Numbers do not add upto 1000 years

[DARIUS]

U guys starting this thread to invite a massive troll fest or what??? The last thing that one should try out on earth is to try and reason out with the Pakistanis!!!Let them remain happy in their delusional world and be happy about all that Islamic rule and crap.U,I and the rest of the world(excluding Pakistan off course) knows the truth and thats enough.

 

[anilindia]

Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE)

Gupta Empire (320 to 550 CE)

Pala Empire (8th-12th century)

Chola Empire (9th-13th century)

Delhi Sultanate 1206–1526

Vijayanagara Empire (14th-16th century)

Mughal Empire 1526–1857

Maratha Empire 1674–1818

Sikh Empire 1799–1849

 

[qamar1990]

Indian civilization is about 4000 years old. And, some in PDF claim that Muslims rule India for 1000 years. Their calculation is from 712 AD to 1707. But, being History my second favorite subject, I find it amusing.I am giving the reasons below:-

1) 500 years gone:- On the third attempt, Muhammad bin Qasim became successful in 712 AD. But, not a single piece of land of modern day India was captured(only confined to Sindh). But, the latter progress of the Arabs was stopped for next 500 years in the Battle of Rajasthan. First Islamic dynasty in India was Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi) in 1206. So, officially it cannot be before 1206. And, 500 years gone.

Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammad bin Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2) Another 300 years gone:-Only six (Alauddin Khilji,Muhammad bin Tughluq,Akbar,Jahangir,Shah Jahan,Aurangzeb taken together less than 200 years ) out of dozens of Muslim rulers, had a so called pan India rule. All others were regional kings like Cholas, Palas,Rajputs, Jatts, Gorkhas, Sikhs and many south Indian kings . They had no power to control whole of India's destiny. If they were pan India rulers, then all others are so.

3) Remaining 200 years:- I doubt if remaining less than 200 years can be called absolute Muslim rule in India because of Hindus' overwhelming presence in the administrations unlike Hindu rulers (before the MARATHA) with full administrative control of Hindus.


After 1707(death of Aurangzeb), Marathas rose to power and de-facto ended MUSLIM RULE. Then, came the British and the rest is known to all.

So, out of the 4000 years of Indian Civilization or the concept of India , the number of Muslim Rule in India does not add upto 1000 years, but it's seems less than one fifth of that so called thousand years which is less than 5% of 4000 years.

Correct me if I am wrong. I will accept that with open mind.

you must be hurting inside lol.
so how many centuries did muslims rule india for?

You are absolutely correct. I have pointed this out on a few posts before. Even amongst the Mughals - Akbar was not an adherent of Islam - he was an adherent of Din-e-Elahi, a religion he himself founded and he was Emperor for almost 50 years - so you can shave off those as well.

none the less the mughal empire was a muslim empire and so it comes within the fold of islamic rule of india. regardless of what akbar did muslims were still the most powerful in india and if akbar tried some funny **** like taking away muslim powers he probably would have paid with his life.

 

[Truth Finder]

you must be hurting inside lol.
so how many centuries did muslims rule india for?

Not at all. I know the truth and posted it. I was thinking to post THE MYTHS OF AURANGZEB'S MISRULE today saved in my computer's MS WORD. I think what you would have said then. But, all right. I will post that soon too with facts like I did today.

 

[shuntmaster]

Yaav ooru Tammdu? If I am right, The stretch from Kasargod to Bhatkal had come under Tipu's rule once. My hometown in coastal Karnataka was NEVER under Muslim rule.

Mangaluru..

Its surprising that South Coastal Karnataka and Kerala coast had Muslim population since 6th century and their numbers are quite significant, yet they were never the ruling class at anytime.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I personally feel that Muslim rule in India probably lasted for about 500 odd years since they were the dominant power in India compared to other local kingdoms as the latter were smaller generally.

I think it started in 1206 and ended in 1707 or thereabouts. During this period of 500 or so years Muslims were the dominant power in India even when they were not ruling the majority population. So this is how I look at it. Feel free to disagree.

Any claim bigger than this is obviously absurd.

 

[kurup]

Mangaluru..

Its surprising that South Coastal Karnataka and Kerala coast had Muslim population since 6th century and their numbers are quite significant, yet they were never the ruling class at anytime.

There was one although not a big one .

Arakkal kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[doppelganger]

I studied in an ICSE school. Our curriculum had Mughal rule as an option section (C) so most of us never bothered to study it as the remaining two sections were adequate in order to provide attempt choice.

In the current scenario, that's how important "Muslim" rule in India really is.

 

[Sedqal]

I studied in an ICSE school. Our curriculum had Mughal rule as an option section (C) so most of us never bothered to study it as the remaining two sections were adequate in order to provide attempt choice.

In the current scenario, that's how important "Muslim" rule in India really is.

So we are supposed to applause the great patriotism shown by Indians in the act of ignoring their own history?

To the OP: Your deductions are ridiculous, what defines this 'rulership' of India? If you claim the ruler must have ruled on a greater part of present day India then pray tell how many Hindu rulers ruled on greater part of present day India? The part about specifying present day India doesn't make much sense anyway since we are not talking about post 1947 here.

The part of Akbar is also laughable, are you lot seriously suggesting Akbar was not a Muslim king?

You people certainly have some horrid complexes.

 

[kurup]

The part of Akbar is also laughable, are you lot seriously suggesting Akbar was not a Muslim king?

He formed his own religion .

Din-e Ilahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contrarian]

Personally I believe it is around 600 years.

But in the end, what difference does it make at all.

Indian destiny is yet to come, and we work towards that instead of hairsplitting the past.

Hair splitting the past is somewhat of a Pakistani specialty, since they donot foresee a great future for themselves. The only time they felt being part of something great was either when they were related to India or when they try to share the glory of the Central Asians.

Let us not fall in this rut. There is much more left to do.

 

[doppelganger]

Double post

 

[doppelganger]

So we are supposed to applause the great patriotism shown by Indians in the act of ignoring their own history?

Why do you assume that your applause is being solicited or terribly important otherwise?

Just telling you the relative importance "Muslim" rule has for us Indians living in modern India. Nothing major or noteworthy to be really proud of, either on a regional, continental or global scale. Not when looked at against the backdrop of a proud and advanced 5000+ year old civilization and its achievements.

What did "Muslim" rule give us? Some architecture of questionable aesthetic value. Some different dress forms. A dialect or two here and there. Some good non veg food. And some genetic diversity in our huge Indic gene pool.

That is the sum total. Hardly enough to warrant studying an entire section to attempt one extra full length question.

Please notice above concentrates only on the positive contributions of "Muslim" rule.

The negatives are self evident across this forum (and elsewhere).

 

[Sriram]

other than two hundred years,we always ruled ourselves, Proud to be from Tamil Nadu

 

[shuntmaster]

Personally I believe it is around 600 years.

But in the end, what difference does it make at all.

Indian destiny is yet to come, and we work towards that instead of hairsplitting the past.

Hair splitting the past is somewhat of a Pakistani specialty, since they donot foresee a great future for themselves. The only time they felt being part of something great was either when they were related to India or when they try to share the glory of the Central Asians.

Let us not fall in this rut. There is much more left to do.

I think it depended on region to region. South India had relatively shorter duration of Muslim rule. Even when there was Muslim rule, it was in certain pockets and not uniform across the region. In the subcontinent, I suppose, only in Sindh was the Muslim rule for 1000years. In Gangetic plains of North India, the Muslim rule started with the Delhi Sultanates in 13th century, that too it was restricted to pockets. Even when Muslim rule in certain region was strong, the writ of the Muslim ruler was mostly restricted to the urban areas. The Muslim rulers depended on local chieftains and vassals who were mostly Hindus, to rule over larger areas.