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

[Contrarian]

Its an important historical question.

British rule has different meaning for different areas of the sub continent. For the north west it was not so pleasant despite the railways. For the bengal, again it was not so pleasant as the British never trusted the Bengalis after their revolt against the raj ( which was the right thing to do).

Punjabis (muslims in particular) benefited as they were bothered by the mughals and the bhangi sardars and the british brought relief to them and recruited them in large numbers.

Varies.

What is bhangi sardars?

 

[FaujHistorian]

They are heavily intoxicated by hatred to justify thr separation. .......



If mass killing plundering n rapes were will of ur god then i wud prefer to worship a monkey....... may b u shud hav asked ur forefathers will too who at sword surrender thr will or u shud know how women were raped in ur side to produce ur martial race.....

yaar you made a good point in your previous post.

Now let it be.

Sometimes we don't have to shovel $hit and let the other guy do this "important" job.

Thank you

 

[Contrarian]

Where's the contradiction.
Was the landmass of RoI united before the British (except for the ancient empires)?



The princely states were still considered part of the British Raj, under British jurisdiction (with varying degrees of autonomy).

Paying tributes is one aspect. We at this time, donot know how much of influence and control these empires had on those regions that payed tribute.
This is in contrast to those kingdoms under british raj who payed trib to the Brits where you do know how much influence Brits had on those regions.


So you cannot dismiss one off hand while keeping the other.

the only thing that can be given to the British was that they did it in modern times, while the others were in ancient times.

 

[FaujHistorian]

What is bhangi sardars?

Jaanay do yaar.

He is trying to get banned.

No need to shovel that $hit.

Thank you

 

[Butchcassidy]

What is bhangi sardars?

They captured lahore driving away the mughal governor

 

[utraash]

Our true religion is islam, the will of God

We would never have gone back to worshipping monkeys or idols

The Muslims were too strong to be subdued and had a history of domination of the sub continent, even without the Mughals there was the likes of Tipu Sultan etc

A stong muslim sub continent would have defeated the british and other colonials, its was sikh and marath ineptitude that meant their rule was short and pathetic and their fight against the british was shamefull

yaar you made a good point in your previous post.

Now let it be.

Sometimes we don't have to shovel $hit and let the other guy do this "important" job.

Thank you

I nvr wanted to do but thr lines sumtimes its necessary...

Our true religion is islam, the will of God

We would never have gone back to worshipping monkeys or idols

The Muslims were too strong to be subdued and had a history of domination of the sub continent, even without the Mughals there was the likes of Tipu Sultan etc

A stong muslim sub continent would have defeated the british and other colonials, its was sikh and marath ineptitude that meant their rule was short and pathetic and their fight against the british was shamefull

yaar you made a good point in your previous post.

Now let it be.

Sometimes we don't have to shovel $hit and let the other guy do this "important" job.

Thank you

I nvr wanted to do but thr lines sumtimes its necessary...

 

[Contrarian]

Jaanay do yaar.

He is trying to get banned.

No need to shovel that $hit.

Thank you

Pakistani's apparently would rather have an Egyptian/Saudi/Irani Muslim as their President/PM/CoAS than a Pakistani Hindu/Christian as their PM/Prez/CoAS

Absolutely weird people.

Hey @Oscar ...and you tell me that its not right when I call them downright weird or lacking grey matter.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I nvr wanted to do but thr lines sumtimes its necessary...

..

you can't teach history to someone who is ready to f@rt and curse on an international forum

 

[utraash]

What is bhangi sardars?

I also had same dbts...

 

[Developereo]

Paying tributes is one aspect. We at this time, donot know how much of influence and control these empires had on those regions that payed tribute.
This is in contrast to those kingdoms under british raj who payed trib to the Brits where you do know how much influence Brits had on those regions.


So you cannot dismiss one off hand while keeping the other.

the only thing that can be given to the British was that they did it in modern times, while the others were in ancient times.

We would be guessing what might have been.
What we know for sure is that the region fragmented back into ethnic/regional kingdoms as soon as each empire collapsed.

The British left a legacy of a physical and civil infrastructure that bound the region into a unified entity. It is true that Indian leaders post-independence did a good job to continue the British legacy, but the fact of the initial gift is indisputable.

 

[INDIC]

They captured lahore driving away the mughal governor

Wasn't the hero of Pakistanis Dulla Bhatti fought against Mughals, why this much love for Mughals.

 

[Contrarian]

We would be guessing what might have been.
What we know for sure is that the region fragmented back into ethnic/regional kingdoms as soon as each empire collapsed.

Isnt that exactly how British left India?
It is exactly the repeat of what happened after the ancient empires collapsed.
As the British left, India was divided into not dozens, but Hundreds of political units. These units if left alone would have resorted to the same ways of fighting with each other again and again and invited foreigners to fight domestic battles.

Relevant - did Pakistan - one of the fragments of ancient India also not start hosting foreign militaries - US and take their weapons to fight modern India - another one of the fragment of ancient India?

It is the credit of modern Indians then - and Sardar Patel in particular - because of only 3 remained from the hundreds- India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Indians invited, cajoled, forced, threatened the rest to join up. It is not the credit of Britishers that India is today as united as can be, but to Indians who had it in their hearts and executed it from the remains of the British empire.

The British left a legacy of a physical and civil infrastructure that bound the region into a unified entity. It is true that Indian leaders post-independence did a good job to continue the British legacy, but the fact of the initial gift is indisputable.

Physical and civil infrastructure is always according to the times.
The ancient empires left their own physical and civil infrastructures. These got destroyed or replaced over time. Then the invasions destroyed the others.

The British did far less for the country than the ancient kingdoms did. That it did not get destroyed is because Indians joined up and became strong.

The initial 'gift' is entirely disputable.

 

[Developereo]

As the British left, India was divided into not dozens, but Hundreds of political units. These units if left alone would have resorted to the same ways of fighting with each other again and again.

The Indian narrative, as I have been told here, is that the Republic of India is a continuation of the British Dominion of India, which was a political entity already before 1947, and that Pakistan was just a breakaway republic.

The princely states were given two options: remain with British dominion of India or go with the breakaway dominion of Pakistan. Some states, like Sikkim, were left under Indian suzerainty.

I don't know if there was a third option available to most of the states (correct me if I am wrong).

 

[INDIC]

The Indian narrative, as I have been told here, is that the Republic of India is a continuation of the British Dominion of India, which was a political entity already before 1947, and that Pakistan was just a breakaway republic.

The princely states were given two options: remain with British dominion of India or go with the breakaway dominion of Pakistan. Some states, like Sikkim, were left under Indian suzerainty.

I don't know if there was a third option available to most of the states (correct me if I am wrong).

It seems you don't know that there was a clause of "Lapse of Paramountcy" in Independence of India act which grant them right to become independent.

 

[Contrarian]

The Indian narrative, as I have been told here, is that the Republic of India is a continuation of the British Dominion of India, which was a political entity already before 1947, and that Pakistan was just a breakaway republic.

The RoI is indeed a continuation of the British Dominion of India and Pakistan is a breakaway republic. That does not however take away from the fact that India, Pakistan and BD are the 3 fragments of Ancient India.

Just like how Russia is the continuation/legal descendant of Soviet Union, but Ukraine/etc were also parts of the Soviet Union along with Russia.

The princely states were given two options: remain with British dominion of India or go with the breakaway dominion of Pakistan. Some states, like Sikkim, were left under Indian suzerainty.

I don't know if there was a third option available to most of the states (correct me if I am wrong).

They were not. That does not mean that most of the States did not want to.
And that want turned to act when the British left.

After the British left, almost all of them wanted to remain separate from RoI, some offered to accept allegiance to India to sweeten the deal, others did not even do that and clearly stated that they are separate countries now. Britain was not responsible for ensuring anything and they made it clear.

It was exactly what happened after the ancient empires fell, hundreds of entities, big and small. It is the credit of modern Indians who united all these separate entities into a nation. Not a gift of the British. If not for these Indians like Patel, India would still be fragmented into dozens of pieces if not hundreds.