English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-08-11 17:33:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

12 answers

Abu Zafar Sirajuddin Muhammad Bahadur Shah Zafar (Urdu: ابو ظفر سِراجُ الْدین محمد بُہادر شاہ ظفر) or Bahadur Shah II, (Urdu: بُہادر شاہ دوم ), also known as Bahadur Shah (Zafar (Urdu: ظفر) was his nom de plume, or takhallus, as an Urdu poet), was the last of the Mughal emperors in India. He was born on October 24, 1775, and was the son of Akbar Shah II from his Hindu wife Lalbai. He became the Mughal Emperor upon his father's death on September 28, 1838.

Emperor Bahadur Shah II presided over a Mughal empire that stretched barely beyond the modern city of Delhi. The Sikh Empire in the Punjab and Kashmir, the Maratha Empire, and the British Empire were the dominant political and military powers in 19th-century India. Hundreds of minor kings fragmented the land. The emperor was paid some respect and allowed a pension and authority to collect some taxes, and maintain a token force in Delhi by the British, but he posed no threat to any power in India. Bahadur Shah II himself did not excel in statecraft or possess any imperial ambitions.

As the Indian rebellion of 1857 spread, Indian regiments seized Delhi. Seeking a figure that could unite all Indians, Hindu and Muslim alike, most rebelling Indian kings and the Indian regiments accepted Zafar as the Emperor of India, under whom the smaller Indian kingdoms would unite until the British were defeated. Zafar was the least threatening and least ambitious of monarchs, and the legacy of the Mughal Empire was more acceptable a uniting force to most allied kings than the domination of any other Indian kingdom.

When the rebellion was crushed, he fled to Humayun's Tomb and hid there. However, he was captured and his sons Mirza Mughal and Khizar Sultan and his grandson Abu Bakr were executed in his presence by Major Hodson and, infamously, their severed heads presented to him in plates instead of his food. [1] He told the British that this was the way that the sons of Mughals came to their fathers — with their heads in red (i.e., dead).[1]

He was exiled to Rangoon, Burma (now Yangon, Myanmar) in 1858 along with his wife Zeenat Mahal and the remaining members of the family. A formal end was declared to the Mughal Dynasty that began with Babur in 1526. In 1877, the title Emperor of India was assumed by the reigning British monarch, who at that time was Queen Victoria; it was held in that manner until 1948, when it was retroactively terminated effective August 14, 1947.

Bahadur Shah died in exile on November 7, 1862; he was buried near Shwedagon Pagoda, Yangon, at the site that later became known as Bahadur Shah Zafar Dargah.[2] His wife Zinat Mahal died in 1886.[3]

2007-08-14 03:22:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bhahdur Shah Zafar 2

2007-08-11 19:53:55 · answer #2 · answered by dip 2 · 0 0

Bhahdur Shah Zafar - 2

2007-08-12 06:08:30 · answer #3 · answered by amit h 4 · 0 0

Bhahdur Shah Zafar - 2

2007-08-11 17:40:32 · answer #4 · answered by Milind Desai 4 · 0 0

Bahadur Shah II was the last Moghul Emperor in India.

2007-08-13 20:53:35 · answer #5 · answered by suryaaag 4 · 0 0

Bahadur Shah Zafar who was put on trial for his involvement in the 1857 mutiny

2007-08-11 18:50:24 · answer #6 · answered by davster 6 · 0 0

Bahadur Shah II. he was deposed by the British in 1857 in the aftermath of the Sepoy Rebellion. He died in 1862.

2007-08-11 17:42:28 · answer #7 · answered by William M 2 · 0 0

Bahadur Shah Zafar, after whom the famous Mathura Road is also named. He expired in Rangoon after being exiled and his tomb still is said to be there.

2007-08-11 17:44:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I in lots of cases love the historic past Channel, yet became throughly disillusioned. Watched it...and, being a skeptic, i theory the entire concern became biased. besides, they exceeded over lots of of theories. They picked those that they theory they might debunk (yet even on those they left some issues out). there have been countless that i individually think of there may well be some certainty in, yet left them out. besides, lots of the "experts" they interviewed have been...get this, employed by way of the government to do analyze on the assaults. i think of there only may well be something incorrect with that. additionally, it became propaganda for the right....all it did became evoke emotion that had no longer something to do with the theories. as an occasion, they did no longer interview any of the lots of people who lost kinfolk on 9/11 and have faith the government performed an element in it. only people who have been offended. i'm individually offended on the glaring bias in that piece of "journalism."

2016-11-12 02:22:46 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Aurangzeb

2007-08-11 19:21:21 · answer #10 · answered by Rana 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers