It is the fact that Mughals were originally NOT from the Indian subcontinent. But, they were socially Indianized as soon as they settled in the Indian subcontinent. However, it is not their place of origin what makes them foreigners, but their Muslim identity which makes them foreigners.
*Human beings since their origin, they migrated throughout the planet or from one place to another. Therefore, no one could say absolutely that certain land is their place of origin. Your ancestors might have or might NOT have settled in the Indian subcontinent, it’d be beyond your knowledge.
Obviously, Mughals’ Muslim identity is the pretext for Hindutva movements to makes Mughals foreigners in the Indian subcontinent – although, now, the Republic of India has a citizenship law that grants people after matching certain criteria. For Mughal, they settled for three centuries in the Indian subcontinent.
Furthermore, in 1857, Indian kings and general populace got united under Mughal leadership to revolt against the British Empire. In fact, Mughal Sultan Bahadur Shah Jafar was democratically supported by the Indian public in 1857 for the major arm struggle against the British occupation of the Indian subcontinent.
As the British have seen the unity, the British Sir Lord Strachey, who served as the regent on several occasions and who was a member of the (Indian Organization), states about the Muslim-Hindu enmity, “Anything that will be done in order to dominate or sow discord is compatible with our government’s policy. The greater support for our policy in India is the co-existence of two autonomous societies who are hostile to each other.”
After the independence of India from the British empire in 1947, the legacy of Hindu-Muslim enmity is continuously growing that makes Mughals foreigners, the legacy once end-up in 1947 with the partition of India and Pakistan. The Hindutva movement is labelling all Muslim rulers foreigners in their mouthpieces or by influencing news media to alienate Indian Muslims in their own homeland.
answered a question on Quora as follow: “Of course, Babur was a foreign invader. You could say so was his son Humayun since he wasn’t born in India. Post that all Mughal rulers were born in India – Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb. So were they foreigners or Indian? Imagine the uproar there would be in today’s America if someone born to Indian immigrants were to be labelled a foreigner.”
He goes on questioning that “Did the Mughals treat Indians as second-class citizens not worthy of involving them at the highest levels of administration?” Absolutely NOT. According to columbia.edu, it is interesting that all the assistants of the diwan-i-khalsa under Shah Jahan’s reign were Hindus, and five out of the seven under the diwan-i-tan belonged to the same community.
I find it funny whenever someone calls Mughals as invaders
500 years ago, pretty much every king in the world was only concerned about expanding his own kingdom. Boundaries were constantly redrawn, cities were constantly being annexed and rebuilt.
— Dhruv Rathee (@dhruv_rathee) October 16, 2018
Some people think it was their 1000 year old ancestor’s birthright to rule over a certain region of land.
But they probably have no idea if their ancestors themselves “invaded” that land or not. Who were the original-original inhabitants?
— Dhruv Rathee (@dhruv_rathee) October 16, 2018
The concept of nationalism is modern, there were no national boundaries since the world’s domination by kingdoms, their boundaries were redrawn, rebuilt, expanded depending on their military strength. To judge the history, by wearing the glass of modern age, is absolute ignorance. To judge something about the history, you have to swim into the history by learning the common sense of that age or that age’s people’s.
If you accuse a historical figure of not allowing ordinary people to use Facebook, then you are in absolute ignorance. That is, you ignored very basic knowledge that the Facebook didn’t exist in the historical period. Therefore, you can’t judge historical figure hiding behind the modern concept.
The concept of national boundaries and nationalism, that is, each country is known by its boundary is a modern idea. Or saying that each country inherited by a particular group of people since the origin of the planet is absolute ignorance. Instead, people did migrate from one place to another for settlement as we do today for jobs or business.
For national boundaries, historically, each kingdom had its own boundary that was often redrawn depending on its military weakness or brilliance. Historically, there were no nations as we know today. Each nation as we mention in the history is a geographic term, that is, the region is geographically known. Politically, ruling borders subjected to redrawn their boundaries often as soon as rulers expand their presence.