History of Muslim Rule in India – Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb

[Kaniska]

You bring up a good point. All through the history, history has always been written by the rulers/winners. In case of India, the last 1500 years of history has been written by the rulers who have invaded India. What I have posted are the two flavors of history one from Muslim invaders perspective and other from the west's perspective. We truly do not a fair history written by the son of the soil. I think that is what is rattling the writers guild who have been parroting the stories of the invaders till date.

Spot on...Agree with you...We need to see our histroy from the perspective of people like you and me who are son of soil...Thanks for understanding my perspective...

 

[Mike_Brando]

Everything but not Indian?

So says a great Jamaati girl masquerading as a Canadian,just a word of advice,don't try to blow yourself up in a crowded market place.

 

[wadi79]

To add to the article posted by the writer - Pakistan bred and trained terrorists like Ajmal Kasab and Mohammand Naved are also 'secular' because they just shot and killed people at random, without checking their religion. So they were not 'anti-Hindu'.

A question for Pakistani admirers of Aurganzeb and Ghaznavi - will it be all right if I desecrate your holy book or shrines as long as I do it for financial/political gain and not out of religious hatred?

Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb represent the filth that coexists along with humanity. They exist as a perpetual lesson about why we need to be a strong nation, and on our guard. It also says something about the mindset of a mafia-state that names its weapons after the said worthies.

 

[dray]

By and large, it's revisionary history. There are enough historical proofs both in terms of text and physical evidences to disprove such articles.

Just to counter a couple of often quoted arguments, during the Muslim rule all the Hindus couldn't be converted to Islam and all the temples couldn't be destryoed because 1. Those Muslim rulers didn't rule the entire country directly, the local kings and their kingdoms were not removed, they were just made to accept loyality towards the Mughals, pay taxes to them, and fight for them. This was the only managable way to rule such a vast country. 2. Too much of antagonizing the vast majority would have made the Mughal rule unstable, Aurangzeb tried it and destroyed the Mughal empire in the process.

Secondly, there will always be some people who would join hands with whoever is the ruler may be, even British raj had many Indians (including Hindus) in the ranks of the colonial government, many received their patronage, British Indian army was large and made of Indians only, but that don't absolve Britain of all wrong doings. Besides, the article itself clearly mentions that those non-Muslims who didn't fight in the Mughal army had to pay Jiziya tax, that explains a lot.