecture. That's indian architecture. It is like claiming native American architecture as European. Because Europeans are ruling America.
1. How is the Mughal architecture being same as local native Indian architecture.
2. Why isn't there a single similar architecture in Mughal homeland.
Basically these racism against indians continuing to this day.
Crediting every indian invention as outsider influence or their invention.

That's not Mughal architecture. That's indian architecture. It is like claiming native American architecture as European. Because Europeans are ruling America.
1. How is the Mughal architecture being same as local native Indian architecture.
2. Why isn't there a single similar architecture in Mughal homeland.
Basically these racism against indians continuing to this day.
Crediting every indian invention as outsider influence or their invention.

Quote from: Redaktion on January 30, 2021, 13:44:16"The interiors, however, are heavily inspired by 17th-century Mughal architecture. The 1600s in India were a time of intense cultural exchange."

'Intense cultural exchange'. That's a nice and sanitised way of saying the 'brutal invasion, plundering & persecution of the original Hindu ( & Sikh) people of the Indic lands by Muslim invaders from Afghanistan & the Ottoman Empire' . Fortunately, the Maratha & Sikh empires restored the dignity of the actual inhabitants to some extent, later on.
Wish the author would have written it the way it was, instead of dressing it up.
Read on Wikipedia  — " Muslims conquests in the Indian subcontinent " &  " Persecution of Hindus " — if you wish to know the history behind it!