I learned about the South Asian Symphony Orchestra today–an organization which I had been previously unaware of.  I thought I’d share it here since it is a rare example of positivity in the region.

The organization’s website explains the aim of the organization as follows:

The aim of the South Asian Symphony Foundation (SASF) is to promote greater cultural integration for the cause of peace in our region of South Asia, through the medium of music and the creation of a South Asian Symphony Orchestra. The inspiration has come from Ambassador Nirupama Menon Rao’s years in diplomacy and what she saw as a felt need for providing a platform to promote more dialogue, cultural synergy, and friendly understanding among the youth of the eight countries in South Asia, including India.

The website goes on to answer the question of “Why South Asia?”:

Why South Asia, you may ask. South Asia has often been defined as just India and Pakistan, but the history of the region is much more nuanced and incredibly vibrant. South Asia extends from Afghanistan, through Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, through India, Sri Lanka, and to the Maldives. Nationalism has trumped regionalism in this space. We would like our Orchestra to point the way to recognition of the fact that South Asia is in many ways an integer, bound more together by our commonalities than our differences. To quote the famous words of Ambassador Vijayalakshmi Pandit, before the United Nations, “Let us sweat in peace, not bleed in war”.

I do find it kind of ironic that the music that is being used to promote peace is Western classical music rather than the systems of classical music indigenous to South Asia–such as Hindustani or Carnatic classical music.

I will end this post by linking to a piece I had written called “In Defense of ‘South Asia'” (which was earlier published on BP).

Calvin writes:

Also there was no country or state called British India, it was a part of the British Empire like British Australia or British Kenya. Resting a lot of the system the British developed does not make us a continuation.

Over the last year, I have consistently made the point that there was no nation-state of “India” prior to August 15, 1947. Thus, the Indian and Pakistani nation-states were created at the exact same time.  The argument that India was always there while Pakistan is a made-up entity is a common Indian nationalist trope and is basically just a way of de-legitimizing Pakistan.

This position has gotten me in a lot of trouble on this forum but I stand by it intellectually.  Presumably, now that this same argument has been made by a non-Pakistani and a non-Muslim, it will get a fairer hearing.

Of course, the fact that there was no such thing as an Indian nation-state doesn’t mean there was no sense of a geographic entity called “India”. That has never been my argument.  Prior to British India, there was the Mughal Empire etc.  Most of these geographical entities included what is now Pakistan. It is just a fact that for most of history the land that is now Pakistan has been part of Delhi-based empires. As a Pakistani, I’m absolutely fine with that.   However, it is also true that it was the British who created the borders that are commonly taken to be the natural borders of India.  For example, the Mughals never ruled the Northeast or the very southern bits of India.

I have no problem with BB arguing that the Republic of India is the successor state  of British India.  The arguments about the UN seat etc cannot be argued with. I would simply add that, in some ways, Pakistan is also a successor state of British India. For example, Pakistan inherited the Durand Line–the legal border between British India and Afghanistan.

On a related note: I came across this article about South Korea yesterday which discusses how the South is debating what to officially call the North.

The article notes:

South Korea’s constitution declares in Article 3 that “the territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands”, while Article 4 enshrines a duty of “peaceful unification”. Critics argue that using the North’s official name contradicts both.

While the obvious difference in the India-Pakistan case is that India accepted the Partition and does not claim Pakistan as part of its territory–other than what it refers to as “Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir”–  the comparison is still instructive since one can argue that Koreans are the same people divided by an artificial line.  Similarly until the fall of the Berlin Wall, East and West Germans were the same people divided by an artificial line.

It is important to note that East and West Germans share the same religion.  As far as I know, North and South Koreans also share the same religion.  In the India-Pakistan case, the problems are compounded by the fact that India is a Hindu-majority state while Pakistan is a Muslim-majority one.  There is certainly no desire on the part of 250 million Pakistanis to be ruled from Delhi.

Lastly, I will note that British India also included Burma.  It is interesting to note that there is no angst about Burma being separated from India. In his book, SD referred to the fact that Burma was not seen as part of the sacred land of “Bharat” while Pakistan obviously was.  There also seems to be comparatively little angst about the fact that Bangladesh exists as a separate entity and didn’t merge with West Bengal in 1971.  So clearly the angst is Pakistan specific.  The “Saffroniate” should introspect about why that is.

Modi at Haifa, Israel paying tribute to the Indian soldiers who died during the Battle of Haifa

Bharat Mata Ki Ja and the Holy Land join together to shine light on the World. Hurrah.. Both Israel & India house extensive Bahá’í buildings, apparently the most visited Monument in New Delhi is the Lotus Temple. Nowhere else in the Muslim world does the Bahá’í Faith have Sites of Worship (Pakistan has been very good to Bahá’ís but terrible to the Ahmadis).

Apologies for the Hijacking but back to the Badshah of Balochistan, our very own Humza.

In my previous post about India being the successor state to the Mughal Empire, I mentioned how India was also the successor state to hundreds of other polities which existed across many millennia. British India is one such polity which I will discuss today.

Note: As before, when I use India below I mean the current day Republic of India, not the region of “India” which also encompasses some territories of the modern day states of Bangladesh and Pakistan

The Inheritance

Unlike the previous post, I won’t give as detailed a picture because in the modern age the definition of “successor state” is very well defined.

Some examples of succession in the modern period are the Russian Federation taking over from the USSR in 1991 and the French Fifth Republic taking over from the French Fourth Republic in 1958. Both of them got their predecessor’s UN seats as well as the permanent Security Council spot.

The United Nations

Since we are talking of the United Nations, let us begin with that.

India is a founding member of the United Nations, signing the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, and formally joining on October 30, 1945.

Sir Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar led the Indian delegation and signed the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, United States

Now I am attaching a 1962 memorandum prepared by the United Nations Secretariat regarding the “Succession of States in relation to Membership in the United Nations“. It references the partition of 1947.

Here is the link. I am going to quote verbatim.

From the viewpoint of international law, the
situation is one in which a part of an existing
State breaks off and becomes a new State. On this
analysis, there is no change in the international status
of India; it continues as a State with all the treaty
rights and obligations, and consequently, with all
the rights and obligations of membership in the United
Nations. The territory which breaks off, Pakistan,
will be a new State; it will not have the treaty rights
and obligations of the old State, and it will not, of
course, have membership in the United Nations.

In international law, the situation is analogous
to the separation of the Irish Free State from
Great Britain, and of Belgium from the Netherlands.
In these cases, the portion which separated was considered
a new State; the remaining portion continued
as an existing State with all the rights and duties
which it had before.

Pakistan became a member of the UN on September 30, 1947.

Similarly when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan as Pakistan had once from India, it had to apply for membership. It became a member on September 17, 1974.

The Capital

British India had two capitals – Calcutta and Delhi. Both went to India.

The Parliament building at the time of independence in 1947 continued to be used as the Parliament of India until 2023.

Many of the official buildings of British India were converted to their Indian equivalents upon independence.

Rashtrapati Bhavan, Delhi – Residence of the President of India. Formerly the Viceroy’s Residence.

Old Parliament House, Delhi – Was the parliament building of India from 1947 to 2023. Previously was the legislature of British India (Imperial Legislative Council) from 1927 to 1947.

Old Secretariat, Delhi – Currently the legislative assembly of Delhi. Previously was the legislature of British India from 1912 to 1927 (until the Parliament House was constructed).

Raj Bhavan, Kolkata – Residence of the Governor of West Bengal. Formerly the Viceroy’s Residence when the capital was in Calcutta. Also was the legislature of British India until the capital shifted to Delhi. 

Pakistan got a new capital at Karachi in 1947 and then shifted it to Islamabad in 1967.

Bangladesh got its capital in Dhaka in 1971.

The Memorials

Apart from the official government buildings, India also inherited other important memorials of British India.

I will just focus on one here (will elaborate more below).

India Gate, formerly known as the All India War Memorial was constructed as a memorial for the soldiers who fought for British India.

The Indian Army, also called the British Indian Army, was involved in World War I. More than one million Indian troops served overseas, of whom more than 60,000 died during the war. They mostly served in North Africa and Mesopotamia against the Ottomans (My own great grandfather was a doctor there).

India Gate, Delhi

Cricket

As desis we can’t ignore cricket.

India played its first match vs England at Lord’s, London on June 25, 1932.

India’s first test match at Lord’s, June 25-28, 1932

On partition, India inherited this team and the current Indian team’s all time records include the pre-partition records.

Pakistan got a new team and played their first match vs India at the Feroz Shah Kotla Ground, Delhi on October 16, 1952.

Bangladesh similarly got a new team on independence but had to wait longer to play international cricket. They played their first match vs Pakistan at Tyronne Fernando Stadium, Moratuwa on March 31, 1986.

The Olympics

British India first participated in the Olympics in 1900 when Norman Pritchard won two silver medals (Englishman but was born and raised in Calcutta).

The Indian Olympic Association was formed in 1927, and since that year was officially recognized by the International Olympic Committee as India’s national Olympic organization.

Upon independence, India inherited British India’s Olympic records as well as the IOA.

This included a hat trick of gold medals in field hockey led by Dhyan Chand. The last of these was at the 1936 Berlin Olympics where India defeated Germany in the final.

India vs Germany, Field Hockey final, 1936 Olympics

Pakistan Olympic Association was formed in 1948 and they participated for the first time in the 1948 London games. 

Bangladesh Olympic Association was formed in 1979 and they participated for the first time in the 1984 Los Angeles games.

Modern Legitimacy

I mentioned the India Gate earlier and how British India fought in the World Wars.

On 12 February 2025, on his France visit, Modi along with Macron visited the Mazargues War Cemetery in Marseille.

This is what Macron had to say.

More than 100,000 Indians fought for France in 1914. Ten thousand never returned. They set foot on the soil of Marseille before fighting in the mud of the trenches, unaware that they were marching to their deaths.

Their sacrifice binds France and India forever.

Other countries recognize India as the inheritor of British India.

And like I said in the Mughal Empire post, only India is the one even “claiming” this inheritance by visiting these sites – similar to the Babur and Bahadur Shah Zafar graves.

Modi at the Heliopolis War Memorial, Cairo, Egypt dedicated to Indian soldiers who died in Egypt in the First World War

The “Independent” Argument

People might claim that British India was never an independent sovereign nation. I never said it was. But it was very much a distinct polity, separate from other similar polities like British Australia or British Kenya.

Here is what else is said in the UN memorandum I linked above regarding this.

Apart from the question of separation, the Independence Act has effected a basic constitutional change in India. The existing State of India has become a Dominion, and consequently, has a new status in the British Commonwealth of Nations, independence in external affairs, and a new form of government. It is clear, however, that this basic constitutional change does not affect the international personality of India, or its status in the United Nations.

The closest modern day analogy would be Hong Kong. Like India it used to be a part of the British Empire. Unlike India, it never got independent and has now passed over to China. But throughout its existence it has always been a separate polity with its own distinct currency, passport, flag etc.

Indians never used the pound or voted in elections for representatives in London. They had their own separate versions. 

Interestingly, the Indian currency was issued by the Reserve Bank of India (established in 1935), another institute that India inherited.

Pakistan created the State Bank of Pakistan in 1948. Bangladesh created the Bangladesh Bank in 1972.

100 Rupee note with the face of King George VI

British Indian Passport

Conclusion

Similar to last time I’d like to conclude with an image transforming modern day figures to their historical counterparts.

So may I present Viceroy Narendra Damodardas Modi with a few of the rulers of the princely states – Maharaja Omar Abdullah of Jammu and Kashmir, Nizam Revanth Reddy of Hyderabad and Maharaja Bhajan Lal Sharma of Jodhpur.

Kenizé Mourad’s In the City of Gold And Silver is a fictionalized biography of Begum Hazrat Mahal (c.1820-1879), one of the wives of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah (1822-1887), the last ruler of Awadh –one of the major North Indian princely states. After the British deposed Wajid Ali Shah and annexed the state, Hazrat Mahal became one of the major leaders of the Revolt of 1857 . She had her eleven-year-old son, Birjis Qadir, crowned king and took on the role of regent (who would rule until the sovereign attained the age of majority). Although the rebellion was ultimately defeated and Hazrat Mahal died a prisoner in Nepal, she is remembered today as a major figure in Indian nationalist history.

Mourad’s novel does an excellent job at evoking the atmosphere of Awadh during 1856-1858: the crucial period in which the state was annexed and the rebellion occurred. As the novel begins, the ladies of the court are staging a play satirizing the British. The narrative then flashes back to Hazrat Mahal’s childhood as an orphan and details how she was trained as a courtesan and then became part of the Nawab’s harem. However, the bulk of the book takes place during the Rebellion and describes the various battles fought with the British. The Nawab himself is a minor character since he had been exiled from Awadh and spent most of this period imprisoned in Fort William in Calcutta. While it is not a major part of this novel, Wajid Ali Shah is an enormously important figure in the development of Hindustani Classical Music, particularly in the genres of thumri and kathak. In fact, his devotion to music was one of the justifications that the British gave for annexing Awadh, deeming him unfit to rule.

Mourad is able to keep the reader engaged with the details of the rebellion, which could have been tedious in other hands. She also emphasizes the moral dilemmas of war. For example, Hazrat Mahal is appalled to learn that the rebels in Kanpur have slaughtered British women and children. She believes that this is unworthy conduct and that women and children are not legitimate military targets. Other characters counter this view by arguing that the British do not show pity on Indian women and children. Moral dilemmas such as these continue to be important in contemporary wars.

Another theme of the novel is the conflict between fundamentalist and moderate Islam. One of the revolutionaries, the preacher Ahmadullah Shah, believes that women are not legitimate rulers. He is extremely reluctant to take orders from Hazrat Mahal and criticizes her for not veiling herself in public. Hazrat Mahal counters this by giving examples from Indian history (such as that of Razia Sultana, a sultan’s daughter who ruled in her own right) and from Islamic history (such as that of the Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, who was a merchant). Such conflicts over religious practice also continue to be ever relevant in today’s world.

Another element of the novel is the love story between Hazrat Mahal and Raja Jai Lal, the leader of the sepoys. While this may not be strictly historically accurate, it is certainly relatable that a young woman whose husband has been exiled would be attracted to a charismatic man. In my opinion, however, these romantic scenes detract from the overall impact of the story.

Overall, In the City of Gold and Silver is a fascinating portrait of a remarkable figure of 19th century India. I would highly recommend it to those who are interested in Indian history and in anti-colonialism more generally.

The podcast “Bad Gays” which defines itself as a “podcast about evil and complicated queers in history” did an episode a while back about Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah, who was the son of Alauddin Khalji (of “Padmavat” fame).  IIRC, this was the only time the podcast has featured a South Asian figure.

They also have a book called Bad Gays: A Homosexual History (Verso 2022).

On Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah, they write:

If you have to take an beautiful enslaved convert boy from another province to become your lover, and then you fall hopelessly in love with him, and then promote him and he attains great power, do be aware than he might actually want to take your throne.” Somehow, this extremely specific lesson was forgotten by two generations of rulers. Join us in a trip back to the court of 1300s Delhi for a story of love, lust, intrigue, revolution, and, in the words of a historian of the time, “the results of pampering young men and catamites.

The episode can be listened to here:

https://badgayspod.com/episode-archive/s7e08-qutbuddin-mubarak-shah

2) Since we were recently discussing gender in Pakistan, this is relevant:

Why Do We Keep Casting Young Girls in Adult Roles in Dramas?

3) Sindh education department to introduce religious textbooks for Hindu students 

A similar move was made by the federal government in 2023, when the National Curriculum Council (NCC) issued no-objection certificates (NOCs) for publishing religious books for students from seven minority groups enrolled in federally supervised educational institutions.

The NCC issued NOCs for publishing books on religions, including Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, Baha’i, Zoroastrianism, Kalasha and Buddhism.

This post will serve as a brief rebuttal to this argument.  India is a constitutionally secular state. In a constitutionally secular state, there is absolutely no excuse for destroying a minority place of worship–no matter what the circumstances.  This is a red line that must never be crossed.  While Babri may not be equivalent to Notre Dame–I am personally agnostic about this argument– there is no excuse for even one mosque to be destroyed in a secular state.  The decision to build a Ram Temple where the mosque used to be is a post-facto justification of the mob destruction of the minority place of worship.

The argument has been made that India instituted a new piece of legislation–the Places of Worship Act– in order to make sure that such an incident doesn’t take place again.  The question was asked if Pakistan has instituted similar legislation.

In my opinion, this is a disingenuous argument. Comparing a constitutionally secular state to an Islamic Republic is intellectually untenable.  While I do not believe that even an Islamic Republic should allow minority places of worship to be destroyed–and minority places of worship such as the Jain Mandir in Lahore  were destroyed  as revenge for the destruction of Babri– one cannot criticize Pakistan for not upholding the principles of secularism since we have never claimed to be a secular state. We are an Islamic Republic and we are absolutely open about it.

Lastly, I have no problem with Indians wanting to claim to be the successor state of the Mughal Empire. However, Indians must also allow Pakistanis to assert this same claim.  As mentioned multiple times on BP, Lahore was the capital of the Empire for a number of years. The city contains Mughal sites such as the Shahi Kila (Lahore Fort), Badshahi Masjid,  Shalimar Bagh,  Jahangir’s Tomb etc.  So it is intellectually untenable to deny Pakistan’s Mughal heritage.

Additionally, one cannot claim the Mughals while simultaneously villianizing them.  Many BJP politicians have pejoratively referred to Muslims as “Babur ki aulaad” (Babur’s children). This doesn’t suggest great respect for the dynasty.  It is hypocritical for India’s Prime Ministers to give their Independence Day speeches from the Lal Kila (Red Fort), which is essentially a Muslim palace.  Surely, this speech can be given from Nagpur?

There has been a lot of back-and-forth in the comments section about who gets to “claim” the Mughals.

The Republic of India is the successor state of the Mughal Empire as I explain below.

Note: When I use India below I mean the current day Republic of India, not the region of “India” which also encompasses some territories of the modern day states of Bangladesh and Pakistan

The Land

The Republic of India encompasses around 70 percent of the Mughal Empire at its greatest extent.

Again, possession of majority of the land is not a necessary condition. The UK is the successor state of the British Empire, Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire and so on. But having possession of the majority of the land makes the case stronger.

The reason that the UK, Turkey, France etc are the successor states of various empires is because they house the “core” – the capital, the ruling elite, the major monuments etc.

The Capital

The Mughal Empire lasted for around 300 odd years. 

It’s capitals were:
Agra for 61 years
Delhi for 228 years
Fatehpur Sikri for 14 years
Lahore for 12 years

The first and last capitals were in India and for 96% of the existence of the empire, the capital was in India.

These capitals still exist in India and are UNESCO World Heritage Sites as well as Monument of National Importance by the Archaeological Survey of India.

The last capital is still used by India in official functions but more on that below.

Agra Fort, Agra

Purana Qila, Delhi

Buland Darwaza, Fatehpur Sikri

Red Fort, Delhi

The Tombs of the Emperors

Four of the six great Mughals have their tombs in India.

Thirteen of the other fourteen.

Humayun’s Tomb, Delhi

Akbar’s Tomb, Sikandra

Taj Mahal, Agra

Aurangzeb’s Tomb, Khuldabad

The Monuments

The crowning glory of the Mughal Empire, its most famous monument The Taj Mahal is in India (pictured above).

Similarly, the vast majority of Mughal monuments including tombs of ministers, wives, poets as well as gardens and masjids are located in India.

Shalimar Bagh, Srinagar

Ghalib’s Tomb, Delhi

The People

The Mughal Empire and its ruling class was a mix of Hindus and Muslims. In the declining days of the Mughal Empire, many of these elites broke off to form their own kingdoms. The descendants of these elites stayed behind and are Indian citizens.

It is difficult to trace the lineage of the Mughals post 1857 although some of the descendants do live in poverty across India.

Sultana Begum is one.

The fate of the descendants of the breakaway states fared better.

The three biggest Muslim breakway groups were Awadh, Bengal and Hyderabad.

Kingdom of Awadh

The descendants of Wajid Ali Shah are spread across Kolkata, where he was exiled. Some work in government, lots are teachers (including in Aligarh), one runs a Mughlai restaurant.

Manzilat Fatima is the fourth generation descendant of Wajid Ali Shah and runs Manzilat’s , a Mughlai restaurant in Kolkata

Bengal Subah

The descendants of Mir Jafar are scattered around Murshidabad. Few of them have been affected by the SIR in Bengal , a recent topic of discussion.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/346-descendants-of-former-bengal-nawab-mir-jafar-struck-off-rolls/articleshow/129910707.cms

Nizamate of Hyderabad

Unlike Bengal and Awadh, Hyderabad never came under British rule completely and remained a Princely state. Upon accession to India, the last nizam Asif Jah VII stayed back in India and died in India. He also helped fund India’s war effort in 1965 vs Pakistan.

The later nizams don’t live in India but they do keep visiting to maintain their properties and are buried in India.

The Rest

There were various smaller Muslim kingdoms within India whose descendants live in India in varying degrees of prominence.

One of the captains of the Indian cricket team was the titular nawab of Bhopal and Pataudi. His children are Bollywood actors.

The present Raja of Mahmudabad (whose grandfather funded the creation of Pakistan) is a professor at Ashoka university. He was in the news during Operation Sindoor.

Currently runs Awadhi cuisine pop ups in his palace as well. If I ever am in Lucknow during one of them, will check it out.

Modern Legitimacy

The Red Fort was the “last” palace/capital of the Mughals and the one that was the palace/capital for the longest.

It is still used by the Indian Government, especially on Independence Day when the Prime Minister unfurls the flag.

Similarly, Jama Masjid was the imperial mosque of the Mughals and is still an active mosque.

Apart from these continuations, the thing is apart from India no one else really even “claims” the Mughals officially, despite internet fights.

Here is Manmohan Singh at Babur’s tomb (which was visited by Nehru, Indira as well).

And again here at Bahadur Shah Zafar’s tomb in Yangon.

And *gasp* Hindu Hriday Samrat himself.

Has the head of government of any of the other claimants done a foreign visit where they paid “tribute”. It is a a very nominal thing but it is a thing nonetheless.

Rejection by “Hindu” India

X.T.M argues that India has “rejected” the Mughals and therefore cannot claim the culture.

I disagree. India has not “rejected” anything. “Some” Indians have.

As discussed above, the Mughal monuments are still celebrated and are monuments of national importance/UNESCO world heritage sites, the vast majority of Hindustani Muslims in the world are Indian citizens and did not migrate to Pakistan during partition including the very elite, Urdu is still very much an Indian language with the status of an official language where it is spoken (No point in imposing Urdu on non-speakers – doesn’t end up well like seen in 1971).

“Some” Indians don’t accept the Mughal culture. Which is fine, it is a democracy.

India is a civilization state encompassing a multitude of empires/kingdoms over many millennia. It is the “successor state” to all of them. Many of these polities were in opposition to each other so depending on which of these polities people identify with in the current day, they might not be particularly fond of some others.

And this is not even a Hindu-Muslim issue.

The battle of Bhima Koregaon is seen very differently by Mahars and Brahmins. Mahars do an annual pilgrimage honoring this battle which actually led to clashes in 2018 between Hindu right wing groups and Dalit groups.

Victory Pillar, Bhima Koregaon

Even outside India, this is common.

In the Southern United States, White and Black Southerners have different views on the Confederacy.

Whites celebrate the heroes and symbols of the Confederacy.

Southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd with the Confederate flag

Blacks don’t and are actively removing monuments (due to control of the heavily blue cities).

The Robert E. Lee monument in New Orleans being taken down

Very familiar, isn’t it?

X.T.M’s use of the Babri Masjid is a bad faith argument.

The Babri Masjid was not a particularly important mosque and its only purpose was a victory monument in one of the holiest sites of Hinduism. 

It is not the “Notre Dame” of the Mughals. That would be the Jama Masjid, the Imperial Mosque of the Mughals which is still being used today (as shown above).

Its destruction was fitting (and I would say the same if ever someone demolishes the Jama Masjid and builds a temple over it. I would advocate for the “shifting” of the temple and re-building a new mosque).

I do not agree with the method of destruction nor the riots that followed but the building of the Ram Mandir was the right thing in the end.

Gyanvapi in Kashi is being “reclaimed” by more civil methods, as it should be.

Extending X.T.M’s logic – if Congress and BJP governments keep alternating power, does India get to claim Mughals during Congress rule and not BJP rule?

That is an absurd argument.

Domestic political fights do not override geography, history and demographics.

The religion/language/traditions of the Mughals are still alive in current day India.

It isn’t in Egypt, Scandinavia, Greece etc. But to say that the current day polities are not successor states of the older pre-Islamic/pre-Christian kingdoms would be foolish.

As long as India holds “the land” and “the people” as discussed above, it is the successor state of the Mughal Empire.

The pre and post Mughal Muslim states

Apart from the Mughals, there were various Muslim states in India both before and after.

The Sultanates and the Sur Empire

Using the same logic as discussed above, India is the successor state of various pre Mughal Muslim kingdoms.

Like the Mughals, the Delhi Sultanate and the Sur empire encompassed regions outside India but unlike the Mughals, the capital was always in India (Delhi/Sasaram) so an even stronger claim than over the Mughal empire.

The southern Bahmani Sultanate and it’s successor Deccan Sultanates are completely contained within India so there isn’t even an opposing claim here.

Qutub Minar, Delhi

Tomb of Sher Shah Suri, Sasaram

Gol Gumbaz, Bijapur

The post Mughal States

As discussed above, the three big post Mughal states of Hyderabad, Awadh and Bengal came to India with the descendants of the rulers still living here. Part of Bengal is with Bangladesh but the capital Murshidabad stayed in India. Awadh and Hyderabad are wholly in India.

Nizamat Imambara, Murshidabad – The largest Imambara in the world

Bara Imambara, Lucknow – The second largest Imambara in the world

Falaknuma Palace, Hyderabad

Other Claimants

There are current day polities which were once part of the Mughal Empire – Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh namely. A few of their people might claim the Mughals on the basis of this.

These places were always on the “fringes” of the Empire. The core of the Empire is firmly within India.

Arabia, Greece etc cannot claim the Ottoman Empire. Algeria, Vietnam etc cannot claim the French Empire.

Yes, you could point to the various monuments in these countries – Bagh-e-Babur in Afghanistan, Lahore Fort and Badshahi Mosque in Pakistan, Lalbagh Fort in Dhaka etc but “most” are in India including the important ones.

Similarly, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Myanmar have a Mughal emperor buried there but like noted above, the “vast” majority rest in India.

India was part of the British Empire but cannot claim the British Empire because it was based out of London. Similarly, parts of India were under the Portuguese Empire but India cannot claim the Portuguese Empire based out of Lisbon. 

Side-note: Both the UK and Portugal have had Indian origin Prime Ministers and quite recently too

And even India has “monuments” stemming from those empires which are UNESCO World Heritage sites.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai

Basilica of Bom Jesus, Goa

Hypothetical Analogues

There have been many incorrect analogies made regarding India so I would like to create some hypothetical scenarios where those analogies would actually fit.

Byzantia

People were comparing Jinnah with Ataturk so I thought a more objective look was required.

Imagine if there was a country called Byzantia which included the Christian territories of the Ottoman Empire (Greece, Bulgaria, Balkan countries) etc as well as Western Turkey with the capital at Istanbul.

Assume the Arabs broke off earlier (a la the Afghans) and Byzantia had some areas which were never under the Ottomans (a la the Northeast and the extreme south of India).

Imagine there was another country with two wings on the opposite ends of Byzantia corresponding to present day Kurdistan and Albania/Bosnia. Some Turks moved to Kurdistan but most stayed back (can have moved to the western wing as well but either will work for this thought experiment).

Let’s call this Kabistan (K for Kurdistan, A for Albania, B for Bosnia). Kabistan’s official language is Turkish imposed by the migrant Turkish ruling class.

At some point, Albania/Bosnia don’t like this imposition and secede (with a little help from Byzantia). They form a new country called Albania.

This is the correct analogue.

Englandia

There was even an attempted retort that someday India might even claim “British” high culture.

Well, the circumstances are completely different and like the Ataturk example, a wrong analogue. Let me give the correct analogy.

Let us consider an alternate history – Imagine that after the Second World War all the other British colonies became independent including Pakistan. But India and Britain decided to merge into one polity where India was no longer a colony but on “par” with Britain. The Welsh and the Scots opt out and form their own country. Let’s call it Welscotland, in keeping with tradition regarding abbreviations. Assume the Northern Irish have left and merged with Ireland.

Welscotland gets an influx of Englishmen who make English the official language. India and England form a polity called Englandia with the capital at London.

Wales breaks off due to English imposition and forms Wales, with a bit of help from Englandia.

In this scenario, British high culture is indeed Englandian as is King Arthur, Queen Elizabeth I, Shakespeare as well as Gandhi, Nehru, Chandragupta Maurya, Shivaji, Ashoka, Akbar, Mirza Ghalib etc etc.

Conclusion

Now that we have established that India is the successor state of the Mughal Empire, it stands that the current day rulers of India are in a way continuation of their Mughal counterparts.

May I present Shahenshah Narendra Damodardas Modi and some of his navratna – Raja Jaishankar and Raja Rajnath Singh.

Several points are wrong here:

I have never actually met a Pakistani who thinks they are Arab or Turk ethnically. Claiming lineage is not ethnicity, not even the Syeds identify with Arabs although they will try to flex their Syed status occassionally. Many Syeds in the family, never heard anyone claim they were ethnically Arab.

Ergutral did not make people in Pakistan think they were Turks, what they identified with was the Islamic history and mannerisms being portrayed. A pasthun guy told me that it portrayed ‘our history’ and while I completely understdood the ‘our’ part because he was using it in an Islamic context (because he is a proud Pasthun, not Arab or Turk), but I did correct him that it was mostly fiction.

The claim that Pakistanis are ethnically indistinguishable from North Indians is also wrong. This just refuses to acknowledge the vast diversity of languages, cultures, clothing and mannerisms that are found in Pakistan and North India. The difference between a Pakistani Muhajir from UP and Sindhi is night and day and you will have to live it to understand it. The difference between even Saraiki and Punjabi from Majha belt is night and day. When you live in a cosmopolitan city like Karachi and you see these different groups up close, you will realize there are many differences as their are commonailities and that stereotypes are not lies.
Educated people from different groups can paper over these differences because of their common Urdu/English education but the differences are stark on the rural level.

Pakistani Pasthuns are also very distinguishable from Afghan Pasthuns. This is also apparent when you peek past the surface. The Pashtuns are divided in North South (their dressing & accent is different). KP is more fertile by several magnitudes than any part of Afghanistan, which shows in the cuture. Pakistan has more settled areas and Pasthuns here are less tribal. The FATA Pasthuns share similarly with Afghans more than they do with Pasthuns in areas like Swat, Peshawar, Nowshera etc. The Pasthuns and Baloch unity is just a myth, most feuds in Balochistan are between Pasthuns and Balochs over land and there is no unity between these so called “Iranic” groups because the entire premise of Indic/Iranic is wrong.

There is no dividing line between any cultures, this is just Indian propganda to claim Pakistani lands. There is no ”Indic” and ”Iranic” these are just language groupings. Take a look at Gujjars in KP, or Punjabi tribes on the Potohar, these guys share more culture with Pasthuns than with most Punjabis.

So to deny the diversity that exists within Pakistan and lump everyone together with North India (which I am sure is 3x more diverse) is just incorrect.

One of the dominant explanations for the decline of Hindustani music in Pakistan is that these musical genres were not compatible with Pakistan’s national identity. The 1947 Partition of British India was largely justified by the “Two Nation Theory”–the idea that the Muslims of British India were a different “nation” from the Hindus and were therefore entitled to their own state. It is argued that while the proponents of this view succeeded in achieving a sovereign Pakistan, they struggled to define a new cultural identity not shared with India. Since it was a part of the syncretic Indo-Islamic culture, classical music became entangled in this struggle to separate Pakistan’s culture from India’s.

In actual fact, there was no concerted action on the part of the state to define a national identity. Rather, many opinions were in circulation in which the xenophobic ones were not met with sufficient resistance. It is ironic that the one committee founded in 1968 to frame a national policy on art and culture, under the leadership of Faiz Ahmed Faiz, came to a conclusion contradicting the narrow-minded national identity viewpoint. In the report, Faiz responded to the contention that Muslim or Islamic ideologies were the rightful frame for defining Pakistani culture. He noted that this position “ignores the reality of the non-ideological components of culture, e.g. language, dress, cuisine, architecture, arts and crafts, non-religious customs and social observances, etc. These are mundane products of historical origin and geographical environment and cannot be dubbed Islamic or un-Islamic”. He noted that what differentiates one Islamic state from another is their nationhood or culture. Faiz concluded quite categorically that “There is little justification, therefore, for any ambivalent or apologetic attitude either towards Pakistan (sic) nationhood or towards Pakistani culture” (Salim and Ishfaq 2013: 50).

When I say that Pakistan is a South Asian country and that our culture is South Asian, I am referring to what Faiz called the “non-ideological” components of culture (language, food, dress, art etc).

I disagree with XTM that Pakistan should have opted to claim a Persianiate identity.  I think most Pakistanis would have found Persian even more foreign than they find Urdu.  I myself attempted to learn Persian at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.  I took the course for two semesters and while I did fine, it wasn’t a language that I particularly related to.

Where I differ from some of the “Saffroniate” commenters on BP is that I don’t think that the fact that Pakistan shares a lot of cultural elements with North India necessarily de-legitimizes the Pakistani nation-state.  It is just a fact that historically what is now Pakistan has been ruled from Delhi-based empires.