Jump to content

Talk:Tughlaq dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tughlaq or Tughluq or Tughlaqh[edit]

What is the preferred spelling and why? In the Wikipedia we have some articles with each spelling. Bejnar 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Tughluq. To be pronounced Toogh-looq. I have asked Prof. Semih Tezcan, an expert on Turkic languages, whether Tughluq or Tughlaq is right. He said: "Tughlaq does not make sense in any Turkic language but Tughluq very much so." Still, it is often misspelled Tughlaq. A tugh was a banner with a horse-tail attached. The syllable -luq equals English -hood, -ness, -dom, so tugh-luq means banner-dom = the office of bearing a banner = (politely) the one who has the office of bearing a banner = standard-bearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curryfranke (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrat Shah[edit]

At 09:29, 28 January 2007 IP editor 125.22.84.219 deleted the last of the rulers of the Tughlaq dynasty, Nusrat Shah who ruled at Firouzabad (Firuzabad) from 1394 to 1398. Firuzabad is about sixty kilometers south of Shiraz in the province of Fârs in central Iran. He is to be distinguished from Nusrat Khan, a general under Alauddin Khilji, who attacked Gujarat in 1297, and was killed by Hammir's army in 1299. He is also to be distinguished from Nasir Uddin Nusrat Shah, the Bengali ruler of the Hussain-Shahi Dynasty who assumed the rule from his father in 1519 and was assassinated in 1533.

Mahmud Nasir ud din (Muhammad Shah Tughluq) died in 1394. His son Nasir-ud-din Mahmud Shah controlled Delhi and the east, while Nusrat Shah, grandson of Firuz Shah Tughluq, controlled the west.

Nusrat Shah was defeated and killed by the Mongols, under the leadership of Timur (Tamerlane) in 1398. The Mongols went on to sack Delhi, and rule over Delhi fell to Iqbal Khan, who ruled from 1398 to 1405.--Bejnar 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because in India there was built a new city called Firuzabad that were ruled by turkish noble families of central Asia. Firuzabad of Iran has nothing to do with that of Inida or Pakistan. That show what kind of an uneducated Pigtoon wahabi-salafi dog you are, little Awghan bastard. Read some real historical books.--84.59.111.229 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the.....[edit]

In the Hindustani language? WTH is that supposed to mean? There is NO language called Hindustani. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Hindustani language any more. It split up into Hindi and Urdu. 600 years before the Pakistan movement, the languages of Northern India were all called with the umbrella term Hindustani or more often Hindavi. When you read Hindavi, you never know if they mean Braj Bhasha, Old Avadhi, Old Rajasthani, Old Gujarati and even Old Marathi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curryfranke (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016[edit]

37.210.192.231 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tughlaq dynasty. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017[edit]

it was considered by modern scholars as indo-islamic architecture. 103.92.41.132 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021[edit]

"no contemporary sources corroborate this claim" ferishta is contemporary and corroborates it. 80.189.68.174 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

@Sutyarashi As you asked me to take it to the talk page presumably per WP:ONUS, what is the main concern you'd like to bring up? I added something that added to the origins that they were possibly of Turko-Afghan origin similar to the Turkic and Turko-Mongol theories of origin. The source I cited specifically says Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq was Turko-Afghan in origin per "Indo-Muslim Polity (Turko-Afghan Period)", p.145 Noorullah (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source states: Ghayasuddin, who was himself a Turko-Afghan, Qarawana of mixed parentage. At the page 141, he says about Qarauna: Like the Khaljis they must have intermarried with the Afghans and acquired their characteristics. This is his assumption that Qara'unas had intermarried with the Afghans and hence his claim for Tughlaq dynasty being Turko-Afghan, which is a fringe theory, and a minority view at best. No academic source states Qara'unas or Tughlaq dynasty as Turko-Afghan. We can't add fringe views per WP:UNDUE in the article as none of the eminent scholars state it to be such. Peter Jackson, for instance calls Tughlaq a Mongol or Turco-Mongol, as does André Wink. No other source I have gone through hints at a Turko-Afghan origins of Tughlaq dynasty as well. It's very clear that mainstream of Qara'unas is that they were Turko-Mongols, not Turko-Afghan. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi Seems good.
I think the Turko-Mongol source in the article should be replaced with a better scholarly one as you cited here. I'll add those, is there any sources then just the one alone to back up just a Turkic origin as is stated in the article? Noorullah (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 perhaps there are, however based on the origins of Qara'unas majority of scholarship seem to suggest a Mongol/Turco-Mongol origins. I do plan to rewrite the section in the next few days, as current one is rather messy. If you can improve the sourcing/content, please do so.
Sutyarashi (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi language[edit]

There is no evidence that the tughlaq emperors spoke Punjabi. Furthermore, “dynastic” seems to be a term pulled out of thin air in this context.

let me pull the users edit.

“Take this source then, it clearly states: "This **Punjabi** element in their language travelled with them.", also, Khusrau Khan wrote that Ballad for Ghazi Malik which he obvv read later, which does seem to indicate that he could read the language, showing literacy. Not only that Ghazi Malik literally governed Punjab? Ofc he could speak the local language. Feroz Shah's favorite city was Dipalpur, where he would often stay. He spoke Punjabi there, obv.”

firstly I would like the page number of the first quote for context(also because I can’t find it in any of the sources listed). Secondly, that doesn’t say anything about the rulers speaking Punjabi.

furthermore, half of this response seems to be based on assumptions. How do we know Ghazi Malik read the ballad without the use of translators? There needs to be a source that states word for word that the emperor spoke Punjabi, which there isn’t. How does governing Punjab matter in this case? Tughlaqs also occupied majority of the subcontinent.

to conclude, the sources cited have only written about a war ballad written by a court scholar. There is no evidence that Punjabi was spoken by the emperors, or majority of the noble class. Sources need to specify that.

@Akshunwar

You can bring your concerns here in the talk page. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You definetly seem to be right here. When i originally reverted to his edit, The sources seemed WP:RS to me so I supported it. But now I realise that the sources aren't even specific about the Dynastic language of Tughlaqs being Punjabi. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Motherland”[edit]

Hello @Malik-Al-Hind. Firstly thank you for pointing out the quote in the search bar. Clumsy of me to miss. However there is still glaring issues within this edit.

Side note: Do you have access to this book at all? At least a ISBN number? Can’t find anything on the internet outside of a few snippets on google. If it’s unavailable than that’s a bit concerning.


The author you cited here claims that the founder of the empire considered Punjab his motherland due to his supposed maternal relation. The issue is we already have several sources listed in the body which theorizes different possible origins for Tughlaq(although we know for sure that they had foreign origins). Not all of those sources support the claim that Tughlaqs mother was a Jatt, which would mean its undue weight. Because it presupposes one theory over another.

furthermore it’s important to note that Ferishta’s claim is not backed by contemporary evidence.

“The Tughluqs: Sultan Ghiyasuddin Tughluq". In Mohammad Habib and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami (ed.). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206–1526). Vol. 5. The Indian History Congress / People's Publishing House.”

https://ia801900.us.archive.org/33/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.147431/2015.147431.A-Comprehensive-History-Of-India-Vol-v-The-Delhi-Sultanat.pdf

“Ferishta, who made inquiries at Lahore about the origin of the Tughlaqs, was told that Ghiyasuddin’s father was one of the Turkish slaves of the Balban, and that his mother was a women from a local Jat family. But this statement lacks confirmation by contemporary authorities” (Pg 461).

(Perhaps another time I may make an edit in the future adding this detail in the origins section.)

anyway like I said, it’s undue weight. We already have ferishtas source in the origins section. And before you ask if that includes the usage of the term “motherland” in the body, that’s also a yes. Your source clearly implies that the Tughlaqs considered Punjab to be their motherland because of their maternal heritage. But like I already mentioned, contemporary authorities dispute that.

“Firoz Shah Tughlaq's mother also belonged to the Punjab Thus the Tughlaqs had not only great attachment for the Punjab, but looked upon it as their motherland.”

I hope we can come to some sort of agreement or understanding by the end of this. However, if it comes to the point that there is still a major disagreement between us that can’t be solved alone, we can always go get consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the origins of Tughlaqs. They were undoubtedly were of turco-mongol origin.
But the author said That Malik Tughlaq viewed Punjab as his motherland not only because of his mother being a jatt but because of various other reasons.
Also in page 152:
"The Tughlaqs had close links with the Punjab. According to Firishta and Sujan Rai Bhandari, Tughlaq, the founder of the dynasty, was born in the Punjab to a Jat mother during the reign of Balban. This may or may not be true"
So I am pretty sure the author himself makes it pretty clear that it isn't necessary that tughlaq's mother was a jatt. He clearly says "it may not be true"
If you read the passage clearly, He supports the assertion of Tughlaqs making Punjab their motherland because of various reasons such as Punjab had been the home of Malik Tughlaq, he had been a governor there as well etc in page 154-157
So I suggest you to let it stay there. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it’s a bit hard to verify the authors claims when majority of the book is unavailable for public viewing. I asked this once but I never got an answer so I’ll ask you again, do you have full access to this book? An ISBN number? Do you only have access to the snippets?
“If you read the passage clearly, He supports the assertion of Tughlaqs making Punjab their motherland because of various reasons such as Punjab had been the home of Malik Tughlaq, he had been a governor there as well etc in page 154-157”
All due respect, but you’re just coming up with your own reasoning to the question. That’s not what was written write right before that word was used.
“Tughlaq's mother also belonged to the Punjab Thus the Tughlaqs had not only great attachment for the Punjab, but looked upon it as their motherland.”
Normally I wouldn’t be focusing too much on semantics but I notice you disagree on the meaning behind certain words or sentences sometimes in previous discussion. For that reason let me pull up the Oxford definition of the word “Thus” Just so we are clear.
“As a result or consequence of this; therefore”.
It’s clear that the author is saying that they had developed an attachment to the Punjab as a result/consequence of their maternal heritage. But this is disputed so it would be undue weight.
“The Tughlaqs had close links with the Punjab. According to Firishta and Sujan Rai Bhandari, Tughlaq, the founder of the dynasty, was born in the Punjab to a Jat mother during the reign of Balban. This may or may not be true"
“So I am pretty sure the author himself makes it pretty clear that it isn't necessary that tughlaq's mother was a jatt. He clearly says "it may not be true"
That doesn’t really change the fact that the next statement he makes is a direct contradiction to your point. It also doesn’t prove your point, because no where does the author say that the Tughlaqs were close to the Punjab because it was their home/territory they governed. Again that’s your explanation, not the authors. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tughlaq_dynasty&oldid=1229870537"