Dec 4 2010, 02:53 PM
i'm particularly interested if there is any indians here and what are their views on this?
as much as they later play an integral part of the indian history, i thought they have a different lineage and differnet identity from the indians at the point of occupation, so they are still considered non-native and foreign at that point of time. in a way this is somewhat similar to the north african berbers and arabs that goes via morocco into spain, which at that time, arabs in spain is more similar to the arabs in middle east than to the spanish people in spain. now that people are already assimilated and have their modern identity, that is a different story, but i'm talking abt history, which is relevant to the time of occurence.
Dec 5 2010, 06:12 AM
The thing about Mughals is that even though their leadership was mostly made up of Central Asian Mongols (these people were similar to the Caucasoid-Mongoloid people you see in much of Central Asia today), many of their forces were Afghans as well as the Mongols. The Afghans would have been mostly Caucasoids. You can still see Mughal Mongol features on some Indians but not at the same levels as when they first arrived because it has diluted significantly.
The Mughals were completely assimilated into India unlike the British who never were. So when the Mughals first arrived they were foreigners but very soon became completely assimilated and became Indians. The British never assimilated.