What was india in 1835,How British destroyed India.

[Johnson Dsouza]

Sikh rule was a slight blip, short and not even a century old while turco Afghan was millennium old. abdali won and cut the cowards to pieces like previous turco Afghans did.

Even your women sold and faces blackened, abdali did what he did, he didn't need to do more.
injured or not he won.

Now the heredetors Of turco afghan state the modern day pakistanis have battered you.

when i use to study in UK Sikh gals wanted pakistanis boys and sikhs ran when they had to face the pakistanis in a fight.in college and uni.

dude....lot of hatred for others is not good for our own health...u know it very well just by posting something here u wont achieve anything if those are not good words....

I would just say....now compare India with Afghan and Iran(both are our friends now)....what they ve achieved and sustained by their that behaviour....we didnt attack any country, we didnt sold others women, we got exploited by foreign rulers for many decades...still we have managed to make our presence feel on the world map in just 60 years and that too under the umbrealla of one united india...

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Now the heredetors Of turco afghan state the modern day pakistanis have battered you.

Joke of the days goess toooo...

 

[W.11]

What was india in 1835,How British destroyed India.
Lord Macaulay's Address to the British Parliament 2nd February, 1835

it was the mughal rule which the indians despise and mughals were ruling were, but it waere the hindus which were dis satisfied, today mughals are taught in india like evil satans and british like royal people

 

[alphamale]

it was the mughal rule which the indians despise and mughals were ruling were, but it waere the hindus which were dis satisfied, today mughals are taught in india like evil satans and british like royal people

not all muslim rulers are shown as evil in india . only extremist, barbarian & looters are termed as villains in india. many rulers like Akbar, Shahjahan, bahadur shah zafar, tipu sultan etc etc are praised in india.

 

[W.11]

not all muslim rulers are shown as evil in india . only extremist, barbarian & looters are termed as villains in india. many rulers like Akbar, Shahjahan, bahadur shah zafar, tipu sultan etc etc are praised in india.

the most hated muslim ruler was a lot better than the brits and left more cultural legacy than brits ever did

muslim rule is generally taught very evil and darkest times of india

 

[alphamale]

the most hated muslim ruler was a lot better than the brits and left more cultural legacy than brits ever did

muslim rule is generally taught very evil and darkest times of india

if u r talking abt Aurangzeb then he was not best but worst of all. maximum rebellions arose during his reign due to his extremist policies. due to his extremist policies he left a weak platform which later led to the crumble of mugal empire.

 

[Manas]

the most hated muslim ruler was a lot better than the brits and left more cultural legacy than brits ever did

muslim rule is generally taught very evil and darkest times of india

Because Muslim rulers are fond of destroying us kafir's Hindu temples and also there was rampant conversion both forced or financially compelled by the Jaziya taxation systems .

While During the Britsh rule our Hindu religion was not under any threats.

 

[r3alist]

The fact that India was conquered not by a Nation but by EAST INDIA COMPANY

..............................................

OFF topic: Are these armored cars ?

exactly, its the east india company that f'ed india up.

this is what colonialism has done to people of the sub continent, bickering and arguing, to the point where hatred is embedded.

 

[Polemos]

the most hated muslim ruler was a lot better than the brits and left more cultural legacy than brits ever did

muslim rule is generally taught very evil and darkest times of india

This is simply not true. There are only two people in the history of the sub-con. to whose names we attach the epithet "the great". One was Ashoka, the other was Akbar. Muslim rule is not treated as bad as British rule, because even though they came as invaders, they gradually became assimilated. British on the other hand never did. Aurangzeb OTOH is painted as a typical villain who jailed his own dad.

 

[livingdead]

I dont think India was rich country in the sense that it was full of rich people. It was rich in the sense that it had the commodities which were considered high value in europe.
British east India company could defeat India because mughal empire was nearly dead, and marathas were not good enough for british.
And british govt surely were better than many muslim rulers for natives(or even hindu rulers) for common men. British east india company was driven by profit, we were cattle for them probably.

 

[Rusty]

I'v explained this a few times but I will do it again.

Jaziah is a tax for non Muslims.
while Zakat is a tax for Muslims.
It is unfair and immoral to make non Muslims pay Zakat because it is a religious tax, but at the same time it is unfair for Muslims to pay more tax then non Muslims. The solution is to make both pay the same tax but with different names.

Now of course people with deep hatred of Muslims won't tell you that, but rather tell you it was a special "subjugation" tax.

Of course the irony is that the Brits made you pay up to 50% subjugation tax in the form of Laagan. and yet I don't hear any Hindus crying over that.

 

[Bang Galore]

I'v explained this a few times but I will do it again.

Jaziah is a tax for non Muslims.
while Zakat is a tax for Muslims.
It is unfair and immoral to make non Muslims pay Zakat because it is a religious tax, but at the same time it is unfair for Muslims to pay more tax then non Muslims. The solution is to make both pay the same tax but with different names.

Now of course people with deep hatred of Muslims won't tell you that, but rather tell you it was a special "subjugation" tax.

Of course the irony is that the Brits made you pay up to 50% subjugation tax in the form of Laagan. and yet I don't hear any Hindus crying over that.

That's the theory (actually one version of the theory) but in practice Jaziya in India was used as a punitive tax on Hindus. Your explanation fails because even the Mughal rulers though of it in that way since Akbar ended it & was only reimposed by Aurangazeb, something they wouldn't do if it was a normal tax as you suggest.

The British collected a high tax of 50% on the landlord's earnings but was lower when directly collected from ryots(about 20%). In any case, the British did not go about destroying temples which is why they are looked at very differently from some Muslim rulers who did.

 

[Bang Galore]

the most hated muslim ruler was a lot better than the brits and left more cultural legacy than brits ever did

muslim rule is generally taught very evil and darkest times of india

Hardly true, the most hated gave plenty of reasons to be hated. As far as the cultural legacy goes, it is vastly overstated, a few buildings don''t necessarily make a cultural legacy. The official language of the Mughal court was Persian & the Mughal elites were mainly Persian & not Indian. The Persian elite both believed & acted superior to the Indians & were generally contemptuous of Indians, specifically Indian Muslims who they mocked for their attempts a behaving like Persians. Not much cultural legacy remained after the collapse of the Mughal empire which is why the Persian language completely disappeared from India though the Mughals ruled for a fairly long time. The crux of the Mughal culture was foreign & never embraced by Indians which is why no trace of it remains.

Sher Shah Suri remains one of the most admired rulers for his administrative reforms even though he ruled for a fairly short period. Akbar is admired as being one of India's greatest rulers. Not fair to suggest that Indians hold all Muslim rulers with contempt. Tipu sultan is much admired, especially in the old Mysore state for standing up to the British(there are other allegations of bigotry against him, specifically in Kerala/South Canara area)

 

[PakShah]

What was india in 1835,How British destroyed India.
Lord Macaulay's Address to the British Parliament 2nd February, 1835

PS:In 1835 pakistan is a part of india

About Pakistan being a part of India?

Check out this map:

Just because stupid British imperialists tagged Pakistan along with Bharat/ present-day India, doesn't mean Pakistan should be a part of Bharat/present day India.

In fact Pakistan should never be associated with Bharat.

Pakistan should be associated with Afghanistan and Central Asian countries.

See Sindh, Multan, and Lahore is very similar to today's Pakistan except without Kashmir, Khyber-Pakhtunkwa, and Balochistan.

 

[harshad]

you are welcome we enjoyed it and we could do all that because we were superior and you guys were weak and pathetic, once again no need to thank us it was our duty and we got great pleasure from it.

you were superior?lol
your ancestors were first people to be forced converted by the muslim rulers,now if you want to be proud of your ancestors persecution you are most welcom to do it