India History : Myth of 1000 Years of Mulsim Rule

[Vinod2070]

It was not Muslim rule per se. It was rule by some foreign invaders who happened to be Muslim, just like the British happened to be Christians.

And just like the Christian converts don't think of the British period as their rule, the Muslim converts of the subcontinent had nothing to do with the rule of let's say the Mughals.

BTW, that was mostly a dark period. Unbelievably intolerant for the most part, except for some Mughal rulers who had been Indianized.

Even Babur came to India via Afghanistan, making mounds of Pushtun skulls and calls them cowards in his book. He was one pathetic idiot who wrote badly of India while running from his own pathetic Godforsaken place to live in the same country.

 

[Vinod2070]

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'.

At this point, the Mughals were surviving at the mercy of Jats and Marathas. They were not even also rans.

The below will be eye opening for some, who have always been taught false history.

The over-all all-lndia causes of partition are well enough known. At the root of it all was history. The Hindus had an acute sense of grievance over the Muslim mayhem in India. But the Muslims on the other hand were dismayed that Islam, which had prevailed everywhere else, had been checkmated in India. In the celebrated words of poet Hali:

Woh deene Hejazi ka bebak beda
Nishan jiska aqsai alam mein pahuncha
Kiye passipar jisne saton samandar
Woh dooba dahane mein Ganga kay aakar.

(The fearless flotilla of Islam, whose flag fluttered over all the world, the ship that crossed the seven seas, came here and sank in the Ganga.)

In the eighteenth century, Hindu society stood up triumphant from Attock to Cuttack and Delhi to Deccan --- having contained the poison of the preceding centuries like a `Nilakantha'. Islam stood tamed --- and Indianized. And then came 1761 and the defeat of the sovereign power of the Mahrattas in the Third Battle of Panipat, which opened the way to British rule in India. It also revived the Wahabis and the Waliullahs, who took Islam back to fundamentalism and greater fanaticism in hopes of an Islamic revival.

 

[KS]

It was not Muslim rule per se. It was rule by some foreign invaders who happened to be Muslim, just like the British happened to be Christians.

And just like the Christian converts don't think of the British period as their rule, the Muslim converts of the subcontinent had nothing to do with the rule of let's say the Mughals.

BTW, that was mostly a dark period. Unbelievably intolerant for the most part, except for some Mughal rulers who had been Indianized.

Even Babur came to India via Afghanistan, making mounds of Pushtun skulls and calls them cowards in his book. He was one pathetic idiot who wrote badly of India while running from his own pathetic Godforsaken place to live in the same country.

Thanks Vinod.

I was unable to put the same ideas in the words you have used.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

It was not Muslim rule per se. It was rule by some foreign invaders who happened to be Muslim, just like the British happened to be Christians.

You are correct, yes they were Muslims, but the Pope also called himself a Christian in the dark ages. No, true Christians orders the extermination of pagans, or launch a holy war on the Muslims and Pagans. Its all politics and they simply want more power. Just like many of the Muslim kingdoms in India would attack each other when they knew they can take it over. Some of the emperors even smoked, drank alcohol, etc...

 

[dabong1]

Did not one of the gandhis mention something about a"thousand years rule"?

 

[GodlessBastard]

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 ??

I am saying that the issue of "Muslim" rule isn't there, because in the end they were just another batch of foreigners who came to India because it was better than whatever hellhole they were originally from. I think Vinod has elaborated on the idea better than I have.

India has been invaded by various peoples over the last 2,000 years, and has had outsiders rule parts of India for over 2,00 years. But all have failed to displace Indian civilization.

 

[LaBong]

There was no Hindu rule or Muslim rule, a few people always ruled over vast majority and both Hindu and Muslim peasant class had been dealt with same contempt. I'm glad that I was born in Republic of India.

 

[GodlessBastard]

Cholas didn't wear brigandine armor like the north. I am not talking about all of India..

In the north they mostly would put silk clothing over chainmail.

The majority of the Chola army probably wore padded silk armour, which would be more effective against arrows than chainmail. Arrows can lodge themselves inside the chains of mail armour, and become a major btch. This is why the Mongols, and many other armies with extensive exposure to archery, preferred padded silk over chainmail.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. In the South, the Cholas were virtually unbeatable. While the cavalry-based armies of the Turks and Afghans dominated on the plains of North India, in the hills and jungles of South India their utility would be severely reduced.

The Chola Army was essentially based around spear-armed light infantry, longbowmen, and lots and lots of elephants. The Chinese historian Zhao Rugua gives a number of 60,000 war elephants for the Chola Army, and those were just the elephants owned directly by the government. It is said that the Cholas used elephants in place of horse cavalry in many applications, which makes sense considering how poor South India is in terms of horse-raising country. Lighter, smaller elephants were probably used for flanking while heavier, more armored elephants were probably used for frontal assaults.

The Cholas' spearmen and elephants would be a perfect counter to cavalry-based armies, and their longbowmen could probably deal with any horse archers.

 

[Manas]

Did not one of the gandhis mention something about a"thousand years rule"?

Yes, according to the Pakistani propaganda machines Indira Gandhi had said something on the eve of 71 war.
Nobody in India ever knows about it as it never actually happened.

 

[harsh1488]

even if the muslim rule lasted for around 1000 years,the hindu,sikh,etc army formed the back bone of their military,there were many successful uprisings like sikhs,marathas,etc from time to time.south india was not conquered till the end of mughal era.

 

[Wonderer]

indians suffer alot from inferiority complex cause of their documented thousands and thousands of years of slave .

Just because smone's fore fathers converted it doesnt mean u r spared of the 'legacy'.

can you relate to what i just said?

 

[Water Car Engineer]

indians suffer alot from inferiority complex cause of their documented thousands and thousands of years of slave .

Funny, because the area of Pakistan was the first to get invaded. And you might a convert of those "slaves".

 

[Manas]

It was not Muslim rule per se. It was rule by some foreign invaders who happened to be Muslim, just like the British happened to be Christians.

And just like the Christian converts don't think of the British period as their rule, the Muslim converts of the subcontinent had nothing to do with the rule of let's say the Mughals.

BTW, that was mostly a dark period. Unbelievably intolerant for the most part, except for some Mughal rulers who had been Indianized.

Even Babur came to India via Afghanistan, making mounds of Pushtun skulls and calls them cowards in his book. He was one pathetic idiot who wrote badly of India while running from his own pathetic Godforsaken place to live in the same country.

Sorry ,I don't argee with you on this point .

Of course those Muslims invaders were foreigner, and came from outside the indian subcontinent like the British. Even Islam is foreign religion.

Unlike, the British , they weren't secular.

From Moumahas Bin Kasim to Tipu Sultan(he was native), everytime a muslim ruler ascended to power in any part of India, the states were turn to islamic system governtment, where rules were framed to according to the guideline of Koran sunnah and Sharia laws were imposed . Though the stringency of those laws differed in from regime to regime , the status of state remained Islamic .

It may sounds strange ,we had Islamic states in parts of India for a long time. India was referred to as Mohammedan state in the western world during the Mogul rule. .

 

[Manas]

indians suffer alot from inferiority complex cause of their documented thousands and thousands of years of slave history .

Yes, I am planning to convert to Islam tomorrow so that I can claim we muslim ruled india for thousand years.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

indians suffer from inferiority complex cause Pakistanis ruled them for thousand years

Lmao, good one... Yes, you are the offspring of the 0.1% invaders. And remember if you claim to be related to Mughals and such. You also have some slave in you.