India History : Myth of 1000 Years of Mulsim Rule

[President Camacho]

No wonder these words are coming from Romila Thapar the BSing Commie historian. And I absolutely have no pride whatsoever in that rule.Their rule only exposed how disunited we Indians were for some nomadic Central Asians to come and rule us for 5 centuries.

And majority were great ?? Except Akbar no one even qualifies for that title in a remote manner.

Please think. None of this is a lie, I am quoting Romila Thapar and Hari Sen here!

[/QUOTE]

If you could only tell me what historians to quote. I will quote them.

When it is a fact that Hindus were not united at the time of Muslim invasions, and the Muslim rule again turned Indian subcontinent into one single country, what wrong do you see there? Every ruler has brought in his/her interests. Be it the time of Asoka, Nanda, Sunga, Victoria or Indian National Congress, tell me which one is worth the pride you are searching for?

Rulers are always interested in their rule, and the one whose rule brings out the highest productivity least atrocities is the greatest - at least that is what I think. On that scale, Asoka and Sunga and Brits were certainly not those ones worth taking pride in.

And though while I am not saying the Mughals were the greatest, I request you to note that most of them kept state and religion separated, something a few of even the Hindu rulers couldn't do.

 

[President Camacho]

Why does this question arises ??
Its not about the relation between indian Hindu-muslim .

well,if u trying to say in the context of history, we did love the muslim rule. I don't think many peopel would agree with you there.

You see Hindus of india have very mixed opinion about the muslim rule of India.

Then you should not have any problem with my differing opinions. Agreeing with me is a single person, or the whole world, will not affect my views.

This is a Pakistan forum .We discuss on various topics including history especially on things don't agree on .its a discussion that takes nothing away from our national building endeavor.

It does, when you appear to be stepping into the trap they set up.

I don't think you follow pakistan closely.

I have watched quite few news shows where its propagated that muslim rule india for 1000 years . I think thats what they teach same thing in the history books too. And which is clearly inaccurate and historically wrong . Thats precisely is the matter of debate here..

do u agree its a fact that muslim ruled india for 1000 years ??

If you can either argue on that or just bow out . Being prechy doesn't help. Its not a class room.

May be you failed to notice, but I did not even once try to touch that 1000 year rule myth thing. Except for a few Zaid Hamid fans, I haven't seen any fools believing that. Heck, I haven't even met anyone who has even heard of it. Why do you think I do not find it even worth a discussion. I did not even want to step into this thread, but then I saw a lot of Indians trying their best to jot down the dates and stuff. That was the first step into the trap when you begin to take them seriously. And here I am, almost embroiled into this stupid worthless discussion.

Commi historians Romila Thapar and Hari Send don't lie ??

Huh, it could start another interesting debate. If you ask me , Romila Thapar version of history(a big part of it) is motivated BS .

I do not believe anyone blindly but I suppose you tend to, and so you think I do too. You are most welcome to go find the historians of your choice, and believe what they say. I will go with what I have studied and inferred.

 

[Manas]

IMHO, he should not say such things now, bcz india is a secular country...
he could do protest etc...against UPA.. but shouldn't rant history..... [yes sivaji etc. were our gr8 fighters]

so,he is 40% ok!! according to me

This is ridiculous as well as dangerous that we shouldn't teach history as we had become a secular state.


you think Maratha will stop admiring Siviaji ,because we are secular state now.

If muslim rule gave monument like Taj mahal ,it also demolished upteem numbers of hindu temples.

Puri Jagannath temple alone was attacked Seven times and what see you of the sun temple at kornark is a demoshiled version.

If understand you correctly , we should read only about how great Taj mahal looks , but not the about atrocities of Hindus and on their religions during the muslim rule as we are a secular state.

As they say, people don't learn from history and often repeat it.

 

[Manas]

May be you failed to notice, but I did not even once try to touch that 1000 year rule myth thing. Except for a few Zaid Hamid fans, I haven't seen any fools believing that. Heck, I haven't even met anyone who has even heard of it. Why do you think I do not find it even worth a discussion. I did not even want to step into this thread, but then I saw a lot of Indians trying their best to jot down the dates and stuff. That was the first step into the trap when you begin to take them seriously. And here I am, almost embroiled into this stupid worthless discussion.

Mulsim Rule of 1000 years is a myth . We in India know that. There is no dispute on it, except may be in few madrassa.

But thats not the case in Pakistan . They are taught in schools that Muslim ruled indian sub continent for 1000 years long before the Brtish took over. And this myth isn't confined to few maniacs of Zaid Hamid clan.

The whole point discussing this isssue here , is because its pakistan forum .So it makes sense to try dispel the myth and put record straight on this platform as do often many other issues related to india . Sice We cann't change pakistani school history books,this platform is as much as we get.


If you don't want get in to this specific discussion , then pls don't do it. But don't lecture us what we topic we can discuss or cann't.

I do not believe anyone blindly but I suppose you tend to, and so you think I do too. You are most welcome to go find the historians of your choice, and believe what they say. I will go with what I have studied and inferred

You choose to believe what version of history you feel like , if i don't follow the suit ,..you think i tend to accept things blindly what i don't agree with you.
Hmm, thats hypocritical.

 

[KS]

This is a complete non-issue.

Nearly all the Muslim rulers that invaded India became Indianized in the end, just like the Mongols and Manchus that invaded China became Sinicized.

India's greatest attribute throughout history was its ability to absorb foreign rulers and cultures, and make them part of Indian civilization as a whole.

That is why, in my opinion, India was never truly "conquered". Our culture and civilization was never wiped out, and it endures to this day.

As an example, compare this to Egypt. Native Egyptian civilization was completely displaced, first by Greco-Roman civilization and then by Islamic civilization. No one in Egypt writes in hieroglyhs anymore and no one worships Set and Osiris anymore. But people in India still follow dharmic religions and speak Sanskrit and Sanskrit-based languages, as Indians did 2,000 years ago as well.

GB, the issue for the thread was never Islam or Dharmic religions or whether they were wrong or right - the issue is for how many years India was under outsider rule and whether it was really 1000 years as mentioned by Sir Zaid Hamid ??

 

[MilSpec]

Firstly ,there never entire Hindu rule over the subcontinent.

over India,then

700 BC to 1206.

Again from 1707 to 1819

So total , roughly 2000 years

2000 years.. cool...

 

[KS]

INTERESTING FACT:

What if Mahmud of Ghazni met Rajendra Chola?
It would be an interesting encounter, to say the least.

The Ghazhnavids had primarily land forces and it was the Chola Navy that was busy subduing Sri Vijaya Empire - some sort of ancient day Marines.

So if the war had taken place in the peninsula below the Godavari or even Narmada the Chola forces would have routed the Ghaznavids with some sort of flanking attack by both the land forces and through sea.

Even the Chola Army was said to have a million standing army on it's own and could mobilise another quarter million from its vassal states like Vengi etc.(from stone inscriptions in the Brigadeeshwara Temple)

The Cholas were also good at wielding Spears and were said to be the best in it and had an elephant army which could have wreaked havoc on the primarily horse mounted Ghaznavids.

But if the encounter was somewhere in the traditional sparring grounds of the North-West the Cholas would have stood no chance because except for a strength in numbers they had no other advantage.

 

[LaBong]

If you could only tell me what historians to quote. I will quote them.

When it is a fact that Hindus were not united at the time of Muslim invasions, and the Muslim rule again turned Indian subcontinent into one single country, what wrong do you see there? Every ruler has brought in his/her interests. Be it the time of Asoka, Nanda, Sunga, Victoria or Indian National Congress, tell me which one is worth the pride you are searching for?

Rulers are always interested in their rule, and the one whose rule brings out the highest productivity least atrocities is the greatest - at least that is what I think. On that scale, Asoka and Sunga and Brits were certainly not those ones worth taking pride in.

And though while I am not saying the Mughals were the greatest, I request you to note that most of them kept state and religion separated, something a few of even the Hindu rulers couldn't do.

There are other metrics apart from productivity and Mughals did indulge themselves in atrocities, specially against the Sikhs, however they were harmless babies as compared to the Persian, Afghans and Arabs.

The biggest fault of Mughals was their lack of concern towards quality education, which backfired us in future.

However Mughals did separate state and religion(atleast most of them), a common trait of central asian steppe rulers.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

If you could only tell me what historians to quote. I will quote them.

When it is a fact that Hindus were not united at the time of Muslim invasions, and the Muslim rule again turned Indian subcontinent into one single country, what wrong do you see there? Every ruler has brought in his/her interests. Be it the time of Asoka, Nanda, Sunga, Victoria or Indian National Congress, tell me which one is worth the pride you are searching for?

Rulers are always interested in their rule, and the one whose rule brings out the highest productivity least atrocities is the greatest - at least that is what I think. On that scale, Asoka and Sunga and Brits were certainly not those ones worth taking pride in.

And though while I am not saying the Mughals were the greatest, I request you to note that most of them kept state and religion separated, something a few of even the Hindu rulers couldn't do.

There are other metrics apart from productivity and Mughals did indulge themselves in atrocities, specially against the Sikhs, however they were harmless babies as compared to the Persian, Afghans and Arabs.

The biggest fault of Mughals was their lack of concern towards quality education, which backfired us miserably.

Dude! Asoka is a myth invented by conniving Bhartis.

 

[KS]

If you could only tell me what historians to quote. I will quote them. [/QUOTE]

It was you who quoted Historians albeit they were ones with a clear bias.

When it is a fact that Hindus were not united at the time of Muslim invasions, and the Muslim rule again turned Indian subcontinent into one single country, what wrong do you see there? Every ruler has brought in his/her interests. Be it the time of Asoka, Nanda, Sunga, Victoria or Indian National Congress, tell me which one is worth the pride you are searching for?

It did not turn into a single country. At the most it created a united North India. Maurya,Nanda,Sunga were all Indian Empires which for example the Delhi Sultanates could never claim to be. They were Turks and Afghans who were not natives of the soil. Can I take the same pride in them as I take for Asoka or a Samudra Gupta ?

And as for the Mughal Empire they were Uzbeks and it was only from Akbar where they started tenuously to claim themselves as 'Hindustanis'.
And as for keeping religion aside from politics , did Aurangazeb did the same ??

Rulers are always interested in their rule, and the one whose rule brings out the highest productivity least atrocities is the greatest - at least that is what I think. On that scale, Asoka and Sunga and Brits were certainly not those ones worth taking pride in.

And though while I am not saying the Mughals were the greatest, I request you to note that most of them kept state and religion separated, something a few of even the Hindu rulers couldn't do.

See I am not saying the Hindu rulers were all hunky-dory with the highest order of idealism ingrained in them. But all I am saying is for all their faults atleast they were rulers who were from this land which most of the Islamic rulers could never claim to be.

BTW this thread is serioulsy going on a tangent as It is not my intention nor the OP to discuss the merits of the Islamic rule.

The main idea was to show how many years there was effective Islamic rule over India.

 

[ejaz007]

Muslims did rule part of India in its present or former shapes for considerable time. A brief is as under:

Pre Historic (Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmood Ghaznavi) 712-962 with perhaps some gaps in muslim rule.
Slave dynasty (1206-1290)
Khalji dynasty (1290-1310)
Tughluq Dynasty (1320-1412)
Sayid Dynasty (1414-1451)
Lodhi Dynasty (1451-1526)
Mughal Empire (1526-1857) with some gaps when mughals were not in power.
Suri Dynasty (1540-1555)

Calculate the years yourself. Any discrepancy may be corrected.

 

[President Camacho]

It was you who quoted Historians albeit they were ones with a clear bias.



It did not turn into a single country. At the most it created a united North India. Maurya,Nanda,Sunga were all Indian Empires which for example the Delhi Sultanates could never claim to be. They were Turks and Afghans who were not natives of the soil. Can I take the same pride in them as I take for Asoka or a Samudra Gupta ?

And as for the Mughal Empire they were Uzbeks and it was only from Akbar where they started tenuously to claim themselves as 'Hindustanis'.
And as for keeping religion aside from politics , did Aurangazeb did the same ??



See I am not saying the Hindu rulers were all hunky-dory with the highest order of idealism ingrained in them. But all I am saying is for all their faults atleast they were rulers who were from this land which most of the Islamic rulers could never claim to be.

BTW this thread is serioulsy going on a tangent as It is not my intention nor the OP to discuss the merits of the Islamic rule.

The main idea was to show how many years there was effective Islamic rule over India.

Brother, I am not a fanatic of Mughals. But each time I see here Indians responding to the 1000 year thing, I notice it turning into a Hindu vs Muslim debate. And things do come down to who did what. I am not a fan of Mauryas/Guptas/Sungas or anyone else either. Each ruler had his/her own interest, and the community was shaped in the same way. And it is sad that you want to tell me about the likes of Aurangzeb and all. I never used to the word "all of the Mughals" or "all of this" or "none of that" anywhere. When I wrote about Mughals, I did have Aurangzeb in mind too. I hope you will allow me the advantage of brevity, for it is not a book we are writing here.

Indeed this forum is about that myth called 1000 years, and apparently, any valuable info, which though is very easy to gain on the internet, few of the Indians here seem to try it. I am just appalled at how people end up in responding to such stupid irrelevant questions that appear no more than a trap to poke fun at others. Hence my efforts.

 

[KS]

Brother, I am not a fanatic of Mughals. But each time I see here Indians responding to the 1000 year thing, I notice it turning into a Hindu vs Muslim debate. And things do come down to who did what. I am not a fan of Mauryas/Guptas/Sungas or anyone else either. Each ruler had his/her own interest, and the community was shaped in the same way. And it is sad that you want to tell me about the likes of Aurangzeb and all. I never used to the word "all of the Mughals" or "all of this" or "none of that" anywhere. When I wrote about Mughals, I did have Aurangzeb in mind too. I hope you will allow me the advantage of brevity, for it is not a book we are writing here.

Indeed this forum is about that myth called 1000 years, and apparently, any valuable info, which though is very easy to gain on the internet, few of the Indians here seem to try it. I am just appalled at how people end up in responding to such stupid irrelevant questions that appear no more than a trap to poke fun at others. Hence my efforts.

I wish I could thank you for this post but unfortunately not seeing the Thank button. As you said any debate on this supposed 1000 year rule inadvertantly turns intp Hindu-Muslim thread. So lets leave it here.

 

[Manas]

Muslims did rule part of India in its present or former shapes for considerable time. A brief is as under:

Pre Historic (Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmood Ghaznavi) 712-962 with perhaps some gaps in muslim rule.

Muhammad bin Qasim died few years after his invasion of sindh. And sindh came to the native kings again.

Even during Mahmood Ghaznavi's time ,most of Pakistan were hindu kingdoms.

 

[KS]

Pre Historic (Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmood Ghaznavi) 712-962 with perhaps some gaps in muslim rule.

We are not talking about invasion or plundering missions but 'rule'. There is a difference in them. Even though Gazni invaded India and plundered temples for their wealth he never 'ruled' India which was still under the local Hindu kings.

Slave dynasty (1206-1290)
Khalji dynasty (1290-1310)
Tughluq Dynasty (1320-1412)
Sayid Dynasty (1414-1451)
Lodhi Dynasty (1451-1526)

Agreed.

Mughal Empire (1526-1857) with some gaps when mughals were not in power.

The effective Mughal rule was only till 1707, till when Aurangazeb was alive. The Marathas and Sikhs had already become important powers and Mughal 'Empire' was relegated to the position of 'also-there'.

Suri Dynasty (1540-1555)

Agreed.