Talk:Mughal Empire

Succession section in infobox

After 1719, over the period of time Hyderabad State, Carnatic Sultanate, Bengal Subah and Oudh State become independent state. So i suggest to include all this state in infobox as this are not some region and have imp area in terms of history. Curious man123 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems plausible

As long as u could provide the evidence those kingdoms really inherit the administrations from Mughal empire 139.193.50.17 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

All that state i mention have amply references, in there respective article, of being Autonomous in there administration and was considered an independent state in every sphere of administration and were sovereign in terms of decision making. Curious man123 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok i think its fine. Dont forget to cite the reference to for eaxch of them 139.193.50.17 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If there are not rebuttal, i assume we can add that on Succession list Curious man123 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The mentioned states are not successors, they nominally remained a part of the Empire. The other IP is might be the same editor. Also IP support generally doesn't count as talk consensus. PadFoot2008 16:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 There was no such as nominal rule over these states. Aforementioned state have a sovereign rule over the area and there were no say of mughal emperor in the administration, tax collection, going war with anyone and these are the credentials of a sovereignty. Yes, these rulers were paying a sum of annual tribute to the empire but that doesn't undermine the sovereignty of these ruler. And as far as this talk concern, before assuming anything else and making accusations, i never said consensus were established. And if you see my last reply on this talk page, i added these after waiting more than a week of no response assuming there were no rebuttal for this edits. Curious man123 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten my opossition then. As I said, get support for your edits from an editor, preferably not an IP or a sock. Also you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "nominal". And lastly, do not proceed to argue with me with baseless arguments; you do not have my consensus. PadFoot2008 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Well, arguments are involved in establishing consensus, with factual information for which you called mine as baseless. While you havnt shared any citations for voting against those edits. Well, here is the source which explicitly says

Certainly as the example of both Murshid Quli Khan in Bengal and Mubariz Khan in Hyderabad illustrate, the habits and beliefs in Imperial service could have been resurrected among Mughal nobels and technocrats. Instead, during Muhammad Shah's regin, the empire slipped into loosely knit group of regional successor states.

So, calling them as successor state is not something unestablished amongst historians. Curious man123 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @RegentsPark @Vanamonde93 @Kautilya3 for their views on these. Curious man123 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Mughal state seems like a textbook case where this parameter can be a bad idea. The state had complex multi-tiered relationships surrounding the imperial core over time, and acquired and lost territory in long arcs of centuries in incredibly complex geopolitical circumstances. My position is that we shouldn't use this parameter at all, since it's simply too complex for the infobox to contain. Remsense诉 08:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it could be seen like that, but we should mention at least the notable state that succeeded because this timeline has placed itself in an important part of subcontinent history. So in my opinion we should mention it. Curious man123 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think if we do include it, a very zoomed-out, parsimonious list like what is there currently is ideal. Remsense诉 09:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think skipping Hyderabad State and Bengal State in succession would be a great idea because the former existed as a state even till Indian independence and later was the important region in terms of economy and overall history of the British Empire in India. If we want, we can skip Carnatic as it was only suzerainty under mughals. And also, technically, British Raj was not succeeded from mughals but from the company rule after the Government of India Act 1858, so it can be removed too. Curious man123 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

pinging @RegentsPark @Kautilya3 for their views about this addition. Curious man123 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is a complicated question but the outcome for us is straightforward. Complicated, because the Mughal empire did fracture into many self-governing states, many of which, while independent, continued to nominally be part of the empire (Bengal being the best example) while a few (the Sikh empire being the best example) were actually independent. However, on Wikipedia the outcome is straightforward and this is why we have the WP:OR policy. If we can't find numerous reliable sources that unambiguously state that xyz state was a successor to the Mughal empire, we can't say it either. In other words, no, we don't include all those states. RegentsPark (comment) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  What about Hyderabad state, even after 1857, Hyderabad state existed till 1947. It could be included as a successor state, isnt it? Curious man123 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Only if multiple reliable sources state that Hyderabad State was a successor state to the Mughal empire. Drawing your own conclusions about the extent of independence of a state is WP:OR.RegentsPark (comment) 20:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Hyderabad state was part of British Raj. The only reasonable "successor" to the Mughal Empire is British Raj. If that is not acceptable, we should leave it blank. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  What constitutes a "'reasonable' successor"?

  At a high level, this looks like a singular entity (the Mughal empire) was succeeded by many smaller entities, all of which were later themselves succeeded by another singular entity (the British Raj).

  [Mughal Empire] ->

  [[Hyderabad State],

  [Carnatic Sultanate],

  [Bengal Subah],

  [Oudh State],

  [Maratha Confederacy],

  [Sikh Empire]] ->

  [British Raj]

  I maintain that it's historically inaccurate to simply skip over the intermediary states for the sake of simplicity. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is quite literally how the historiography is broadly summarized. There's a difference between accuracy and precision, you know. This presentation is imprecise but accurate, à la specifying the year someone was born but not the day or hour. Again, our options are this or nothing, as the infobox is not designed to diagram at the level of fidelity you consider appropriate. Remsense诉 00:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  If this is an all or nothing scenario, then it may be better to leave the field blank instead.

  Skipping over ~100 years worth of a region's history is neither precise nor accurate. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then your problem is with each work of history that summarizes by describing the Raj as succeeding the Mughals in dominion over the subcontinent. The more you appreciate the details, the more you generally understand when they need to be withheld. Remsense诉 00:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  And pray tell, why do these details need to be withheld? AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  If I've said it once here, I've said it a dozen times: the purpose of an infobox is to summarize the key facts of a topic at a glance. The less an infobox contains, the better it serves this purpose. It's not our personal spreadsheet to fine-tune and chisel. If it needs a footnote or is in any way counterintuitive for a general audience, then it is simply defective. (And yes, this means most infoboxes are defective. Someday, we will have fixed them all.) If one would like to know more detail, that is what the actual article is for, where such details can be adequately related in prose. Remsense诉 01:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of the history is being skipped over. I wish you would look into the discussions above. None of the states like Hyderabad, Marathas, Bengal, etc. claimed sovereignty from Mughal rule, and in 1858 became a part of the British Raj, which formally succeeded Mughal rule. As for the Sikhs, the territory (Punjab) remained a nominal part of the empire (albeit in rebellion), until 1757, when it was ceded to the Durrani Empire by the Mughal emperor. Thus, later, when the Sikh territory became independent, it became independent from the Afghans and not the Mughal empire. PadFoot (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  As for the Sikhs, the territory (Punjab) remained a nominal part of the empire (albeit in rebellion), until 1757, when it was ceded to the Durrani Empire by the Mughal emperor.

  Citation Needed

  Thus, later, when the Sikh territory became independent, it became independent from the Afghans and not the Mughal empire.

  Citation Needed

  I really feel like we're splitting hairs over a non-issue... It's not like the Mughals just packed up their bags and let the British "succeed" their rule. I can't speak for the history of the other states, but this was certainly not the case for Punjab. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your closing sentence sheds light on the issue: you're only interested in the Punjab here, not the overall presentation or broad strokes. When consensus is ignored, this is called "tendentious editing". Remsense诉 08:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm concerned with Punjab in so-far as correcting it's exclusion from South Asian history, such as that pertaining to the Mughal Empire.

  In terms of the infobox, I still see no reason why a single field cannot simply include a list of values, like the "Successor" field containing a list of the succeeding empires. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Curious man123, you seem to be absolutely determined to continue your editwarring even after 2 months. Firstly, per WP:NOCONSENSUS you can't change the successor list to Company rule without consensus as British Raj is the long-standing version. Get a consensus for your change first, before change long-standing content. You would see @Kautilya3, as well as other participating editors, also supports that the only successor entity in the succession list should be British Raj. PadFoot (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @PadFoot2008 I insist you to read this whole discussion and compare it to those edits. This discussion is totally different from what you assume it to be. This was for addition of aforementioned state which i suggested. Clearly it was not supported by fellow editors. So i didnt added that. And as far as your presumably allegations of edit wars are concerns, if you could see here i didnt "added" Company rule in India and removed British Raj, both were included in the succession list for over decade as "long standing version". I simply removed British raj because it didnt succeeded from mughals. British raj started after Government of India Act 1858, in that document, the transfer of power happened between the company authorities and British crown and not between mughal as such which i did explain in that edit. Also, Kautilya3 also said if not agree to it we should keep it blank which you conveniently left out. And "NOConsensus", what you said about based on above chat is for, not to mentioned my suggested edits and not for anything else. Curious man123 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  The current consensus (in this as well as other discussions) seems to be to only include British Raj, the arguments for which have been provided nearly a million times by me and other editors. PadFoot (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Mughal Empire is Hindustan ?

The Mughal Empire, also historically referred as Hindustan

This first sentence seems ambiguous and Hindustan is an ancient term much before Mughals Persian used call present day india. Afv12e (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous and that was the closest name of the Empire. The term "Hindustan" is of Persian origin, it's a persian word for the Indic word "Sindhu". This was the the other name of the Mughal empire, As the empire expanded, so did "Hindustan" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sir,

Mughal entity was Hindoostan هندوستان during 1526-1858.

Before that term was held by Lodhis. Abirtel (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan was the 2nd official term of the Mughal empireMalik-Al-Hind (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche I still don't understand why are you removing it from the lead? It was the 2nd official term of the empire. Even the name section only talks about hindustan. I had a discussion with @Ramsense over this yesterday and he himself agreed to put it. As long as there is only 1 name, There is no need of footnote. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I made it a footnote, which is the more proper solution. Please see my edit summary of my latest edit for more info. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Please relax, it's really not that big of a difference, let it stay in a footnote if other editors disagree. There's more important things to worry about. Remsense诉 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not the WP:ENDOFTHEWORLD if you can't always get your way, Malik-Al-Hind. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My point is, Footnoting only occurs when there are more names and terms. If you really want to footnote it, then add more names, But no need to do that since I did that already. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Our point is: it matters even more that you're able to collaborate with others, and that sometimes involves points that aren't exactly how you like them. Whether you intend it or not, that often fosters a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Just let it be for now. Remsense诉 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In Arabic it was Hindiyyah

In persian it was Hindoostan

In Urdu (Historic Hindi) it was also Hindoostan ہندوستان Abirtel (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abirtel, in addition to the extra names being unnecessary, you continue to cite primary sources for them, which are unideal for these claims at best. We don't interpret primary sources ourselves, we have secondary sources do that for us. You need to find a work of modern scholarship that says this name was used, not go to a contemporary book of poetry and interpret it yourself. Remsense诉 12:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned citations can be verified from Primary sources. So they are not technically primary sources.

I think as a multilingual empire it is very much informative to add autonymous names of that specific entity.

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you're making a very specific claim about historical importance and provenance that is not what the primary source is itself saying. That is your additional interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY. Remsense诉 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think when an emperor himself used a specific term in his epithet, then we can reasonably conclude that term was the endonymous identity of that entity.

If you have still doubt, with due respect you can verify the titles of Emperor Akbar, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb page of Arabic wikipedia.

Arabic speaking lands knew mughal entity as Hindiyyah. Abirtel (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No one wants to take your or my word for that. If that's certain to be the case, you can find a secondary source that says it explicitly. Remsense诉 12:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also totally unacceptable to quietly readd the material as if this conversation has been resolved with acknowledgement of site content guidelines. Remsense诉 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

okay Abirtel (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox official name

Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, you recently reverted my edit so I opened this discussion. You weren't pretty clear on what you meant by "no need" in you edit summary. Per the documentation in Template: Infobox country :

{{Infobox country
|micronation = <!--yes if a micronation-->
|conventional_long_name = <!--Formal or official full name of the country in English-->

You can see that the conventional_long_name parameter requires the official name not the common name which is already mentioned as the first word in the lead and the title. PadFoot2008 03:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We've always (as far as I know) had the infobox header for this article as "Mughal Empire" even if that is technically not the "offical name". I don't think the conventional long name should be confused with the native name, which in this case if in English would be Hindustan, whereas the conventional long name would just be Mughal Empire — it's fine if the article title and the infobox title are the same. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, If something has been wrong for a long time that doesn't automatically make it correct. It's not fine if we are using the wrong thing. The conventional long name is Hindustan and the common name is Mughal empire. Look at West Germany, Soviet Union, Ottoman Empire, Sassanian Empire or especially British Raj. PadFoot2008 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see those examples — I know what an official name is, and I'm not saying we shouldn't use the official name in the infobox. It's just not really clear what the official name is here, and Hindustan seems to be the short version, not the long version, as the name section says. Maybe change the infobox title to "Dominion of Hindustan"? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. PadFoot2008 03:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, I think we should perhaps use the English translation of Bilad-i-Hind: Land of Hindustan, Country of Hindustan or Empire of Hindustan. Wilayat can mean multiple things and it's translation doesn't appear very accurate. Bilād seems to be much more an official designation of a country and used very commonly. PadFoot2008 04:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So which one is it? Empire of Hindustan seems the best choice here if you don't want to use the existing name. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best choice as well. PadFoot2008 05:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, one more thing, per convention, as you will see in the above-mentioned articles as well as other articles, the official name is mentioned in the lead as well, in the following construct: "The (Article name), officially the (official name), was ..." PadFoot2008 09:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, for now, let's use just "Hindustan" in the infobox and the lede paragraph. "Empire of Hindustan" is, as of now, not sourced until I find sources. Additionally, many modern-day countries articles like Japan and Malaysia use a single word official name in the infobox, as well as former country article infoboxes like Canada (New France). PadFoot2008 04:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've reverted the change because I don't see any sources that call this empire the "Empire of Hindustan". Please attempt to get consensus here. RegentsPark (comment) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please provide reliable sources that clearly state in English that the empire was officially called "Empire of Hindustan". Note the emphasis on official and on English, both are required. RegentsPark (comment) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are sources which specifically calls it "Dominion of Hindustan" Or "Sultanate of Hindustan" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Malik-Al-Hind, RegentsPark asked for sources on "Empire of Hindustan", not those. PadFoot2008 08:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. I know regentspark asked sources for "Empire of Hindustan". But I think "Sultanate of Hindustan" is pretty much "Empire of Hindustan" if translated to English. Moreover, Even if this is still an issue, can't we add "Dominion of Hindustan" and "Sultanate Of Hindustan" on the infobox? Because this is well sourced. I don't know about specific mention of "Empire of Hindustan". Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Empire of Hindoostan would be Riyasat -i- Hindoostan ریاستِ ہندوستان

  In persian. Abirtel (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Malik-Al-Hind, Sultanate of Al-Hind (Not Sultanate of Hindustan) would be a primary source and we don't have a secondary source explicitly mentioning it as an "official name" as of now. I'd like to find a better source for "Dominion of Hindustan" for now. I think we should use just "Hindustan" in the infobox for now and in the lede as well (official name of the state is mentioned by convention in the lede). PadFoot2008 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I kind of agree. But how is the source for "Dominion of Hindustan" not good enough? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Malik-Al-Hind, I am going to include the citation from that source in this article a bit later. That source includes half a dozen different names which the imperial administrative records used, but we don't know which one is the primary one, so it would be better to find more sources for the same before adding the same. So should I add "Hindustan" to the infobox and lede? PadFoot2008 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, As long as we are still finding other sources. Add "Hindustan" in the lead/infobox.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Please desist from adding alternate names in the lede and infobox w/o discussing the sources (and relevant quotes) on the talkpage to ensure that they satisfy both WP:RS and WP:DUE. We don't want to end up with WP:OR or cherry-picking trivial mentions from random Google/GBooks/JSTOR hits. If some information is worthy of including in the lede or infobox it should be easy to source from one of the many standard academic texts that focus on the subject of this article, ie, the Mughal empire. Abecedare (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hindustan is already been there but to mention in infobox i dont think it will add value because Hindustan is not merely for the mughal empire but more of a geographical connotation. Every power that ruled Delhi use to called them ruler of Hindustan (because delhi been the epicenter) one way or the other for instance Delhi Sultanate. And also now, Hindustan is much more a geographical connotation rather than the name for particular realm. Curious man123 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. The Name section of the article does mention "Hindustan" as "an official name for the empire was Hindustan, which was documented in the Ain-i-Akbari" but that is not what the cited source says exactly. Instead Eugenia Vanina says that in Ain-i-Akbari the term Hindustan was used in several senses: to refer to an entity "coterminus with India"; the area between Ganga and Jamuna; and, the core of the Mughal empire. And that it was only later that the meaning broadened and "to a considerable effect was an official name of the empire as such." Abecedare (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Abecedare, The thing is that we can not have "Mughal Empire" in the conventional_long_name parameter in the infobox. That parameter is for the official name which "Mughal Empire" was definitely not, as clearly mentioned in the source. Hindustan was not the official name of the Delhi Sultanate. On the other hand, Hindustan was indeed the official name of this entity. If sources are in question, I can without any problem provide the same. Hindustan was the official name and so per rules, must be mentioned in the top parameter of the infobox. Hindustan is not an alternate name but the official name here. PadFoot2008 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  The conventional long name parameter is not a required parameter (I've blanked it for the time being). You should only fill it if there is an actual English language official name and if the sourcing is excellent. RegentsPark (comment) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't use "Empire Of Hindustan". Can't we just use "Dominion of Hindustan" or just "Hindustan" perMalik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well I couldn't find any mention of "Dominion of Hindustan" in any of these sources, and there was no mention of Hindustan in your second source and only a quick mention in the first. There needs to be much better sourcing, as RegentsPark said, and a definite prominent long name between these sources. There's too much conflicting information over whether it is Empire of Hindustan, Dominion, or just Hindustan. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can't we mention all these then? My third source clearly says how Hindustan was the "official" name of the empire. And besides that it clearly says

• "Later, the meaning of 'Hindustan broadened with the expansion of the Mughal empire and to a considerable extent was an official name of the empire as such, while the term 'Mughal' was not used for this purpose. The regions of India which were not a part of the empire or hosted anti-Mughal movements were never attributed to "Hindustan'. After the disintegration of the empire, 'Hindustan' was applied to the territories that remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Padishahs (Bayly 1998: 39-41)."

-Eugenia Vanina in Page 47

The other source of mine also clearly states:

"Mughal administrative records were moreover not for public circulation. In referring to Muslims, writers would use such expressions as ummat-i Islam (the community of Islam), or ahl-i Islam (the people of Islam) or simply musalmänän (Mussulmans): in referring to their habitat, terms such as Bilad-i-Hind (the country of Hind), wilayat-I-Hindüstan (the dominion of Hindustan), sultanat-i mamlikat-i Dihli (sultanate of the country of Delhi), mumalik-i mahrüsa (the fortified or protected countries, i.e. those ruled by a sovereign), were used. The three categories of reference, the personal, the spañal and the political, were not conflated"

-Nehemia Levtzion in page 69

• So My question is. Can't we mention these two i.e Hindustan and Dominion/Empire of Hindustan? Like in the case of Safavid Iran? There are also 3 names used in the infobox there. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so. Though the Mughals may have used these terms to reference their "habitat", there is no evidence that these were official names of the country. These are already mentioned in the section titled "Name", and that is the appropriate place for them. RegentsPark (comment) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if you read the references i gave but I will share it once again.

"Later, the meaning of 'Hindustan broadened with the expansion of the Mughal empire and to a considerable extent was an official name of the empire as such, while the term 'Mughal' was not used for this purpose. The regions of India which were not a part of the empire or hosted anti-Mughal movements were never attributed to "Hindustan'. After the disintegration of the empire, 'Hindustan' was applied to the territories that remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Padishahs (Bayly 1998: 39-41)."

-Eugenia Vanina in Page 47

It clearly says "To the considerable extent was the official name of the empire"

Moreover my other sources:

"Mughal administrative records were moreover not for public circulation. In referring to Muslims, writers would use such expressions as ummat-i Islam (the community of Islam), or ahl-i Islam (the people of Islam) or simply musalmänän (Mussulmans): in referring to their habitat, terms such as Bilad-i-Hind (the country of Hind), wilayat-I-Hindüstan (the dominion of Hindustan), sultanat-i mamlikat-i Dihli (sultanate of the country of Delhi), mumalik-i mahrüsa (the fortified or protected countries, i.e. those ruled by a sovereign), were used. The three categories of reference, the personal, the spañal and the political, were not conflated"

-Nehemia Levtzion in page 69

It clearly says "Mughal administrative records" used these names i.e The court records. So they are clearly above anything else here. Like I said, we can just add "Hindustan" and "Dominion of Hindustan" in the infobox. Because Hindustan clearly was the official name of the empire while "Dominion/Vilayat of Hindustan" was used in several court records. So We can use more than 1 name like in the case of Safavid Iran. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Malik-Al-Hind, "considerable extent" is a qualifier which implies uncertainty. As for the second reference, if administrative records used these terms, that doesn't mean that they were official. Once again, please don't use the infobox as a dumping ground for uncertain information because it is important for Wikipedia to be right. There is an entire article below for dealing with nuances. RegentsPark (comment) 14:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The reference clearly says "Hindustan" was the official name of Mughal empire to a considerable extent, I agree this has uncertainty, but This is still way better than putting "Mughal empire" in the infobox. Because this name was not the official name of the empire at all, Infact the term "Mughal" wasn't even used for the empire as whole.

  Moreover my reference clearly states:

  The regions of India which were not a part of the empire or "hosted anti-Mughal movements were never attributed to "Hindustan'. After the disintegration of the empire, ''Hindustan' was applied to the territories that remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Padishahs

  This clearly states how those territories which weren't under the empire were never called as "Hindustan", Moreover in the end it clearly says how Hindustan applied to those territories which remained under the jurisdiction of the Delhi padishahs. And this has no uncertainty here.

  And as for the Administrative records, they were court records and they are above anything else here. Even if this is uncertain (which it doesn't look like but let us agree for the sake of this discussion) then it is still way better than putting "Mughal empire" in the infobox. Because this is closer to the actual truth. As we know, "Mughal empire" is a modern name given to the empire by historians. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like much else on the internet, you will find references for anything. The point is that we don't have certainty, actually far from it, what the "official" name of the empire was, whether different emperors used the same or different administrative name (often, probably, different names in the same administration), etc. What we do know is that the common name of the entity, as it is known today, is "Mughal empire" and that is one that is overwhelmingly used by academic sources. Therefore, we should stick to Mughal empire as the common name and refrain from including an official one. It isn't necessary to use the conventional_long_name parameter, just use common_name.RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Dominion of hindustan

As mentioned in the #Name of the article . The official name of the empire was Wilāyat-i-Hindustān , which is the Dominion/empire/sultanate of hindustan.

Chinese sources also mention it as Hindustan.

The official name should be changed to "Domination of Hindustan" while the common name should be kept as Mughal Empire .

The same problem is with the Mauryas , where they called their land Jumbudvipa and never called themselves as mauryas.

TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the prior discussion above on this topic and continue there if you have some new sources or arguments to present. Abecedare (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes Mughal Empire right? Just because it has been used for a long time doesn't make it right. Sure empire of hindustan might not be 100% correct either

But its way better than Mughal , a term never used by the "Mughals"

At this point just change it to "hindustan" and wait until we discover something about the prefix (empire or dominion or Sultanate) TuberGotTubed (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion would violate wikipedia's core policies of WP:V and WP:DUE; we can't just make up placeholder facts. Keep in mind that content presented to the reader is not dictated by any internal documentation or fieldname for some infobox template but by content policies. And following those, we use "Mughal Empire" because that is the terms reliable sources overwhelmingly use to refer to the empire. Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Info Box name of Arabic and Urdu

In Arabic it is Sultanate Al Hindiyyah سلطنة الهندية

In Urdu it is Hindoostan ہندوستان as per poetry of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar.

We should add this in info box. Abirtel (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, for the same reason (WP:INDICSCRIPTS) I gave you before. Remsense诉 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong here but WP:INDICSCRIPT only applies to Indic scripts, which the Perso-Arabic script is not. All the same, I too think that there is not need to add it to the infobox. PadFoot2008 12:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a script that is used to write an Indian language in India, which is what the spirit of the guideline is about. Remsense诉 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Then can we go forward for English transliteration? Abirtel (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I just don't really know why this would be considered key information to the reader. They are all variations on the name "Hindustan". Remsense诉 12:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Have a look of page East Germany. The entity is non existent.

But but it has different, conventional name and native name other than the title.

It is more fair to add native names of that entity along with title which is an exonym.

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That's one of the worse examples one could pick for several reasons, including that "Deutschland" and "Germany" are etymologically unrelated. It does not seem like you are engaging with the reasons why people may oppose this. I will try to state them clearly:

1. We shouldn't have script versions of names in the infobox, per WP:INDICSCRIPT.
   • I am going to continue to include Perso-Arabic with Brahmic scripts since it seems obviously in line with the point of said guideline—which is many scripts are used in India and it is not feasible to fairly represent them all.
2. The infobox is for key information at a glance. To me, key information includes that the Mughal Empire was called "Hindustan" by its inhabitants.
   • Each proposed name accidentally recreates the problem with the scripts above, just with the specific transliteration instead of script used.
   • This is important: the point is that these particular varieties of what I am judging to be the same name. Everyone called the country Hindustan, but of course it was adapted to the language they spoke.
   • Thus, for an English-speaking readership there is no key information being added, just an ornamental example that creates the same POV problems. We can't render "Hindustan" every single way, nor should we. What is important is that it was called Hindustan.

Remsense诉 04:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Emperor himself is considered a resident in his empire. Hindustani Bad Shahan always resided in Hindustan. Unlike British Indian Empire.

So the epithet of Aurangzeb

and the poetries of Bahadur Shah Zafar

have already passed out that criterion.

More over normal residents also refer that entity as Hindustan. See the Abul Fazl's Ain i Akbari.

Also Foreign documents in that entity's time frame also refer as Hindostan.

Lastly we have enough documents that English speakers referred that entity as Hindostan during the entity's existence.

References

👇 Abirtel (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not listening. Please reread what I've said. Remsense诉 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure

Greetings Abirtel (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Atleast mention it in the 'top' just like it is mentioned in ottoman empire as turkish empire

and the first persian empire... why not here too?

Also we should change it in the infobox atleast,as its the official name used by their official records WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope, per all of the reasons already discussed. Remsense ‥ 论 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References

'Common language' in infobox

IMO we either need some (sourced!) gloss about the languages included in the infobox along the lines that Arimaboss added in this edit or we should exclude the field from the infobox altogether and discuss the issue in the body of the article instead. As it stands the infobox claims that Hindustani, Persian, Chagatai and Arabic are common languages of the Mughal empire and it is unclear what that means (common amongst the population, commonly used in administration/court, or...?) Can we briefly discuss the issue here and arrive at a consensus?

(A similar issue arises for the Religion field in the infobox too where it is unclear whether we are talking about the religion of the emperors, state, or population but lets start with the language question first.) Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

All this is true, & the answer is that such complicated matters should be excluded from the infobox (like the endlessly-debated "official name" - see above). Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare, Per the documentation at Infobox country and the example provided, the common_languages parameter needs the common languages of the region and the official language parameter needs the official language. And the religion is supposed to be the common religion(s) in the region. Also I don't see why you should remove the Grand Vizier parameter as it a long-standing one and all former country articles mention the deputies/representatives. Also as a side note, the official name can't be excluded from the infobox as it is a mandatory parameter. PadFoot2008 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that {{Infobox former country}} supports a field for "official language" but perhaps its just not documented. In any case, do do we have sources for the common and the official language(s) of the Mughal Empire? Once we know how they discuss the topic we can decide whether to include it in the infobox and/or the article body. (To keep the discussion in this section focussed lets table the discussion about the other infobox fields.) Abecedare (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes the infobox does support those parameters. As for sources, have a look at this [1]. PadFoot2008 11:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd prefer if we can find a source by an actual specialist in Mughal history because, although Verghese may well be right, searching Google Books for a particular "fact" (as in "official language of Mughal Hindustani language") always risks hitting upon some random work that makes that claim, whether justifiably or not. But I'll let others chime in for now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Mughal Empire spanned 400 years and the notion of common languages probably shifted in that span. Chagatai might have been spoken by the early Mughals but unlikely that it was spoken by the common people or by the later Mughals. Arabic is also unlikely to be widespread. My guess is that Hindustani and Persian are the only likely common language candidates. As I express above ("official name"), I think it is better not to use a field rather than to do so just because it exists. RegentsPark (comment) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • 400?? That takes you (from 1526) to 1926. Effectively all imperial power was lost before the 200th anniversary. But you are right. We are of course (as usual) ignoring Tamil and all the languages of the south. It's too complicated for an infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    Poor (basic) math skills obviously :) RegentsPark (comment) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Title of Mughal monarch

Additionally, @Abecedare, you had asked about 'which convention' I was following when I changed Emperor to Shahenshah. When titles like Sultan, Shahenshah, Shah, Nawab, etc. was used by a dynasty, then that is preferred over King or Emperor. See Ottoman Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Sassanid Empire, Pahlavi Iran, Oudh State. PadFoot2008 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Afaik:

1. Each individual Mughal emperor adopted personalized boroque title(s) (as on Humayun's tomb)
2. English-language history books commonly refer to the Mughal rulers as emperors rather than using the term 'Shahenshah' (contrast with even English language books on Russian history using Tsar/Czar rather than emperor)

Can you provide some evidence to establish that Shahenshah is the term preferred by HISTRS sources that we aim to reflect? Abecedare (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked German Empire. I think "Emperor" is fine here (similar to the German Empire infobox). PadFoot2008 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mind, it's not all reliable sources, but specifically English-language reliable sources that we survey when deciding which names to use. Remsense诉 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

Rename the heading of Mughal empire to "empire of hindustan" or "Hindustani empire" as it was before. They called themselves the Hindustani empire , and this term has been used in various other pages which redirect here. TuberGotTubed (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the infobox header rather than the page title, please participate in the above discussions on the same info to gain consensus to change the header — edit requests are not for making potentially controversial edits, and they should provide sources as well to support the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Including Vakil-i-Mutlaq in the infobox

the Vakil-i-Mutlaq should be included in the infobox. This is an important position in the Mughal Court. If the grand vizier is included, I dont see a reason not to include the Vakil. SKAG123 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hindustani Empire

The empire was called Dominion of Hindustan or the Country Of Hindustan

Hindustan refers to India (subcontinent)in English

So change the infobox name to either

Dominion/Empire of Hindustan

Or Empire of India (for English name ) PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You would need to first establish which "official name" is the most prevalent in reliable sources, and if there is no clearly prevalent official name, it's perfectly fine leaving the parameter blank. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure "Mughal Empire" is the most widely used terms, but just like the Ottoman Empire , they are historically called "turkish empire"

While Mughals are historically called "Hindustani empire" I will get some source and get back to you. PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hindostan refers only Mughal entity before British.

Republic India (Even the word India is actually a latinised for of Hindiyyah which was the name of Mughal empire in Arabic) does not officially hold Hindostan. Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Confederacy as a successor state

I added the Maratha confederacy as a successor state as most former Mughal territory including Delhi was succeeded by the Marathas. I have also added the British East India Company which also succeeded some Mughal territory. SKAG123 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

As given, it's totally misleading at a glance. This is why the history should be treated primarily in prose—y'know, in the actual article—and parameters like these in the infobox should be used with care and only if it's not going to mislead the average reader. Remsense诉 04:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone with no prior knowledge read that section as presented, they would come away with a totally inaccurate idea of the political progression in the broad strokes. If something needs nuance or a footnote to explain what it actually means, it shouldn't be in the infobox at all. Remsense诉 05:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The coins of the East India Company well into the 1830s were issued in the name of the Mughal emperor. I own a few, one of which I've added to the Company rule in India. Incidentally, the Marathas did the same. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If political progression is the criteria for a successor then nearly every infobox about Indian empires including the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire would have to be reorganized. The successor in nearly every other Indian empire recognized by the state that occupies the most territory of the preceding state. SKAG123 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is clarity and immediate coherence. Infoboxes are not meant to look pretty, "full", or support what we consider to be undervalued perspectives; they are meant to communicate key information at a glance. If that is not possible, then unclear communication is not preferable.

As such, in any case:

nearly every infobox about Indian empires including the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire would have to be reorganized

Correct; see also WP:OTHERCONTENT. Fixing the huge quantity of defective infoboxes onwiki is a big task—sometimes it feels Sisyphean. Please help out if you can. Remsense诉 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be difficult as formal succession didn’t occur in most of Indian history. Most empires were conquered by others and weren’t formally succeeded. Other articles such as German Confederation also list various successors of the territory of the former state in this manner.

In this article, most territory under the Delhi sultanate was conquered by the Mughal empire therefore it is listed as a predecessor. Most former Mughal territory was succeeded by the Maratha Confederacy. There was not formal succession in either situation.

I don’t see an issue with using this criteria as most similar infoboxes have been have been stable in this way for a while. SKAG123 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point I'm making, which is that simplification or omission is preferable to unexplained, misleading, or contrived presentation. The "formality" or "officialness" doesn't matter as long as "succession" is accurate to how sources describe a political situation. And I wish I did not have to reiterate that longevity is not a good excuse for something to be defective: mere longevity is the weakest form of consensus, as it only proves that nobody noticed or went out of their way to fix something. If something is confusing or defective, it should be remedied. Cf. WP:BEENHERE.

To be clear, I'm only interested in discussing this article and will not be bogged down in extended discussions about other articles: my entire point is that you can't just lean on what other articles say per WP:OTHERCONTENT. I'm saying they should likely be remedied as their presentation is confusing to the average reader, but I'm not actually on that project right now myself. Remsense诉 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

the issue is that political succession did not occur in most Indian empires as one empire typically just occupied another. The Mughals never succeeded the Delhi sultanate as Babur never became the sultan of Delhi.The Mughal empire did politically succeed the Timurad empire, however they had no power at the time. Similarly the Marathas never officially succeeded Mughals instead subdued them. It is inaccurate to say that the Mughal Empire was solely succeed by the British raj as the emperor has no real power in 1857 and was a puppet under the Maratha Confederacy and later East India Company.

Therefore Im proposing this format

predessor 1 - Delhi sultanate (as most former Mughal was under the Delhi sultans prior)

prodessor 2 - Timurad Empire (as the Mughal empire did politically succeed the Timurads)

succesor 1 - Maratha Confederacy(as most former Mughal territory was captured my the Maratha Confederacy and the Mughal emperor in 1758 onwards was a subordinate of the Maratha Confederacy)

succesor 2 - East India Company (as the Mughal emperor in 1803 had control of the city of Delhi as a subordinate under the East India Company)

successor 3 - British Raj ( as the British raj politically succeed the Mughal emperor however the emperor has no real power at the time)

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks SKAG123 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just leave these fields blank, except perhaps for the Delhi sultanate. It is all far too complicated for an infobox, and takes up too much space. There are also the Jats, Sikhs, Afghans, Persians .... Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Seahawk-2023 Discuss here please rather than edit warring, and please use edit summaries when you edit. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The only successor was British Raj. Company rule and the Maratha Confederacy both were under the suzerainty of the Mughal emperors. Your claim that the Mughal emperor was subordinate to anyone is unsourced (the Marathas always acknowledged Mughal suzerainty) and has been discussed a million times in the Maratha page as well as here. PadFoot (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue, for the third time, is that it is not clear what is being communicated to the average reader. This isn't our personal research project where we try to fill out all the tables—it's an encyclopedia, and readers are meant to be able to quickly understand the key facts of a topic by glancing at the infobox. This way of using it fails those readers. As @Johnbod said (and also I did several times above): when we can't communicate facts intuitively in the infobox, we shall not communicate anything, and instead treat them with the space and nuance they deserve in the article body. Remsense诉 07:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Mughal "suzerainty" over anyone was wholly nominal by 1720 or earlier, and it would be misleading to recognize it (if only by implication) in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

any person with no idea of indian history will casually miss 200 years of indian history, we should come up with a solution for successor problem WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We say in the Early Modern History section of the India page,

Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajput, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience. Expanding commerce during Mughal rule gave rise to new Indian commercial and political elites along the coasts of southern and eastern India. As the empire disintegrated, many among these elites were able to seek and control their own affairs.

I haven't really read the discussion above carefully, but a successor state, as far as I'm aware, is a concept that became current quite a bit after the Mughals. To put it differently, if "Hindustan" under the Mughals had been a member of the UN, it is unlikely that the different regional elites mentioned in green above would have been able to call themselves "Hindustan," at the UN were they to seek membership. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Dominion of Hindustan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was called the Dominion of Hindustan

As it has been sourced by me and in the article name section aswell

It is the closest we have, so why don't we use it? Mughal was never used by it.

I have seen earlier talk topics regarding this? Why is this stibprness here?

The British Raj is officially called "India" , so why not Mughals?

Please allow me to change it , i don't want to wage in an edit war. PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You were asked to read the existing discussions in the archives of this talk page before asking everyone to go through the same arguments again. Remsense诉 19:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read other topic page regarding this "hindustan dominion", and there seems to be no conclusion, the conversations have ended abruptly , all the conclusion i found is that " hindustan Dominion" is the closest term. Theres no else term that was used as widely as that historically

The emperors of Mughal empire were called "Emperor of Hindustan"

Mughal was never used by the empire ,I have no idea what the hell is this even about? How is Mughal any better than hindustan dominion, it's basically false information which is being masqueraded as real because "Mughal" has been there for a "long time". PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you don't get your way. It is wrong to continue to change the article if you can't convince anyone why it should be so. Wikipedia operates via consensus. No one wants to repeat basic site policy like WP:COMMONNAME to you over and over. Remsense诉 19:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sikh Misls as a successor state (of Punjab)

Hi,

I had previously added the Sikh Misls and the later Sikh Empire in the "Succeeded by" list of the Infobox, and saw that it was removed... Can anyone explain why?

I see that a similar question was raised for the Maratha Confederacy, however, I don't believe the same arguments would work in the case of the Sikh Misls... AnyBurro9312 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you think analogous arguments would apply? Remsense诉 07:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it's misleading to suggest that the end of the Mughal Empire heralded the introduction of the British Rule over India when there's roughly a whole century's worth of intermediary history that's getting skipped over.

I read your perspective on the matter of the infobox and how it would be confusing to the layman reader, but at the risk of "summarizing" history for the infobox, the article risks being historical inaccurate when it suggests that the British rule "succeeded" the Mughals. In doing so, it completely undermines the rise and fall of Sikh rule over Punjab.

The other issue is that the coin argument doesn't apply in the matter of the Sikh Misls because coins minted during this time featured either Sikh religious figures or writing in the Punjabi language rather than any of the former Mughals.

The infobox ought to list out the various territories that rose to power after the Mughals in the name of accuracy. If a layman reader is confused, then that's fine, because history is often confusing. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not myself made any "coin argument".

Because it's misleading to suggest that the end of the Mughal Empire heralded the introduction of the British Rule over India when there's roughly a whole century's worth of intermediary history that's getting skipped over.

In the broadest strokes, this was the case. The decline of the Mughals during the 18th and 19th centuries is a story featuring many important polities and events filling the vacuum during what was ultimately a broad Mughal → British transition, but the Sikh Empire is broadly analogous to the Marathas here, as it was dissolved into the Raj before the end of Company rule following a longer campaign to achieve that result.

The infobox ought to list out the various territories that rose to power after the Mughals in the name of accuracy.

No it should not. That is far too complex a task, and an infobox cannot contain that. If it does, it is a deluge of contextless, conflationary information that is useless for a general audience, as the arcane diagram is unexplained to them even excusing its size.

We have an article to properly talk about these things! Read the article! Remsense诉 00:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

but the Sikh Empire is broadly analogous to the Marathas here, as it was dissolved into the Raj before the end of Company rule following a longer campaign to achieve that result.

I don't dispute that the Sikh Empire was annexed into the British rule, since this is a matter of history. However it very clearly succeeded Mughal rule over Punjab for ~100 years, therefore it is a successor to the Mughal Empire (at least over Punjab).

That is far too complex a task, and an infobox cannot contain that. If it does, it is a deluge of contextless, conflationary information that is useless for a general audience, as the arcane diagram is unexplained to them even excusing its size.

Out of curiosity, why is this "too complex of a task"? It's just appending a name to a series of links? In terms of usefulness for a general audience, I fail to see how you've arrived at the conclusion that the layman reader would find this information "useless". And if this is a problem of a lack of proper explanation, then why can't the complexity of the matter be explained? I doubt we're the first people to realize the complexity of post-Mughal empires in South Asia. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Did Sikh rule fully separated from Hindostan or it accepted the Delhi rulers as ceremonial head? Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you define "Hindostan" in this context?

The answer is likely no because my use of "Sikh rule" refers to the "Sarkar-e-Khalsa", which would have viewed Lahore as it's capital and Maharaja Ranjit Singh (and his successors) as their rules instead. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)