Talk:Mongol invasions of India

All fake data no one believes most of the stuff put on to the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.179 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

You guys are great in forging history and manufacturing history. Kashmir was never ruled by Mongols. Read all the Rajataringinis of Kalhana. Jonaraja, Srivara etc. Read also the brilliant Mohibulal Hassan. You guys can do what you like in the USA but can not brainwash other people.

The Valley of Kashmir never fell to Mongols this is well documented. some people for their future agenda are trying to plant this. Note history can not be manufactured particularly outside the USA. In USA you can do what you like as most people have been put to sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.176 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No secret the Yehudi is behind manufacturing this fake history for the future Yehudi agenda. No Mongol ever entered Kashmir and the Turks of the Rajataringini are being made fake Mongols by the Yehudi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.79.214 (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You Kashmiri's need to stop acting like you weren't conquered because you were. Many different people stormed through Kashmir and easily annexed it like the Afghans, Rajputs, Sikhs, British and even the Mughals. Mughals ruled India and they were deccendant of the Mongols so technially the Mongols ruled Kashmir. 99.247.62.117 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongol invasions of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206152119/http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~tmmay/Chormaqan_thesis.pdf to http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~tmmay/Chormaqan_thesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2001:4643:c8ec's edits

To the anon user (2001:4643:c8ec:0:ec16:e321:75d5:50d4 / 2001:4643:c8ec:0:e432:23ef:29a1:4913): please explain why is geographic origin of the Khaljis is relevant here. "Turkic" and "Mongol" are ethnic terms. The Khaljis' ancestors lived in Afghanistan, but they were not ethnic Pashtuns. "Afghan" is not their ethnicity, and irrelevant in this context. utcursch | talk 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How is it irrevelant? they were Pashtuns and saw themselves as such. 99.247.62.117 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Source for "they were Pashtuns and saw themselves as such", please. utcursch | talk 19:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mongol conquest of Kashmir

The first paragraph attempts to tell a story, but there are no sources nor reference. They are needed, especially some reliable sources about that Buddhist master Otochi. Similar for the other paragraphs.

There was an attempt at giving something that pretends to be a reference - Islamic Culture Board-Islamic culture, p.256 - but this does not qualify on Wikipedia. I have deleted it. -- Zz (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

The {{Infobox military conflict}} used in this article seems cluttered and misleading. Much of it is unsourced, and it tries to cover multiple wars and battles, which were fought by different political entities and commanders, for different reasons, with different results. This article is not about a single war or campaign, or even a group of related wars waged by a single Mongol state. As such, the infobox is rather inappropriate - a campaign box should suffice: the infobox is more suitable for articles on individual conflicts, such as the Battle of Kili. utcursch | talk 19:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Bump. If there are no objections, I'll remove this infobox. utcursch | talk 03:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Pursuit of Jalal al-din Mangburni" be added here from the Battle of Indus Page?

The page Battle of the Indus has information about the Mongols' actions that took place in the Indian subcontinent. Should we introduce them here? I know they were not directed to the Delhi Sultanate of India but the topic is not restricted to the Sultanate but rather to the Indian subcontinent --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I know there currently is a section about it: Background. But it does not tell about the Mongol actions but rather about Jalal's actions. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Transformation of the Delhi Sultanate

/* Transformation of the Delhi sultanate */There are multiple problems with this section. To start off, Jaswant Lal Mehta is not a historian. Secondly, nowhere does it say in any of the sources listed, that the khaljis identified themselves as Indian Muslims. Only Mehta distinctly calls them “cent for cent Indian Muslims”, but there is no mention of the khaljis identifying themselves with the Indian Muslim communities, and once again, Mehta is not a reliable source. Furthermore, Satish Chandra has been badly misrepresented in this. While he states it has been said that an indo Muslim nobility/state emerged as a result of the khalji revolution, ultimately he gives a lengthy explanation as to why it’s wrong.

“Ziauddin Barani who wrote his political tract, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, while in prison during the early years of Firuz Tughlaq, echoes the same views. He says that at the time of creation, some minds were inspired with the art of letters and of writing, others with horsemanship, and yet others in the weaving, stich- craft, carpentry, hair-cutting and tanning. Thus, men should practice only those crafts and professions "for which men have been inspired (and) are practised by them". He goes on to say, "Even if a man of base or low birth is adorned with a hundred merits, he will not be able to organise and administer the country according to expectations, or be worthy of leadership or political trust." Barani was, apparently, voicing the prejudices of the ruling sections. But these views had a definite bearing on the character of the state. The state remained the exclusive preserve of the so-called "respectable" classes. The only ruler who tried to breach this policy was Muhammad bin Tughlaq who appointed a number of persons, both Hindus and Muslims, from the so-called low classes on the basis of their efficiency. But there was a strong reaction against this from the established ruling classes. Under Firuz Tughlaq, we find no reference to the appointment of such people, either Hindus or Muslims. Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state.”

Pg 268

It is for these reasons that I’ve decided to remove this section. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Casualties in the overall war

@User:Noorullah21 Since it is good to discuss here.

The article states the overall mongol invasion. And the casualties which took place in the battles were the "part" of this overall invasion/campaign. So shouldn't it be mentioned?

Moreoever Ali Beg was executed by The orders of Alauddin khilji later on, which is a part of this overall Invasion again. So shouldn't it be mentioned? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The execution part for a commander can be added, I’m only more concerned about you adding casualties. We can’t mention 1 battle out of the plenty there was for a casualty section. If you can find a source for casualties throughout the war that’d be good, otherwise, we shouldn’t add anything. Adding all the battles to try to synthesize a total would also be WP:OR and clutter the infobox. Noorullah (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Then can't we add "50,000+" in the casualties? Because 50,000 were clearly killed in the battle as per the cited sources. Since we don't know the casualties of Mongols in the overall war. How about we add "50,000+"?

Besides that I will look for the sources which mentions the mongol casualties in the overall war. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but again no, that would be asserting that throughout the war only 50,000 casualties were suffered, which we know isn't the case and that was only it for 1 battle. Look for a source that can mention it otherwise for throughout the whole war. Noorullah (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"That would be asserting that throughout the war only 50,000 casualties were suffered"

I agree that is why I said "50,000+." Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)