History of Mughalstan

[Bijoy Misra]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Samar Abbas wrote:

> History of Mughalstan
>
>  History reveals that South Asia has consisted of several well-defined
> distinct ethnic core regions, each with its own language, script, culture
> and ethnicity. The core regions of Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Maharashtra are
> noteable examples which have existed since the early centuries AD. As
> noted by Gandasa, South Asia is more like a continent than a monolithic
> nation, consisting of distinct nations. Perhaps one of the latest to
> evolve was the Muslim-dominated Indus-Ganges subregion; it is proposed
> that this subregion be called Mughalstan.

Who proposes?
> Ever since Bhaktiyar Khilji
> conquered Bihar and Bengal, the Indus-Ganges valley appears to have formed
> one single distinct nation with its own language (Urdu), ethnic group
> (Mughals) and culture. For most of the Delhi Sultanate, Mughalstan was one
> united region, and the conquest of South India can be compared to the
> extension of the French Empire into Germany under Napoleon. Likewise, the
> core of the Indo-Tinurid Empire was Mughalstan, whilst other ethnic core
> regions were ruled as tributary states rather than as part of Mughalstan.
> Thus, from the Delhi Sultanate to the Indo-Timurieds, Mughalstan formed
> one nation. The distinct culture of the conquered regions appears to have
> been respected. Thus, a vibrant Dravidian civilization survived in the
> South even during Mughal rule.

Are you trying something? or are serious?

Sounds way on the fringe...  Is this a political move?

BM