The British Raj in the sub-continent was a good thing for the muslims?

[MUHARIB]

On second thought, it is probably not appropriate to say that the British raj was a good thing for muslims in sub-continent. But if as a muslim i had to choose between living under the white man's british raj or a hindu-dominated country then i would consider the british raj to be the lesser of the 2 evils!!

Dude how the faak you aint banned yet. Its clear, either your an Indian false flag or just a plain retard low self esteem Pakistani.

 

[Redbull]

U must discuss ur own anchestory with pakistani members such as Icarus and superkaif...
Know ur own history properly.. Am tired for this discussions.. Discussed lotta times... But u r new here... Need to prop up old threads and read it..

Even if we were to agree that they were hindu, saying " werent ur anchestors hindus?,they will never have thought that their future generation will hate hinduism like this". is just silly. The ancestors of Germans didn't think thier children will hate naziism, but they do and for good reason.

 

[IND151]

^^ systematic manipulating does its job

my friend, Hinduism isn't that evil as you think

 

[Mrityunjay Rai]

There was no chance of marathas and sikhs taking over north India. UP , Bihar and Bangal were not going to be conquered at all.
These states had mostly Muslim rulers and few Hindu as well. It was not like that Muslim rulers were agains Hindus and vice versa.
For a common man , a ruler was a ruler , jut plain and simple. No muslim was getting benefit from Muslim rule neither Hindus in Hindu rule. All had to pay taxes , almost had same living conditions. Only those who had money and/or power were better lived.
So it was not like that Hindus were waiting for Marathas and Sikhs for overturning the rule.

 

[Ghauri_Ghaznavi]

PS: werent ur anchestors hindus?
Really when they had converted(either peacefull or force is another matter), they will never have thought that their future generation will hate hinduism like this...

Even if the ancestors were hindus, so what? The ancestors of all muslims and even christians were once pagans.
Hinduism is a casteist religion, and in such a caste based society; who a person's ancestors were and what they did for a living thousands of years ago determines his or her worth as a human being today. That is why i have noticed that hindus have this obsession about ancestry.

 

[Rusty]

There was no chance of marathas and sikhs taking over north India. UP , Bihar and Bangal were not going to be conquered at all.
These states had mostly Muslim rulers and few Hindu as well. It was not like that Muslim rulers were agains Hindus and vice versa.
For a common man , a ruler was a ruler , jut plain and simple. No muslim was getting benefit from Muslim rule neither Hindus in Hindu rule. All had to pay taxes , almost had same living conditions. Only those who had money and/or power were better lived.
So it was not like that Hindus were waiting for Marathas and Sikhs for overturning the rule.

THANK YOU
You are the first Indian member to have admitted that Muslim rulers were not some kind blood sucking vampires who ate Hindu babies for breakfast.

Finally a sensibly post by an Indian member about history of India.

I feel like I should scream cap this and make it into a wall paper or something.
The first sensible post I have seen in almost a year of being here.

 

[Mrityunjay Rai]

THANK YOU
You are the first Indian member to have admitted that Muslim rulers were not some kind blood sucking vampires who ate Hindu babies for breakfast.

Finally a sensibly post by an Indian member about history of India.

I feel like I should scream cap this and make it into a wall paper or something.
The first sensible post I have seen in almost a year of being here.

I am sorry if you have earlier feeling that Muslim rulers were regarded bad and blood sucking in India. Few are liked and few are not but that dose not mean that it was black and white. Take an example of Aurangzeb , one of the controversial ruler of its time. If you analyze deeply , he was much much better than Shahjahan who is know for Taj Mahal and RedFort. Most of the officers in Aurangzeb's admin were Hindus. Even he is more disliked by Shia community than Hindus for reasons I dont know very exactly . Different historians have different point of view on him.
To give you another example about Sher Shah Soori ( First truly Indian Muslim ruler in my regards) had made Mughals run for their lives. Even today in Sasaram (In Bihar , where he was from) he is a divine feature for Hindus as well as Muslims. He had a much better administration than any medieval rulers and I consider hin in same league as Chandragupta, Samudragupta.

Take Nawabs of Awadh ( Lucknow ) , they are remembered as kind , lazy etc but not as bad or something like that.

 

[miss]

THANK YOU
You are the first Indian member to have admitted that Muslim rulers were not some kind blood sucking vampires who ate Hindu babies for breakfast.

Finally a sensibly post by an Indian member about history of India.

I feel like I should scream cap this and make it into a wall paper or something.
The first sensible post I have seen in almost a year of being here.

Today also the same thing is happening. Just because its secular govt doesnt mean muslims are treated badly

 

[Rusty]

I am sorry if you have earlier feeling that Muslim rulers were regarded bad and blood sucking in India. Few are liked and few are not but that dose not mean that it was black and white. Take an example of Aurangzeb , one of the controversial ruler of its time. If you analyze deeply , he was much much better than Shahjahan who is know for Taj Mahal and RedFort. Most of the officers in Aurangzeb's admin were Hindus. Even he is more disliked by Shia community than Hindus for reasons I dont know very exactly . Different historians have different point of view on him.
To give you another example about Sher Shah Soori ( First truly Indian Muslim ruler in my regards) had made Mughals run for their lives. Even today in Sasaram (In Bihar , where he was from) he is a divine feature for Hindus as well as Muslims. He had a much better administration than any medieval rulers and I consider hin in same league as Chandragupta, Samudragupta.

Take Nawabs of Awadh ( Lucknow ) , they are remembered as kind , lazy etc but not as bad or something like that.

Today must be some kind of Holy day or something.
For the first time ever, I am seeing an Indian member have a well thought out, objective and factual view of this topic.
Every Indian member I have talked to here seems to think that Aurangzeb was some kind of monster, when in reality he actually had more Hindus in his government then even Akbar.

From the bottom of my heart I thank you for being a sensible person.
Sometimes that quality is a little hard to find on this forum.

 

[livingdead]

Today must be some kind of Holy day or something.
For the first time ever, I am seeing an Indian member have a well thought out, objective and factual view of this topic.
Every Indian member I have talked to here seems to think that Aurangzeb was some kind of monster, when in reality he actually had more Hindus in his government then even Akbar.

From the bottom of my heart I thank you for being a sensible person.
Sometimes that quality is a little hard to find on this forum.

Where is the quality in his post. He basically agrees with what you think. He should have given link where he got this info from.

 

[haviZsultan]

I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.
If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's British raj?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s. And later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that muslims have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

Imran Khan describes our dedication to the British and their laws, rules and regulations as one of our foremost problems and rightly so in his book Pakistan: A personal history.

Your post proves the same, that we still follow a colonial mindset. We should have grown out of this praise for the British and their ways but we are still at stage one. For example the FCR, an age old british law which holds entire tribes responsible for the actions of a few and which is against human rights still exists in the tribal areas. We haven't given the local people a chance to properly integrate.

The Marathas and the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh etc weren't half a threat as the British. They were cheap knock-off kingdoms when compared to the British. Possibly if the British hadn't come the Mughals could have still been dominating India. A weaker version of India perhaps but they still might have been in power...

I strongly disagree that the British Raj helped strengthen the Muslims. The end of urdu as a language in the courts and nobility automatically reduced the literacy rate of Muslims by a huge percentage. Clerks and waiters were made to wear the uniform of the defeated Mughal army strengthening and building the mindset that we were a conquered race and mocking us, all land owned by trusts which gave free education and healthcare (34% of all land) was taken and taxed as they abolished the trusts, and waqf boards. Theres much more they did to keep the Muslims backwards. Their primary objective was to keep the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus at each others throats so that a unified force or threat could not appear before them.

No doubt the #British kept the Hindus backward but they also kept the Muslims backward and no one can deny this.

Hoshiarpur in east punjab had a literacy of 84% when the Mughals were ruling and was left with a literacy of 9%. The very same thing happened in the provinces that were to become Pakistan.

Quaid E Azam & Sir Syed Ahmed Khan rose only due to their own obstinacy to do something good for Muslims despite the difficult conditions alone not due to any help from the British.

And please don't use the word baniya for Pakistani hindus. Call the Indians whatever you want but I don't like the way we drag our people into this because of their religion.

 

[Rig Vedic]

There was no chance of marathas and sikhs taking over north India. UP , Bihar and Bangal were not going to be conquered at all.

Actually Bengal came very close to being taken over by Marathas. Orissa had already been taken over. There were numerous skirmishes between the Marathas and the Nawabs of Murshidabad (capital of Sube Bangla). Also parts of UP like Mathura, Agra and Jhansi were already under Maratha administration.

Unfortunately the battle of Plassey (1757) brought the British into the picture as a powerful force. Also, the battle of Panipat (1761) forced the Marathas to scale back for a while.

You also have to fault the Marathas, because after Peshwa Bajirao I, they could not unify under a dynamic leader. Madhavrao was good, and he was responsible for recovery after Panipat, but he fell sick and died quite young. Had he lived for another 20 years, the history of the subcontinent could have been very different.

Post Panipat, Sikhs took care of the invading Afghans and Marathas did recover, but ultimately the Indian rulers were not as well organized as the British.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Even if the ancestors were hindus, so what? The ancestors of all muslims and even christians were once pagans.
Hinduism is a casteist religion, and in such a caste based society; who a person's ancestors were and what they did for a living thousands of years ago determines his or her worth as a human being today. That is why i have noticed that hindus have this obsession about ancestry.

Really?
Now pls dont say me there is no casteism in muslims... I have seen it myself...
Infact for some reasons unknown, they are more stricter in casteism as i have seen...
U know in india, people of same caste marry within one another irrespective of religion?
Now Arabs consider themselves superior to normal muslims... y? Whats that called?
Can a normal pakistani or normal muslim marry the princess of Saud?
Know ur inside faults first...
And i never will claim, there are no faults in hinduism... There are ,and they will be removed..

 

[Mrityunjay Rai]

Today also the same thing is happening. Just because its secular govt doesnt mean muslims are treated badly

Right. Today same thing is happening, those who have power and money are enjoying those who dont are in bad condition. If anybody says that Govt has targeted any particular religion , its rubbish.

 

[Ark-Angel]

I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.
If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's British raj?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s. And later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that muslims have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

French and Dutch could've filled the vacuum too.