Major Indian hsitory Myth: 1000 Years of Muslim Rule

[AyanRay]

I am confused as to what you are referring to. Do you mean the modern day Republic of India(which I am clearly talking about) or the entire subcontinent(which also was called India). If it is the latter that you are referring to, then the only part of India that was ruled for 1000 years was modern day Pakistan. Essentially, you are calling yourselves slaves.
@Indus Pakistan

And they feel extremely proud of it. Weird..

 

[Orca]

And they feel extremely proud of it. Weird..

Indians enjoying Premature orgasm we ruled 1000 years over HINDUS. now tell me who is Hindu here

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Muslims still rule Gandhar, Kabul, Purushapura, Lahore, Karachi, Dhaka, Srinagar etc.

You should rename thread to - Muslims did not rule all of India for 1000 years.

But eventually we will, Inshallah.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I'm referring to medieval India, and for your information whenever we said 1000 years of rule over India it starts from Medieval India to Last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. As you said you are confused but we are not, now go get a life kid


Pathetic And ignorant you must join school again from prep. Whenever we said that Muslims ruled India for 1000 year it doesn't means whole India but for 1000 years Muslim ruled over Hindus successfully in different (majority) parts of India

Only for a very small part of India, and mostly in Pakistan. And btw, I pointed out how after Aurangzeb, the Mughals were only puppets who had to pay tribute to the Marathas. If you are proud that the Mughals lasted for two extra centuries as a puppet, state, I guess that's good for you. But the fact still remains that the majority of India was never ruled by Muslims for anywhere NEAR 1000 years.

Indians enjoying Premature orgasm we ruled 1000 years over HINDUS. now tell me who is Hindu here

The only people you ruled were yourselves. After Aurangzeb, do you really think the Marathas(who were in charge) would let the Mughal puppet Emperor rule anyone? Of course not. After Aurangzeb, the Mughals were basically a checkbook for the Marathas. If that is your idea of ruling, I don't know what to say,

 

[AyanRay]

Indians enjoying Premature orgasm we ruled 1000 years over HINDUS. now tell me who is Hindu here

We are. We fought and survived the Afgans and Mughols. You just survived. Maybe if America invades you, you guys will just convert again to save your asses. I like that survival instinct, keep it up.

 

[Orca]

We are. We fought and survived the Afgans and Mughols. You just survived. Maybe if America invades you, you guys will just convert again to save your asses. I like that survival instinct, keep it up.

because Muslims rulers were so merciful not like your butcher nature mindset of Hindutawa, and wait you guys have a survival instinct as chankiya told you when you see your enemy is powerful then bent over and when you see your enemy is weak don't think twice and just attack. That's what your field marshal did in 1971.
meanwhile Pakistan 2.0 in the making. Enjoy

https://twitter.com/x/status/1029026610328944641

 

[Hamza913]

Hello everyone. I have encountered several people in various threads propagating this myth, and I got tired of correcting them, so I decided to make a thread on this topic.

First of all, lets aknowledge the truth behind the myth. There are some parts of Northern India(mainly UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, and parts of MP) that were ruled by Muslims for long periods of time. Muslim rule in India was first established in the 10th Century CE when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded east of the Indus. The Dehli Sultanate was established in 1206 and lasted until 1526, or 320 years. It was succeeded by the Mughal Empire started by Babur which remained a major power until the early 18th century.
However, that is only the story of Northern India. South India was a completely different story. Many proponents of this myth use the Tughlaq Dynasty of proof that the Delhi Sultanate had conquered even south India

However, they neglect to point out that the Tughlaqs lasted for less than a century, shorter than the amount of time modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan were ruled by the Mauryans.
Towards the end of the Tughlaqs, a Kannadiga commander in the army of the Hoysal Empire called Harihara began resisting the invaders from the North. By 1336, the Tughlazs had completely fallen, and the entirety of Southern India was under Harihara's control. His Empire became known as the Vijayanagar Empire. The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(

The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(Odisha) and the Sultanate of Madurai In 1407, King Deva Raya I of Vijayanagar forced Sultan Firoz Bahmani to enter a treaty that required Bahmani to pay tribute to Vijayanagara. It was described as the most powerful Empire of medieval India by International travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fernao Nunes, and Niccolo Da Conti. Even King Akbar considered it one of the most powerful empires of the subcontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empire
In 1565, the Vijayanagara Empire lost the battle of Talikota against the combined force of the northern Deccan Sultanates. This loss weakened Vijayanagar which finally fell in 1646, although remnants of it survived in areas such as Tami Nadu and Kerala(Travancore is a good example). After Vijayanagar fell, the Deccan Sultanates rose to power, such as Hyderabad and Mysore. But their dominance did not last long, because the next major player the Marathas, rose to power.

For a short period of time, the Mughal King Aurangzeb came close to finally conquering the Deccan. The height of his Empire is shown below

However, this lasted very shortly, as the Marathas under SHivaji rebelled and fought Mughal control in the Deccan. Shivaji was eventually able to liberate Maharashtra, of which he was crowned king in 1674. By Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the Marathas had already gained control of most of the Deccan. Below shows the Marathas at their height

Obviously, the Marathas were not able to control that much territory in modern day Pakistan for long. But this picture shows they were the major power in India by the second half of the 18th century. And contrary to popular belief, they did not fall after Panipat. Ten years later, the Marathas had regained control of Northern India. When the British arrived, the Mughal "Empire" was just a City state with a puppet ruler that paid tribute to the Marathas. To gain control of India, the British had to defeat the Marathas in the Angol Maratha Wars. Here are some more pictures.

And of course, there is also the story of Northeast India. The Mughlas made several attempts to cross the Brahmaputra and invade the Ahom Empire(Assam) but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_kingdom
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lachit-barphukan-the-battle-of-saraighat.304596/

So, in conclusion:
1. North India WAS ruled by the DS and Mughals, but only for about 500 years.
2..South and East India(with the exception of Bengal) was mostly ruled by indigenous kngdoms/empires.
3. The entirety of Modern day India(including Northeast) was never ruled until the British
4. The entirety of India did come CLOSE to being conquered, but for very short periods of time.

I hope this post was educational. I am always willing to engage in open debate and discussion, but please keep it civil and stay on topic.
@Indus Pakistan @Taimoor Khan @Talwar e Pakistan @Taimur Khurram @HariPrasad @Tshering22 @Dalai Lama @AUSTERLITZ @Joe Shearer @KAL-EL @Suriya @GURU DUTT
@Rollno21 @Śakra @Nilgiri @Clutch

It may not have been 1000 years of rule, but it was 1000 years of domination over the region. The first Muslim ruler to launch attacks into Hindustan was Junaid Ibn Abdur Rahman from the Ummayad Khilafah, he would frequently raid places like Rajasthan using the Ummayad territory in Pakistan as a base. This continued for quite a while until the Ghurids decided to actually conquer rather than just attack Hindustan, and ever since then large portions of Hindustan were ruled by Muslims up until the Maratha's came along. At that point, Muslims went back to just launching attacks into Hindustan, e.g Ahmed Shah Durrani at the Battle of Panipat, before eventually quieting down for a bit. Then the British came along and pretty much any hopes of Islamic domination over South Asia were permanently crushed.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

It may not have been 1000 years of rule, but it was 1000 years of domination over the region. The first Muslim ruler to launch attacks into Hindustan was Junaid Ibn Abdur Rahman from the Ummayad Khilafah, he would frequently raid places like Rajasthan using the Ummayad territory in Pakistan as a base. This continued for quite a while until the Ghurids decided to actually conquer rather than just attack Hindustan, and ever since then large portions of Hindustan were ruled by Muslims up until the Maratha's came along. At that point, Muslims went back to just launching attacks into Hindustan, e.g Ahmed Shah Durrani at the Battle of Panipat, before eventually quieting down for a bit. Then the British came along and pretty much any hopes of Islamic domination over South Asia were permanently crushed.

I am not denying Muslims have been attacking India for a thousand years, but the first successful invader was Mahmud Ghazvi. The Muslims definitely dominated the Northern part of India for a couple of Centuries before the Mughals were defeated by the Marathas. And you are correct the Durranis continuously launched attacks against the Marathas, similarly to how the MArathas once launched attacks against Lahore and Peshawar. In the end though, the Marathas were able to dominate modern day India, while the Durranis retained modern day Pakistan. And then of course the British came. I am going to make a thread about how the British dominated the subcontinent.

because Muslims rulers were so merciful not like your butcher nature mindset of Hindutawa, and wait you guys have a survival instinct as chankiya told you when you see your enemy is powerful then bent over and when you see your enemy is weak don't think twice and just attack. That's what your field marshal did in 1971.
meanwhile Pakistan 2.0 in the making. Enjoy

https://twitter.com/x/status/1029026610328944641

Translation: Muslims were never able to truly conquer us even though they ruled some of us at one time, so they had to cooperate with us and please us. Its no surprise that the most brutal Muslim rulers(the Taghlaqs and Aurangzeb) also saw

We are. We fought and survived the Afgans and Mughols. You just survived. Maybe if America invades you, you guys will just convert again to save your asses. I like that survival instinct, keep it up.

There is nothing wrong with survival- but we definitely did a better job than them. After all, we are the world's ONLY ancient civilization to still keep our ancient culture and religion alive, even after going through invasion and foreign occupation.

 

[Hamza913]

I am not denying Muslims have been attacking India for a thousand years, but the first successful invader was Mahmud Ghazvi.

Incorrect, the first successful one was Junaid Ibn Abdur Rahman.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Incorrect, the first successful one was Junaid Ibn Abdur Rahman.

Did he conquer any significant parts of modern day India for more than a century? I know borders have changed and there may be parts of modern India that were originally conquered along with Pakistan in the first invasion, but like I said, it is insignificant.

 

[Hamza913]

Did he conquer any significant parts of modern day India for more than a century? I know borders have changed and there may be parts of modern India that were originally conquered along with Pakistan in the first invasion, but like I said, it is insignificant.

He did the same thing Ghaznavi did, i.e he launched frequent attacks into Hindustan and I believe he may have also expanded the Khilafah's territory into Rajasthan and Gujarat.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

He did the same thing Ghaznavi did, i.e he launched frequent attacks into Hindustan and I believe he may have also expanded the Khilafah's territory into Rajasthan and Gujarat.

He may have launched attacks, but he was not successful. He may have won some territory in Rajasthan and Gujarat, but that is inconsequential(Look at my history of GUjaratis thread for more info on that) My point is, Mahmud Ghazni was the first invader to take Delhi in the 10th century.

 

[Hamza913]

He may have launched attacks, but he was not successful. He may have won some territory in Rajasthan and Gujarat, but that is inconsequential(Look at my history of GUjaratis thread for more info on that) My point is, Mahmud Ghazni was the first invader to take Delhi in the 10th century.

He was successful, he launched attacks to weaken nearby Hindu kingdoms just as he intended, and they couldn't do a thing about it. They were literally at the mercy of the Ummayads. It's no different to what Ghaznavi did.

Mahmud Ghaznavi did not permanently occupy Hindustan, just like the Ummayads, he also just raided Hindustan to loot it of its wealth and cripple the Hindu dynasties ruling over it.

 

[ranawat]

So am I correct to understand that India as a unified state entity never existed until the British? That the claims of some Indians on the matter are incorrect? That Akhand Bharat is incorrect?

Truth is india is a supa powa and 1000 year ruler is pappu of china .

He was successful, he launched attacks to weaken nearby Hindu kingdoms just as he intended, and they couldn't do a thing about it. They were literally at the mercy of the Ummayads. It's no different to what Ghaznavi did.

Mahmud Ghaznavi did not permanently occupy Hindustan, just like the Ummayads, he also just raided Hindustan to loot it of its wealth and cripple the Hindu dynasties ruling over it.

Aaj ka mahmud ghaznawi donald trump .

 

[Rusty]

Okay so hindutvas can't have it both ways.

If India is an ancient country, then you can't deny the 1000 years of Muslim rule.

If Muslims only ruled some parts and not others, then you can't say India was ever a country.