Mughlas are presented as muslim heroes who came to india and ruled hindus the infidals . Text books teach us about their empire and glories. As being a pathan why i will call them my heroes or our rulers.
Text books do not talk about lodhis or suris, the afghan rulers. Infact mughals were our fierce enemies
1-babar invade afghan areas of present day N.W.F.P and killed thousands and built toweres of skulls ( he himself has described these scenes of skull towers in tuzk-e-baberi and said to had enjoyed it) . He massacres pathans just because they were offering stiff resistance according to him. He did not massacre hindu rajputs in india with whom he fought in india. Also he was the person who is responsible for fall of lodhi dyansty.If mughlas have not came to india we might have ruling india.
2-Hamyaun also fought with remaing power of lodhis and emerging suri afghans. sher shah suri was victorious in the end and kick back hamayun to afghanistan or iran. So for us sher shah suri is hero who was not foriegner like mughlas and work for his subjects. ( Not any single mughal emperor had botherd about their subjects).
3- hamyaun agian came for india when suris had beome weak due to internal conflicts. After hamyaun we see akbar who is sending expedition agains revolted afghans under pir roshan leadership. Akbar and afterwards mughal emperors never dare to give important posts to afghans made them only soldiers. We see shahjahan killing whole family of klhan jahan lodhi.
4-Aurangzaib the most religous emperor fought with both westren ( iwth khushal khan khattak) afghans and eastren afghans in india.
The chance to rule india for afghan only came when mughal power weakened
so mughlas are not our heroes but rivals in history
That’s common in war when you don’t want a city to be destroyed in an assault. And that is exactly the reason they gave at the time.
It’s like how the French refused to defend their capital Paris in 1940.
The US Army chose not to defend in Manila in 1942 even though they could have held off the Japanese for months there.
The German army refused to defend Rome in 1944 because they were worried about collateral damage (and then prompty stopped the Allies in their tracks at the Gothic Line)
It’s why General Niazi surrendered Dhaka in 1971 without a fight despite having 100,000 men and plenty of food and ammunition, and having no orders from West Pakistan to do so.
It's like how the French refused to defend their capital Paris in 1940.
The US Army chose not to defend in Manila in 1942 even though they could have held off the Japanese for months there.
The German army refused to defend Rome in 1944 because they were worried about collateral damage (and then prompty stopped the Allies in their tracks at the Gothic Line)
It's why General Niazi surrendered Dhaka in 1971 without a fight despite having 100,000 men and plenty of food and ammunition, and having no orders from West Pakistan to do so.
Unless it's an enemy city, which makes your last example an invalid one. But the rest are great examples though.