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

[future_bound]

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

 

[baajey]

ppl like u and ur ilk dread being ruled by hindus....u should.
the fear underlines the immorality of muslim rule in india (most of the time).

 

[INDIC]

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

Does that mean you support Mir Jafar.

 

[baajey]

Does that mean you support Mir Jafar.

hahahahah....made me laff like i m crazy....befitting reply

 

[Spring Onion]

Occupation , slavery is NEVER good for anyone.

British Rule has done some good for majority Hindu India since today they might had seen Indian Muslims having more political clout if partition dint take place. (This is my personal opinion you guys might differ).

 

[scorpionx]

You are preconceived by the notion that if British were not there to fill the power vacuum, Hindu rulers would have wiped out the entire Muslim population. We don't know what would have happened if this was to be the case, but the British did no better to the Muslims of this sub continent. After 1857, the British Raj's intention was specific. Divide and Rule and sadly the Muslims were never in their list of favorites. The peasant class became poorer and poorer (They were already being deprived by their Muslim feudal lords before the English contingent of Merchants rested their feet on the soil of Bengal) and the Zamindars went on sucking the poor becoming richer and richer.

The Muslim educated class also faced massive opposition from the orthodox mullahs when they tried to refurbish the Muslim society and introduce them to the mainstream Indian society which was enjoying the effects of western education. As you have mentioned about Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, you must know the opinion of the Mullahs and Maulavis about this great man.

Hindus have their own share of depriving the Muslims of this region,but that share was never higher than that of the British and the Muslims themselves had. So, please come out of your blind prejudice. Honestly it brings more damage to all of us.

 

[Ayush]

Occupation , slavery is NEVER good for anyone.

British Rule has done some good for majority Hindu India since today they might had seen Indian Muslims having more political clout if partition dint take place. (This is my personal opinion you guys might differ).

watch this video if possible

 

[INDIC]

Occupation , slavery is NEVER good for anyone.

British Rule has done some good for majority Hindu India since today they might had seen Indian Muslims having more political clout if partition dint take place. (This is my personal opinion you guys might differ).

We know who wanted partition at any cost, why are you bringing Hindus in that.

 

[Spring Onion]

You wanted partition at any cost, why are you bringing Hindus in that.

In a political discussion every point is taken for debate .

if you have some emotional problem you can just move on.

 

[INDIC]

In a political discussion every point is taken for debate .

if you have some emotional problem you can just move on.

You are simply blaming Hindus for the thing they never supported. Hindus didn't care about political clout of Muslims, it were you who was more feared with the mere idea of living in a Hindu majority country.

You are preconceived by the notion that if British were not there to fill the power vacuum, Hindu rulers would have wiped out the entire Muslim population. We don't know what would have happened if this was to be the case, but the British did no better to the Muslims of this sub continent. After 1857, the British Raj's intention was specific. Divide and Rule and sadly the Muslims were never in their list of favorites. The peasant class became poorer and poorer (They were already being deprived by their Muslim feudal lords before the English contingent of Merchants rested their feet on the soil of Bengal) and the Zamindars went on sucking the poor becoming richer and richer.

The Muslim educated class also faced massive opposition from the orthodox mullahs when they tried to refurbish the Muslim society and introduce them to the mainstream Indian society which was enjoying the effects of western education. As you have mentioned about Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, you must know the opinion of the Mullahs and Maulavis about this great man.

Hindus have their own share of depriving the Muslims of this region,but that share was never higher than that of the British and the Muslims themselves had. So, please come out of your blind prejudice. Honestly it brings more damage to all of us.

It all depends upon which region you are talking about. If a Punjabi Muslims of Pakistan claim that they were discriminated by Hindus and British, then its a complete joke.

 

[Spring Onion]

You are simply blaming Hindus for the thing they never supported. Hindus didn't care about political clout of Muslims, it were you who was more feared with the mere idea of living in a Hindu majority country.

Idea took place only after Hindu hypocrisy. Anyway what you said is debatable and also your claim is questionable but anyway again i personally feel that British policy of accommodating partition or political movements during RAJ period did good to today's Hindu majority India

 

[scorpionx]

It all depends upon which region you are talking about. If a Punjabi Muslims of Pakistan claim that they were discriminated by Hindus and British, then its a complete joke.

To understand this two parameters should be known.What was the percentage share of Punjabi Muslims in over all Muslim population of India? and what was the over all percentage share of Muslims in Raj's government?

 

[third eye]

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

Your explanation is full of holes.

Firstly, but 1857 the decline of the Mughal rule was not inevitable but was a reality. The writ of Bhadur Shah Zafar ran only within the Red fort.

The British rule began after Plassey which was almost a century before 1857. By 1820s it had consolidated with provinces like Punjab & Oudh yet to come under their sway. By now the Presidencies of Bombay & Madras had consolidated themselves.

The Maratthas & Sikhs were already a dominant force by 1830 - 40s.

The Muslims never stood a chance to regroup or assert themselves well before the Mutiny.

 

[INDIC]

To understand this two parameters should be known.What was the percentage share of Punjabi Muslims in over all Muslim population of India? and what was the over all percentage share of Muslims in Raj's government?

The economic problem only existed among Bengali Muslims but Pakistanis pretend this to be the problem of entire Muslims of British India particularly the North-West. In some parts of India like UP they were more educated than Hindus. Punjabi Muslims were the most prosperous with the canal colony boom brought by British in entire Punjab making Punjab the most prosperous province of British India. In case of Sindh the Hindus constituted the educated and business class while Muslims owned the land. Even after seven decades of Independence, entire Sindhi Muslim community still live in villages, so I don't think someone responsible for their backwardness.

Idea took place only after Hindu hypocrisy. Anyway what you said is debatable and also your claim is questionable but anyway again i personally feel that British policy of accommodating partition or political movements during RAJ period did good to today's Hindu majority India

That sounds gibberish. When Muslim League was being non cooperative in number of things being it keeping a strong union, constituent assembly, status of princely states, it was indeed beneficial for us that Pakistan separated.

 

[Spring Onion]

The economic problem only existed among Bengali Muslims but Pakistanis pretend this to be the problem of entire Muslims of British India particularly the North-West. In some parts of India like UP they were more educated than Hindus. Punjabi Muslims were the most prosperous with the canal colony boom brought by British in entire Punjab making Punjab the most prosperous province of British India. In case of Sindh the Hindus constituted the educated and business class while Muslims owned the land. Even after seven decades of Independence, entire Sindhi Muslim community still live in villages, so I don't think someone responsible for their backwardness.



That sounds gibberish. When Muslim League was being non cooperative in number of things being it keeping a strong union, constituent assembly, status of princely states, it was indeed beneficial for us that Pakistan separated.

We are very happy to be separated You can keep your gibberishes to yourself . If you were happy today you must NOT, and would not have been blabbering about partition at all