# Bajirao the destroyer of the Mughal Empire



## ghaja

Peshwa Bajirao, the great Maratha general and statesman, changed the map of India in the mid-eighteenth century. His military campaigns were classic examples of his genius.

It was he who expanded the Maratha Kingdom beyond Maharashtra across the Vindhyas and got it recognised in Delhi, the capital of the Mughals who kept Bharat (India) under their rule for many years. The Maratha Kingdom created by its founder, Shivaji, and later expanded by Bajirao reached its peak during his sons reign twenty years after his death. After driving the Afghans out of the Punjab, they raised the saffron flag not just on the walls of Attock, but even beyond.

Bajirao is thus acknowledged as one of the greatest warriors in Indian history.

Peshwa Bajirao I (b. Aug 18,1699- d.28th April 1740) is considered the most valiant amongst the Peshwas. His swift cavalry movements and brilliant military strategies make him second only to the great Shivaji.

Bajirao was the son and successor of Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath Bhat.
A young Bajirao was appointed the Peshwa (prime minister) by Chatrapati Shahu immediately after the death of Balaji Vishwanath (17th April 1720, at Masur camp near Satara).

Early years
Bajirao and his brother Chimaji were trained in the art of warfare, horsemanship and administration from their early teens, and were predestined to play a major role in Maratha history.
Bajirao was also a part of Balaji Vishwanaths entourage to Delhi (1718-19) and had gained first hand experience in mughal politics.
Bajirao was a very ambitious person and dreamt of expanding the borders of the Maratha kingdom further towards the north. He was witnessing a gradual deterioration in the Mughal power and wanted to take full advantage of this situation. Bajirao propounded a forward policy for Maratha expansion.
He is said to have thundered in Shahus court, Strike, strike at the trunk and the branches will fall off themselves. Listen but to my counsel, and I shall plant the Maratha banner on the walls of Attock.
Shahu was deeply impressed and exclaimed, By heaven, you shall plant it on the Himalayas.
Predictably the young Bajiraos quick ascendency caused resentment amongst several of the senior nobles. Moreso because their own seniority had been disregarded.
Also there was a difference in opinion with Bajirao whom they considered an impetuous upstart.
They believed that the Marathas first ought to consolidate their empire in Maharashtra and continue then with Shivajis policy for strategic depth in the south. Whereas Bajirao found no oppurtunities in an already ravaged deccan and sensed potential in the north.
It was eventually Bajiraos wish that prevailed.


The influence of Sayyad brothers at Delhi had also eclipsed, with the murder of Sayyad Hussain and the confinement (and subsequent death) of Sayyad Abdullah by the mughal emperor Muhammed Shah Rangila and the mughals no longer wished to honour their earlier sanads of chauth , sardeshmukhi and swaraj (given to the erstwhile Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath at Delhi, after a due treaty with the Sayyeds and the erstwhile emperor).
Subsequently Nizam Ul Mulk Kamruddin Khan Siddiqui was appointed the new Wazir and it was decided that he would deal with the marathas in the Deccan.
This also led to the maratha concentration in the north.

Clash with Nizam Ul Mulk

Bajirao had many stumbling blocks in his quest for creating Maratha hegemony. There were the Siddis at Janjira and the Portuguese challenging Maratha dominance on the western coast. But the foremost amongst Bajiraos foes was Nizam ul Mulk the mughal viceroy of Deccan (seated at Hyderabad), who sensing the weak control of the mughal emperors, had decided to establish his own independent kingdom in the Deccan.

The Nizam ul Mulk disregarded the right of the Marathas to collect chauth in the Deccan. Initial efforts towards a peacefull settlement (Chikalthan parley 1721) of the matter also failed despite the reaffirmation of the Mughal Maratha treaty from the Delhi court.
But in 1722, Nizam ul Mulks personal ambitions lay exposed before the mughal emperor and the latter (Muhammed Shah) started sidelining him. Nizam ul Mulk now rebelled openly against the mughal emperor and declared his regions as independent with the capital being Hyderabad. When the imperial army led by Mubariz Khan tried to seize the errant Nizam, the latter sought the help from his old enemies the Marathas and agreed to accept all their earlier demands. Shahu instructed Bajirao to send an contingent to assist the Nizam. Their collective armies subdued the imperial forces at Sakherkheda in 1724.

But true to his nature, Nizam ul Mulk after seeing the danger had passed by, once again provoked the Marathas by refusing to honour his word. To rub salt on the wounds, Nizam ul mulk propped up a coalition of Sambhaji II of Kolhapur, Chandrasen Jadhav,Udaji Chavan and Rao Rambha Nimbalkar against Shahu. When Peshwa and his troops had gone to collect Chauth in the south (in 1727), the Nizams forces made an surprise attack on Poona, whereby he proclaimed Sambhaji II to be his accepted Chatrapati. (Satara too came under threat and Ch.Shahu himself had to seek refuge in fort Purandar near Saswad).

Battle of Palkhed

Hearing the news of the attack, Bajiraos troops proceeded towards Poona . The Nizam was already waiting for the Peshwa with a huge army and artillery.
But the clever Peshwa was obviously a step ahead of the Nizam as far as war machinations were concerned. Instead of confronting the powerful Nizam's artillery in a pitched battle, he created a detour by plundering Nizams territories like Jalna, Khandesh and proceeded toward Burhanpur a rich mughal outpost in the control of the Nizam. Bajirao thus provoked the Nizam into leaving his base and give the Peshwa a chase. However the Nizam had to leave behind his heavy artillery in order to catch up with the Peshwas army. This was preciscely what the wily Peshwa wanted. As the Nizams army progressed towards the Peshwa, midway at Palkhed (a hill tract near Aurangabad) the Peshwa managed to trap and surround the Nizam.
The Nizam found himself in a precarious situation, surrounded as he was, without food and water supplies for days. The Nizam was soon forced to sign a humiliating treaty at Mungi Shevgaon (6th March, 1728), whereby the Nizam agreed to accept Shahu as the sole Maratha chatrapati and give up the cause of Sambhaji II forever. The Maratha rights for chauth were also recognized.

Malwa campaign

In October 1728, Bajirao and his troops launched an attack on Malwa. His contingent consisted of his brother Chimaji Appa, Tanoji Shinde,Malharrao Holkar and Udaji Pawar, all of whom were destined to great heights in the near future.The Marathas subdued the mughal forces and captured Malwa. The mughals later tried to dislodge the Marathas by deputing first Sawai Jaisingh of Amber and then Muhammed Khan Bangash. But their attempts to dislodge the Marathas from Malwa proved unsuccessful and they found themselves humbled.


Bundelkhand chapter : Mastani

Mughals under the governor Muhammed Khan Bangash had laid a siege in Bundelkhand since 1727. Its king Chatrasal (considering his friendly relations with the Marathas since the time of Shivaji ) appealed to the marathas for help, but the Maratha armies being engaged elsewhere, Shahu wasnt able to send timely help. 


Chatrasal offered a stiff resistance to the mughals but eventually was wounded and captured by Muhammed Khan Bangash at Jaitpur. Chatrasal again appealed to Peshwa Bajirao (in 1729) to come to his aid. This time around Bajirao himself was in proximity to Bundelkhand (at Garha,Malwa) and with his army came to the rescue of Chatrasal. 
The Mughal commander Muhammed Bangash was surrounded at Jaitpur (and his son's army, which coming to his aid was also routed), forcing Bangash to accept defeat . He pleaded with Bajirao for a free passage to Delhi which Bajirao accepted in return for a promise that Bangash would never trouble Chatrasal ever again. 
Extremely gratified towards Bajirao, Raja Chatrasal declared in an open durbar that the Peshwa was now onwards his adopted son, and accorded him a personal jagir (one third of his kingdom) which included Sagar,Banda and Jhansi (Bajirao entrusted its administration to Govind Pant - who later came to be known as Govind pant Bundele). 
Chatrasal also gifted Bajirao his beautiful daughter Mastani (from his Persian muslim concubine). Mastani later bore Bajirao a son who was named Shamsher Bahadur.


Gujarat


Gujarat had a lot of free booters (Maratha confederates who often acted independently in the province of Gujarat). Prominent amongst these were Pilaji Gaekwad and Kanthaji Kadam Bande.They owed their allegience to Sarsenapati Khanderao Dabhade who weilded influence in those regions.

The Maratha senapati Khanderao Dabhade was officially given charge for Gujrat by Ch.Shahu himself after the former had subdued the mughal officers in that state. After the death of Khanderao in 27th Sept,1729 his son Trimbakrao Dabhade was made senapati.

In Gujarat there was another player in the form of Hamid Khan who was a protégé of the Nizam ul Mulk.
When the mughal emperor despatched Sarbulund Khan in July 1724, to get control of Gujrat which was engulfed in rivalry between mughal nobility, Hamid Khan entered into a understanding with Bande to prevent the imperial interference. He gave him rights to collect chauth towards the north of river Mahi. Bajirao then asked (through his representative Udaji Pawar) Sarbulund Khan to grant him the chauth rights of Gujarat but was spurned. So Bajirao despatched his brother Chimaji Appa to Gujrat who looted the towns of Petlad and Dholka. 
Sarbulund Khan was unable to simultaneously tackle Bande as well as the Peshwas armies and he was forced to sign an agreement with the Peshwa in 1730 whereby the Peshwa was given chauth and sardeshmukhi rights for Gujrat region (seaport of Surat was excluded from this agreement). But this didnt go very well with the mughal court and they replaced Sarbulund Khan with Abhay singh, son of Ajit singh of Jodhpur. But Abhay singh too reconciled with the idea that the Peshwa was the only person who could rein in the free booters and compromised with him. 
Meanwhile the treaty between the Mughals and the Peshwa didnt go well with Maratha Senapati Trimbakrao Dabhade, who considered the Gujrat affairs his heridatory right . He was already having ego clashes with the Peshwa, whom he wasnt entirely comfortable accepting as a second supreme authority after the king. Note the Peshwa on his part was also encouraging new blood like Holkar-Shinde-Pawar and starting on war campaigns without consultations with the sarsenapati.Now this Gujarat issue only aggravated matters further. Sarsenapati Trimbakrao Dabhade accused Peshwa Bajirao II of breaching the contract made between the Dabhade family and Chatrapati Shahu.Finding the king also evasive in the matter, he decided to take on Bajirao directly. In a skirmish that followed at Dabhoi in April 1731, Trimbakrao Dabhade was killed (Pilaji Gaekwads son Sambhaji also died in that battle). Also captured were rebels like Udaji Pawar (he had fallen out with Bajirao) and Chimnaji Damodar who were fighting from Dabhades side.



The Elephant War with the Siddis

The trouble between Marathas and the Siddis (Abysinnian muslims) resurfaced when a Siddi (Abyssinian) faujdar, Siddi Satt desecrated the hindu temple at Parshuram in the Konkan and insulted a saint by the name of Bramhendra swami. This happened in the year 1729, after a elephant gifted by the Nawab of Savnur to the Siddis of Janjira was being transported through Maratha territory by the disciples of Bramhendra swami and enroute it had been captured by a contingent of the Maratha sarkhel(admiral) Kanhoji Angre. Presuming it to be a conspiracy of the swami, the Siddis faujdar roughed up the swamis disciples and vandalised the Parshuram temple.
Bramhendra swami was a highly revered person and this strained the historically stretched relations between the Marathas and the Siddis. Meanwhile Siddi nawab Rasul Yaqut died in 1733 and a succession war started between his sons. Kanhoji Angre had also died on 4th July 1729 and was succeeded by his son Sekhoji Angre as the Maratha sarkhel.
Bajirao sensing an opportune time despatched his army and besieged Janjira by sea. The fort was just about to fall , but for the untimely death of Sekhoji in 1733.
Sekhojis brother Sambhaji refused to take orders from the Peshwa and due to his non cooperation the siege had to be called off. Luckily for the Marathas, the Siddis son Abdul Rehman approached Bajirao for a succession settlement with his uncles and cousins whereby Marathas gave him the desired help. In return the previous territories of the Siddis like Raigad,Rewas,Chaul and Thal were recognized as parts of Maratha territory (1736).The other brothers too found it futile to resist the marathas and gave in.
Siddi was thereafter confined only to the territories of Janjira, Anjanvel and Gowalkot, with his powers greatly diminished. The main antagonist Siddi Sat was also killed in an encounter with Chimaji appa in few months time.Thus concluded what is now termed as the elephant war.


Bajirao thunders at the gates of Delhi

By 1735, the marathas had virtually gained control over entire Gujrat and Malwa. But some towns and areas under the influence of local mughal officers and zamindars refused to acknowledge Maratha control.
The Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah was also dillydallying over passing an official order chartering chauth and sardeshmukhi rights to the Marathas. Efforts by Bajirao to seek audience with the mughal emperor were also ignored. The Marathas decided to assert themselves and started plundering the adjoining territories of Rajasthan. The Mughals also retaliated by sending troops under under their Vazir Qamruddin Khan and Mir Bakshi Khan i Dauran. But both the contingents were routed by Maratha commanders (Pilaji Jadhav defeated the forces of the Vazir and Ranoji Shinde, Malhararao Holkar subdued the forces of the Mir Bakshi).



The Peshwa then decided to teach the mughal emperor a lesson of his lifetime. Bajirao personally marched towards Delhi with a large Maratha army in Dec 1737.
He divided the army into two. One contingent was led by Peshwa Bajirao and the other by Pilaji Jadhav and Malharrao Holkar. The contingent of Holkar was however anhilated by a much larger army led by Sadat Khan , the Nawab of Oudh and mughal governor of Agra . Malharrao Holkar himself managed to escape and reach the other group led by Bajirao.
Meanwhile, thinking that the Maratha threat was over, Sadat Khan sent the good news to Delhi. To join in the celebrations of his perceived success, the other mughal commanders also joined in , leaving Delhi virtually unguarded.
That was when the contingent of Bajirrao, in a swift movement , completely bypassed the encamped mughal army and reached the outskirts of Delhi (28th March 1737), covering a ten day journey in just fourty eight hours.

What followed thereafter was the total loot of the suburbs of Delhi. The Mughal emperor himself hid in the safe confines of Red Fort, while Bajirao and his men plundered the countryside in glee abandon. A eight thousand strong mughal army led by Mir Hassan Koka did try to take on Bajirao , but they were hopelessly outmanouvered and Mir Hassan himself was wounded in the skirmish.
Then before the main mughal army could gather their wits, Bajirao with his entourage returned back to the Deccan.
On 31st March 1737, the victorious Maratha army left Delhi with their large booty leaving behind Delhi, mauled and humbled.
On the way back to Pune , Bajirao planted his trusted lieutenants at various places in north and central India, which were to remain their permanent places of influence in the near future.


Treaty of Bhopal


Now the emperor turned back to Nizam ul Mulk who had earlier fallen out with him. Nizam ul mulk was made the supreme commander of the imperial forces and sent with an seventy thousand strong contingent to attack the Maratha dominions. On the way, many mughal officers, chieftains joined him. This large mughal contingent reached Bhopal to extract revenge from the Marathas.
But it was again a futile exercise. The Marathas led by Bajirao himself and his brother Chimaji Appa were all ready for the imperial army. 
They completely surrounded the Mughals in Bhopal, cutting off all their supplies. Finally forcing the Nizam to sign yet another treaty, this time the treaty of Bhopal (7th Jan 1738, Dora Sarai) whereby, the mughals conceded entire Malwa, region between Narmada and Chambal rivers, besides fifty lakh rupees as war indemnity.



Bajirao and the Portuguese

Bajirao had already quelled the Portuguese threat to Manaji Angre in the Konkan. In return Angre promised him an annual tribute of 7000 rupees.
Bajirao was also having a grouse against the Portuguese over the island of Salsette (part of Mumbai, which the Portuguese had refused to lease out to the Marathas for construction of a commercial factory), following which Bajiraos brother Chimaji Appa (d.1741) attacked the Portuguese regions (near Bombay/ Mumbai) in March 1738. He successfully captured the regions of Thane,Parsik,Belapur,Dharavi, Arnala and concluded his campaign with the capture of Versova(Feb,1739) and Bassein (Vasai,May 1739).




Last campaign of Bajirao


Bajirao desired a corridor to Delhi through certain regions of Nizam ul Mulk (which earlier had been promised to the marathas in the treaty at Bhopal). Nasir Jung the Nizams son however refused. Hence he was besieged by Bajirao at Aurangabad. He sued for peace (28th Feb 1740) and ceded the districts of Handia and Khargon in Nemad, south of river Narmada to Bajirao.
Unfortunately this proved to be the last campaign of the great Peshwa.


Death

Bajirao was struck by a virulent fever at Raver (near Indore,south of river Narmada) and hardly in a weeks time, he breathed his last (on 18 th April 1740). He was just fourty.
At the time of his death his wife Kashibai and son Janardhan were by his side. His son performed his obsequies.
Thus fate cut short the life of one of the most valorous of the Peshwas, a builder of empires and a leader of men.


The Kingdoms of Scindias (Ranoji Shinde) of Gwalior, Holkars (Malharrao) of Indore, Gaekwads(Pilaji) of Baroda, and Pawars (Udaiji) of Dhar were Bajirao's creation of a Maratha confederacy as he wreaked havoc on the disintegrating Mughal Empire and set up his jagirdars (fiefdoms).


Bajirao fought over 41 battles and is reputed to have never lost one. He is one of the three Generals in world history who never lost a battle. He is often compared with Napoleon Bonaparte by many great historians. His first encounter, the Battle of Palkhed was a good example of his innovative warfare tactics. Looking back at this battle one is compelled to admire him. His battle with the Nizam at Bhopal is known to be a masterpiece of tactical war strategy and maturity of political view. A brilliant military tactician, a born leader and a brave soldier; in every possible, sense he was the true torchbearer of Chhatrpati Shivaji's dream.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Bullshit propaganda.......

The hindu rants as usual.

I wonder if such misinformation is allowed in PDF.

In mid 18th century taking advantage of lowering control of Muslims some wannabe Hindus took advantage of the situation and for no concrete reason by a greed to rule and know how it feels to be a ruler some of the races did some stupid acts when the country was being invaded by British in one end. They instead of fighting for motherland had chosen to fight for themselves and their races and put the Nationalism and Motherland's interests in back-burner. 

Most of them were sold out with British to join in fight against Dehli(What happened with Tipu Sultan and these same marathas of pune betrayed him in last minute resulting in his defeat.)

And Tipu Sultan was a man who had a mandir inside his palace so that the hindus should not feel second class or ignored in his kingdom and still these Indians wonder why we Pakistanis believe in Two Nation Theory.

Some more facts about them the ''marathas'';

They had signed pacts with Britis in which they barred them never to attack them but remain in their land and fight for its so called liberation against who? Their countrymen ie ''non marathas''.

They were involved in loot and other crimes that now under misunderstanding/lack of historical study the indians put it over Muslim armies of Nadir Shah and Abadli.

But anyhow thankfully they had realized their mistake and fought side by side against Brits in 1857 and onwards.

Anyways historians agree that they had a very negative rule in overall scenario of Mid 18th century of United Hindustan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Leader

and all for no good, british came and there goes marhatha rebellion down the drain with their treasonous mindset against the legit rulers of subcontinent !!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Leader said:


> and all for no good, british came and there goes marhatha rebellion down the drain with their treasonous mindset against the legit rulers of subcontinent !!



Considering that Hindus have ruled the sub-continent for the most part in history, Hindus should be ruling the entire sub-continent. 

And they are.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Android

Umair Nawaz said:


> Most of them were sold out with British to join in fight against Dehli(What happened with Tipu Sultan and these same marathas of pune betrayed him in last minute resulting in his defeat.)



lol it was Nizam of Hyderabad who allied with Britishers in defeating Tipu Sultan and Tipu himself was an ally of other European Imperialist Country(France). France and England both used Tipu and Nizam as their pawns in order to Expand their Imperial Empire in South Asia

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Contrarian

Leader said:


> and all for no good, british came and there goes marhatha rebellion down the drain with their treasonous mindset against the legit rulers of subcontinent !!



The legit rulers of the subcontinent was whomever could defeat the other militarily.

Else the Muslims were NOT the legit rulers either...they came and started ruling and spreading their religion because they conquered militarily.

The British were as legit as the Mughals.

Lastly..the cycle of life comes full circle...all have been evicted..

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Silverblaze

Sometimes prejudice should be kept away. The mughals very corrupt and it was they who allowed the british to set foot in india. 

Then many muslim rulers sold their kingdoms to the british and so on. Marathas in the beginning seemed good, but then sided with the british. 

all were conquerors and expansionists and dictators. They fought to control the land for their own families while the west was developing universities.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Android said:


> lol it was Nizam of Hyderabad who allied with Britishers in defeating Tipu Sultan and Tipu himself was an ally of other European Imperialist Country(France). France and England both used Tipu and Nizam as their pawns in order to Expand their Imperial Empire in South Asia



Stupid.

.
The frenchs were also fighting against british at that time only british were considered as the main thread.
Why?

Because of their fight against Dehli, the state capital.

The french were not considered a thread at that time and history proves that the damage Brits gave was higher then the french.

Im not advocating french but when u study history u have to first look into the scenario in which that incident took place.

I can understand u as a hindu and anti muslim will have hard time digesting the loyalty status of yr own men towards yr great bharat matta. But if u read it from an open mind u will find shocking facts about the marathas, their treaties with brits and what was their role in the downfall of Tipu Sultan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Contrarian said:


> The legit rulers of the subcontinent was whomever could defeat the other militarily.
> 
> Else the Muslims were NOT the legit rulers either...they came and started ruling and spreading their religion because they conquered militarily.
> 
> The British were as legit as the Mughals.
> 
> Lastly..the cycle of life comes full circle...all have been evicted..


In the same logic yr arias r the first to be blamed.


The Muslims didnt spread their religion by force on anyone the people got themselves inspired by it.

Ever heard of Sufies and saints?
They were the people who r actually responsible to this. Even today in Ajmer Sharif the non muslims come more then muslims themselves, why?
The people were inspired by them so the people wanted to become like them hence entered in Islam.

The Muslims in the other hand had merged with the people of Native India leared their Customs and traditions, languages and played an important part in its development. Do u know the literacy rate of hindustan was 90%++ when british came and in just 90 years of their rule the rate became just 37% in 47.

Your own hindu writers write that in the times of Aurangzeb Alamgir the Gold used to be in such abundance as if Crops in the fertile fields.There was a reason why Brits came here.

I dont say everybody was good those who were bad were not bad to only Non Muslims but to Muslims as well. But in that 1000 years period generally all gave positive contributions.

If u leave yr hatred for Muslim for one second and study History with an open mind u will know.


----------



## Android

Umair Nawaz said:


> Stupid
> 
> If u have no knowledge of history then shut up.
> The frenchs were also fighting against british at that time only british were considered as the main thread.
> Why?
> 
> Because of their fight against Dehli, the state capital.
> 
> The french were not considered a thread at that time



Do you know both Tipu and Nizam's kingdom was located in South India a region which was never under control of Delhi(Mughals) and in down South, France along with Dutch and Portugal were as much threat as Britishers were until all of them were defeated by British and its ally kingdom most notably Nizam although yes they unlike England they had no presence in the northern region of subcontinent 




Umair Nawaz said:


> and history proves that the damage Brits gave was higher then the french.



Only because French Colonies in India was reduced to around 4 or 5 cities in south India and British ruled most of the sub continent given the chance french would have been as terrible as Britishers go read about atrocities french commited in their other colonies in Asia and Africa




Umair Nawaz said:


> I can understand u as a hindu and anti muslim will have hard facts digesting the loyalty status of yr own men towards yr
> great bharat matta. But if u read it from an open mind u will find shocking facts about the marathas, their treaties with
> brits and what was their role in the downfall of Tipu Sultan.



Maratha did fought a war against tipu sultan during early years of his reign but NOT in alliance with Britishers please provide a source which say Maratha allied with Britishers against Tip Sultan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Contrarian

Umair Nawaz said:


> In the same logic yr arias r the first to be blamed.


If it can be proved then yes.

As far as I am concerned and most Indians, the Mughals were no more Indians than the British were.

Their rule also came by conquest. The later generations Mughals were Indian, but being Muslims, the bigotry of the ilk of Aurangzeb is not forgotten either.



> The Muslims didnt spread their religion by force on anyone the people got themselves inspired by it.
> 
> Ever heard of Sufies and saints?
> They were the people who r actually responsible to this. Even today in Ajmer Sharif the non muslims come more then muslims themselves, why?
> The people were inspired by them so the people wanted to become like them hence entered in Islam.


Well, there were all sorts of reasons.
There were those who were converted by force, there were those who willingly and voluntarily converted by the Sufis, there were those who converted to get in the good graces of the then kings and royals.

In any and all cases, that is long gone by and makes no difference now.


> The Muslims in the other hand had merged with the people of Native India leared their Customs and traditions, languages and played an important part in its development. Do u know the literacy rate of hindustan was 90%++ when british came and in just 90 years of their rule the rate became just 37% in 47.


And?
The British also created a sub level of ruling class that were the 'kale angrez'. Makes no difference.
Both got their kingdoms by conquest. 


> Your own hindu writers write that in the times of Aurangzeb Alamgir the Gold used to be in such abundance as if Crops in the fertile fields.There was a reason why Brits came here.


There have been periods of great peace and prosperity even before the Mughals, which is what got the Central Asians here in the first place. What is the point?



> I dont say everybody was good those who were bad were not bad to only Non Muslims but to Muslims as well. But in that 1000 years period generally all gave positive contributions.
> 
> If u leave yr hatred for Muslim for one second and study History with an open mind u will know.



Since both the Mughals and the British got their kingdoms by conquest, what gives the Mughals the tag of 'legit' ? 
The Britishers exploited the Indians, the Mughals exploited the Hindus.

Makes no difference.
Today, neither are present, and all that had to be ejected, have been ejected.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Android said:


> Do you know both Tipu and Nizam's kingdom was located in South India a region which was never under control of Delhi(Mughals) and in down South, France along with Dutch and Portugal were as much threat as Britishers were until all of them were defeated by British and its ally kingdom most notably Nizam although yes they unlike England they had no presence in the northern region of subcontinent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because French Colonies in India was reduced to around 4 or 5 cities in south India and British ruled most of the sub continent given the chance french would have been as terrible as Britishers go read about atrocities french commited in their other colonies in Asia and Africa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maratha did fought a war against tipu sultan during early years of his reign but NOT in alliance with Britishers please provide a source which say Maratha allied with Britishers against Tip Sultan


1) overall this point is all true but the way yr presenting it in yr argument is not true.

a)Hyderabad Daccan and Mysore r in south, true.

b)The area was nvr in control of Mughals, yes but Mughals were the last standing front of ancient india before was ibrahim lodhi n Co. and before him other Muslims who did ruled the place some say Srilanka was also ruled once. But i dont know abt it.
The south india was very peaceful place in all her history with muslims, they never created problems for them specially in Mughal era. They were sort of people who generally used to be concern of what is happening in oceans where they do for fishing then knowing what is happening in a 1000 miles away in Dehli.

All in all they were relatively very peaceful people then rest of the country and in most rules the merged with kingdoms of Muslims voluntarily hence there was no need to fight.That is why most of south indian history they remain immune in even Mughal Empire.But Muslims did supported them very much and they were part of Overall hindustani empire.
Even do u know the first fight they had with French/Portuguese or Dutch the Kings army men had fought for them n laid their lives.

c)now coming to other europeans as a thread, yes they were equally a thread yes i agree 1000% thats why i said im not advocating the french. But if suppose tomorrow if Pakistan and China attack your country and war has reached in such a state that yr forced to retreat so much that now the army of Pakistan is in siege of dehli and china has taken over ladak or NE whom will u fight first?
Obviously the army who is bound to capture the Capital where r core command and establishment is based!!!
isnt so.
By defeating pakistan there n put her back to mainland pakistan will be yr priority! with China u can fight later by carrying the same moral boost u scored against pakistan as china as of now hasnt advanced towards dehli. Abhi Dehli Duur ha
U always set yr priority by assessing the scenario then u make yr counter strategy to achieve your goal.
U yrself mentioned that the other europeans had just 4,5 cities in south some 1000 miles away from capital and then u have an enemy who is more seemingly powerful and has reached upto Agra from Calcutta then a wise decision will be to help those who need the help more. Actually the priority was to save the empire first!!! then go towards smaller n weaker enemy.The capital is most important target for any invading force.

d) well im no fan of hyderabadi nizam n their legendary ego. Those were just those nawabs who were sold out to british like other non muslim maharajas n all of them r culprits amongst historians equally. But u have to understand that marathas has a even worse role with tipu's eath as they were in treaty with haider ali(tipu's father) to send reinforcements when asked to not the hyderabadis.

2)Yes u r right but like i said before that im not advocating anyone of them but u got to learn history from understanding the ground realities of that time. These all europeans were enemies of each other more then we were to them. 

There is a saying that enemy of my enemy is friend and friend of my enemy is enemy.
Understand that in this context.

3)Marathas did fought with tipu but later became neutral or friend. But they didnt stopped there n continued the fight against dehli and other non marathas.

They had a deal with brits not to attack them. So by not fighting them and agreeing with their terms they had directly/indirectly with british they had aligned with them. Maybe thats the reason they betrayed their own countrymen like tipu in favor of british.

The internet sources r not valid because most of them r filled with prejudice but read the book on history of that time.


----------



## CrownPrince

If it wasnt for this great Marathas, I would probably be a muslim today, Even the thought of that almost made me throw up 

Salute to the great Bajirao. And Muslims, GTFO from this thread, This is about a great Hindu Generalof Hindu India, dont know why you guys have to show your inferiority complex a$$es in threads that have nothing to do with you.



Leader said:


> and all for no good, british came and there goes marhatha rebellion down the drain with their treasonous mindset against the legit rulers of subcontinent !!



Legit rulers of the subcontinent can never be muslim. You muslims came at a time when we hindus were weak and fighting among ourselves, but now we are back to controlling the subcontinent and will do so until time ends...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sliver

@umair Nawas. I read and re-read your posts. What is your point? the thread was about a specific prince and about his conquests to propagate his kingdom. In the process, he made allies and some not really "good" allies in the hind sight. Just like Pakistan is Allies with USA and fought the Russians and then you again sided with the US to fight the taleban. (for good or for bad, you were allies with USA while fighting the taleban).

If only indegenous people have to rule their lands then there will never be migrations from the earliest nomadic man into newer places and hence spread of civilizations.

Out of your huge post, one sentence really made me to reply:


> All in all they were relatively very peaceful people then rest of the country and in most rules the merged with kingdoms of Muslims voluntarily hence there was no need to fight.That is why most of south indian history they remain immune in even Mughal Empire.But Muslims did supported them very much and they were part of Overall hindustani empire.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ao-destroyer-mughal-empire.html#ixzz2aZzfTC1N



So there was peace because of voluntary joining into Muslim rule. If not there wont be peace - speaks volume about your "tolerance" and acceptance of other kingdoms' sovereignty and their right to self rule. Doesnt it?



CrownPrince said:


> If it wasnt for this great Marathas, I would probably be a muslim today, Even the thought of that almost made me throw up
> 
> Salute to the great Bajirao. And Muslims, GTFO from this thread, This is about a great Hindu Generalof Hindu India, dont know why you guys have to show your inferiority complex a$$es in threads that have nothing to do with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Legit rulers of the subcontinent can never be muslim. *You muslims came at a time when we hindus were weak and fighting among ourselves, but now we are back to controlling the subcontinent and will do so until time ends*...



do you really need to get to that level of Hindus Vs Muslims really?


----------



## CrownPrince

Sliver said:


> [MENTION=1878]
> do you really need to get to that level of Hindus Vs Muslims really?



LEts be honest, isnt that what this is all about anyways?


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Contrarian said:


> If it can be proved then yes.
> 
> As far as I am concerned and most Indians, the Mughals were no more Indians than the British were.
> 
> Their rule also came by conquest. The later generations Mughals were Indian, but being Muslims, the bigotry of the ilk of Aurangzeb is not forgotten either.
> 
> 
> Well, there were all sorts of reasons.
> There were those who were converted by force, there were those who willingly and voluntarily converted by the Sufis, there were those who converted to get in the good graces of the then kings and royals.
> 
> In any and all cases, that is long gone by and makes no difference now.
> 
> And?
> The British also created a sub level of ruling class that were the 'kale angrez'. Makes no difference.
> Both got their kingdoms by conquest.
> 
> There have been periods of great peace and prosperity even before the Mughals, which is what got the Central Asians here in the first place. What is the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Since both the Mughals and the British got their kingdoms by conquest, what gives the Mughals the tag of 'legit' ?
> The Britishers exploited the Indians, the Mughals exploited the Hindus.
> 
> Makes no difference.
> Today, neither are present, and all that had to be ejected, have been ejected.


1)Every rule in ancient civilizations came with conquest.
When u study history u study with the standards of humanity of that time period.
The arias also conquest so did Asoka, Chandr Gupt etc etc.

I dont see really many hindus against muslim rule in general then this new indian generation. I dont know what is fed to them.

U it seems comparing this Digital age in which we r living today with Middle and Dark age period.

Not a Good idea to me.

2)Like i said not everyone was saint from both sides. By force u really cant convert someone because the ones who will in fear will again go back to their believes when fear is gone and i see Muslims in India have grown in numbers not reduced and even today in secular india the fastst growing religion is islam. So u mean to say that in yr non muslim dominated country people r still forcing the non muslims to come to islam?

Tough call.

Still i say that everbody was not good there r bad apples in every society but the forced converts should have been reverted back but they didnt not even their young generations.

3) yes sadly they did and those same kaala angrez is the reason why we r still third world countries in the world against those who looted us.

But do u know that After british left the bureaucracy who ruled India was not even given any mainstream and local jobs in gov and private sector in British?

Because these people were mend to be oppressors and they didnt include them in their system. They had sued the Queen for that and still they were just given pensions even to young people like 27 years of age. What happend to Lord Mount Batten? 
The viceroy was shot in london.

There is still that tree in Azad Kashmir where after 1857 coup they had hanged 50,000 Muslim Ulema upside down on fire and skinned them when they were still alive. That was something they did with everyone no matter muslim or non muslim in every corner of india.

This was the character of these people.

I suggest u to study about the role of congress, Darul Allom Deoband, Jamayat e Ulema e Hind, Khangah Raipur in Haryanna, Titu Mian in Bengal,Molanna Mehmood ul Hassan Madani the grand father of lok saba member molanna Mehmood Madani, Molanna Gangohi who established the Daral uloom in Deoband, Sheikh Abdul Qadir Raipuri in Raipur, Molanna Abdul Kalam Azad etc etc.

Do u even know that in 1857 coup we were fighting for a nationalistic cause and we had again established Bahadur Shah Zafar when we seized dehli as our King including Hindus too then again after betrayal of sikhs again Dehli had fallen to British and u know what they did to King in Yangoon. I dont need to remind u where ''aprail fool'' comes from.


4) Do u even know how many how many non muslims were part of aurangzeb's army?
Im sure u dont the army had comprised 43-44% non muslims(hindus in particular).

The times of Aurangzeb were the most bright times of ancient india. Even in the words of yr own hindu historians. I think u should read few books about our join history. U dont see invaders doing this much in a country which they had supposedly invaded look at brits. According to to Carl Marx's Dos Capital Book the britis hadnt been able to do in development what they had done today if they hadnt looted india.
and i havnt talked abt what winston churchill did in bengal drought.

In the times of Muslims there were only 2 droughts but in the Britis's just 90 years more then 90 droughts happened across india.

This what Lord Meculay has to say about the indians n her prosperity as a country and it was then under Muslim rule. And Also notice what they did.





[/IMG] 


This is exactly what they did too. Hence stared Divide First Hindu Muslim then Now Sikh-Hindu or Muslim- Sikh, Then Maratha- Non maratha, Punjabi-Non Punjabi, Pathan-Non Pathan etc etc.

Now Muslim System...

Mughal government structure :


1529 × 800 pixels


Related link. [/B]

Courtesy @neolithic 


U r wrong in comparing people like them to us.

I was hoping u will take my advise n leave yr prejudice against Muslims for 1 second and think with an open mind and a Hindustani only. Actually this is something u should be telling us not we to u as yr country is based on same secularism/nationalist principals not we. That u dont do.

All of that is not associated and happened during Muslim rule or did it??


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Sliver said:


> @umair Nawas. I read and re-read your posts. What is your point? the thread was about a specific prince and about his conquests to propagate his kingdom. In the process, he made allies and some not really "good" allies in the hind sight. Just like Pakistan is Allies with USA and fought the Russians and then you again sided with the US to fight the taleban. (for good or for bad, you were allies with USA while fighting the taleban).
> 
> If only indegenous people have to rule their lands then there will never be migrations from the earliest nomadic man into newer places and hence spread of civilizations.
> 
> Out of your huge post, one sentence really made me to reply:
> 
> 
> So there was peace because of voluntary joining into Muslim rule. If not there wont be peace - speaks volume about your "tolerance" and acceptance of other kingdoms' sovereignty and their right to self rule. Doesnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> do you really need to get to that level of Hindus Vs Muslims really?


 Quoting a section of long post out of its reference to context without reading in exactly whose response that was written speaks volume of yr standards of judgement to me.


My post was not for someone in USA. U cant understand what i said its about our history and demography.

It was just not meant for u to understand.






this is Mughal Empire, the areas u mention were not even part of it so yr dry claim of them merging with kingdom and etc etc is out of question.

Yes that still speaks volume, volume and volume of our tolerance standards


----------



## Kompromat

No Source posted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

