08-07-2006, 02:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2006, 02:08 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#1: There was opppression during mughal rule
Response: There was oppression prior to mughal rule, such as caste discrimination, despotism and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the opression of lower castes increased a hundred fold under Muslim rule through the extra taxes levied on Hindus and the looting of peasents done by Muslim rulers.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#2: Mughals killed a lot of people.
Response: It was the medieval times, people were killing each other all over the world.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But they were not killing each other in India prior to Muslim rule, in India civilians were not massacred and the rule was scruplously followed in most cases, the very fact that Ashoka felt remorse after his Kalinga massacre indicates the radically different standards between Hindu and Muslim rulers.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#3: Mughals killed in the name of religion.
Response: vaishnvaas and shiavas were killing each other in the name of their respective religions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rubbish, show us evidence that Shaivas and Vaishnavas were killing each other, infact many of the Hindu kings whether Shaiva or Vaishnava also patronised and gave grants to other temples including Jain and Buddhist ones and Portuguese travellers like Nuniz and Paes mention that the Vijayanagara rulers (Hindu empire par excellence) were tolerant towards all faiths. Forget about Vaishnavas and Shaivas, here we have a Hindu king who after witnessing the atrocities committed by Muslims everywhere in South India who did the following:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Deo Roy upon this gave orders for the entertainment of mussulmauns
in his service, allotted them jaghires,[112] erected a mosque
for their use in the city of Beejanuggur, and commanded that no
one should molest them in the exercise of their religion. He also
ordered a koraun to be placed before his throne, on a rich desk,
that the mussulmauns might perform the ceremony of obeisance in his
presence, without sinning against their laws.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/fevch10.txt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#4: Mughals plundered temples.
Response: So did hindu kings. Even today, are you not accusing your own leaders of plundering temples? And those secular leaders whom you accuse did not come from Mars, they're from the hindu community.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evidnce please that Hindu kings plundered temples, we have Harsha of Kashmir plundering Buddhist monastaries and Hindu mandirs but then Kalhana himself mentions in the Rajtarangini that having employed so many Turks (Muslims) he behaved like a Turk himself. As for modern politicians, they are looting money not slaughtering cows in Hindu mandirs and smashing the murtis to pieces and a person has to be really dumb to compare the two.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are really shameless aren't you, what has USA got to do with this, when Hindus came to power we didn't rape Muslim women under Marathas, infact Shivaji treated all women who fell into his hands (including Muslim women) honourably as mentioned by Khafi Khan (who cannot mention his name without throwing abuse), here is what Khan says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But he made it a rule that wherever his followers went plundering, they should do no harm to the mosques, the Book of God, or the women of any one. Whenever a copy of the sacred Kurán came into his hands, he treated it with respect, and gave it to some of his Musulmán followers. When the women of any Hindú or Muhammadan were taken prisoners by his men, and they had no friend to protect them, he watched over them until their relations came with a suitable ransom to buy their liberty.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?fi...1017&ct=61<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't measure the Mughals against USA standards but the standards set by their Hindu contemporaries like Shvaji and others.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#6: India became poor due to mughal rule, but Brits gave us railways.Â
Response: The fact that Indians prostrate in front of white people never ceases to amaze me. Due to Bengal famine alone, 30m people died. But Indians love to ignore that and focus on their contributions, whatever they are. But in the case of Mughals, why not do the same? Aha, we all know why, don't we?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually its Muslims who prostrated before the British not Indians (which includes Hindus), everyone knows that Syed Ahmed Khan was a British lackey and told Muslims that British rule was their best bet, here is some info:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It was at this critical juncture in the history of Islam in India that Sir Syed Ahmed stepped forward. âHe was a pupil of the famous Mawlãnã a Mamlûk âAli who was entirely a product of the Walî-uâllahî school and tradition. It was perhaps because of this relationship that he claimed to be a Wahhãbîâ¦â14 But now on the word âWahabiâ was to acquire a new meaning. He had been a protege of the British for a long time. He had sided with his masters during the jihãd of 1857. Soon after the jihãd failed, he came out with a book, The Loyal Mohammedans of India. He travelled to England in 1869 and wrote as follows from there to a friend in India: âWithout flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honoured? Do you think it necessary to treat an animal courteously, or the reverse? We have no right to courteous treatment. The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes.â15
Here was the man the British were looking for. The rest of his role is too well-known to be repeated here. He was undoubtedly the father of the two-nation theory which led later on to the demand for Pakistan. He became a bitter opponent of the Indian National Congress as soon as it was founded in 1885. He decried parliamentary democracy as a plot to put the âbrute Hindu majorityâ into power. He led a hate campaign against the Bengalis who were in the forefront of the fight for freedom. He was all for a fight against Hindi attaining an equal status with Urdu. And he tried his best to build bridges between Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other. The nett result of his Aligarh Movement was to convert the Muslim community into a close preserve of toadyism (jee-huzûrî) towards the British. The British on their part responded positively, and made many concessions to the Muslims. This co-operation between British imperialism and the residues of Islamic imperialism continued till the creation of Pakistan, except for a brief period of bad blood during the Khilafat agitation.
Five years after Sir Syedâs death in 1898, his successor, Viqar-ul-Mulk, wrote a letter to The Pioneer of Lucknow. He said: âWe start with the firm conviction and seek to implant it in the mind of every Indian Musalman that our destiny is now bound up with the presence and permanence of British rule in this country, and that in the government of the day we have got our best and surest friend.â17
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch7.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No wonder then that even the tiny minority of Sikhs made more of a contribution to the freedom movement than Muslims ever did (Muslims were too busy having wet dreams of good old Mughal Empire to do anything of use).
As for the positives of Mughal rule, if there are any then they would be recognised, all they did was loot Hindus and persecute Hindus and Sikhs and massacre us by the millions, atleast under the British we could practice our religion without Muslim persecution.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#7: Mughals didn't contribute.
response: why should they? They were conquerors, they did not come to India to do social service. Like other races at the time, they too wanted to conquer and earn wealth. So why blame them, when the whole world was doing the same?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No they wanted to conquer, earn wealth but above all they wanted to wage a Jihad against Hindus which no Hindu or Sikh kings did which is why Mughals were and always will be foreigners to Hindus and detestable imperialists on par with the British (infact they surpass the British).
Hindus never hesitated to honor kings considered to be of a different religion if they were truly great, that is why Maharaja Ranjit Singh is considered the Lion of Punjab even though he was a Sikh even by Punjabi Hindus and is considered as one of the national heroes of Hindustan.
Response: There was oppression prior to mughal rule, such as caste discrimination, despotism and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the opression of lower castes increased a hundred fold under Muslim rule through the extra taxes levied on Hindus and the looting of peasents done by Muslim rulers.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#2: Mughals killed a lot of people.
Response: It was the medieval times, people were killing each other all over the world.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But they were not killing each other in India prior to Muslim rule, in India civilians were not massacred and the rule was scruplously followed in most cases, the very fact that Ashoka felt remorse after his Kalinga massacre indicates the radically different standards between Hindu and Muslim rulers.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#3: Mughals killed in the name of religion.
Response: vaishnvaas and shiavas were killing each other in the name of their respective religions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rubbish, show us evidence that Shaivas and Vaishnavas were killing each other, infact many of the Hindu kings whether Shaiva or Vaishnava also patronised and gave grants to other temples including Jain and Buddhist ones and Portuguese travellers like Nuniz and Paes mention that the Vijayanagara rulers (Hindu empire par excellence) were tolerant towards all faiths. Forget about Vaishnavas and Shaivas, here we have a Hindu king who after witnessing the atrocities committed by Muslims everywhere in South India who did the following:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Deo Roy upon this gave orders for the entertainment of mussulmauns
in his service, allotted them jaghires,[112] erected a mosque
for their use in the city of Beejanuggur, and commanded that no
one should molest them in the exercise of their religion. He also
ordered a koraun to be placed before his throne, on a rich desk,
that the mussulmauns might perform the ceremony of obeisance in his
presence, without sinning against their laws.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/fevch10.txt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#4: Mughals plundered temples.
Response: So did hindu kings. Even today, are you not accusing your own leaders of plundering temples? And those secular leaders whom you accuse did not come from Mars, they're from the hindu community.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evidnce please that Hindu kings plundered temples, we have Harsha of Kashmir plundering Buddhist monastaries and Hindu mandirs but then Kalhana himself mentions in the Rajtarangini that having employed so many Turks (Muslims) he behaved like a Turk himself. As for modern politicians, they are looting money not slaughtering cows in Hindu mandirs and smashing the murtis to pieces and a person has to be really dumb to compare the two.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are really shameless aren't you, what has USA got to do with this, when Hindus came to power we didn't rape Muslim women under Marathas, infact Shivaji treated all women who fell into his hands (including Muslim women) honourably as mentioned by Khafi Khan (who cannot mention his name without throwing abuse), here is what Khan says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But he made it a rule that wherever his followers went plundering, they should do no harm to the mosques, the Book of God, or the women of any one. Whenever a copy of the sacred Kurán came into his hands, he treated it with respect, and gave it to some of his Musulmán followers. When the women of any Hindú or Muhammadan were taken prisoners by his men, and they had no friend to protect them, he watched over them until their relations came with a suitable ransom to buy their liberty.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?fi...1017&ct=61<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't measure the Mughals against USA standards but the standards set by their Hindu contemporaries like Shvaji and others.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#6: India became poor due to mughal rule, but Brits gave us railways.Â
Response: The fact that Indians prostrate in front of white people never ceases to amaze me. Due to Bengal famine alone, 30m people died. But Indians love to ignore that and focus on their contributions, whatever they are. But in the case of Mughals, why not do the same? Aha, we all know why, don't we?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually its Muslims who prostrated before the British not Indians (which includes Hindus), everyone knows that Syed Ahmed Khan was a British lackey and told Muslims that British rule was their best bet, here is some info:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It was at this critical juncture in the history of Islam in India that Sir Syed Ahmed stepped forward. âHe was a pupil of the famous Mawlãnã a Mamlûk âAli who was entirely a product of the Walî-uâllahî school and tradition. It was perhaps because of this relationship that he claimed to be a Wahhãbîâ¦â14 But now on the word âWahabiâ was to acquire a new meaning. He had been a protege of the British for a long time. He had sided with his masters during the jihãd of 1857. Soon after the jihãd failed, he came out with a book, The Loyal Mohammedans of India. He travelled to England in 1869 and wrote as follows from there to a friend in India: âWithout flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honoured? Do you think it necessary to treat an animal courteously, or the reverse? We have no right to courteous treatment. The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes.â15
Here was the man the British were looking for. The rest of his role is too well-known to be repeated here. He was undoubtedly the father of the two-nation theory which led later on to the demand for Pakistan. He became a bitter opponent of the Indian National Congress as soon as it was founded in 1885. He decried parliamentary democracy as a plot to put the âbrute Hindu majorityâ into power. He led a hate campaign against the Bengalis who were in the forefront of the fight for freedom. He was all for a fight against Hindi attaining an equal status with Urdu. And he tried his best to build bridges between Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other. The nett result of his Aligarh Movement was to convert the Muslim community into a close preserve of toadyism (jee-huzûrî) towards the British. The British on their part responded positively, and made many concessions to the Muslims. This co-operation between British imperialism and the residues of Islamic imperialism continued till the creation of Pakistan, except for a brief period of bad blood during the Khilafat agitation.
Five years after Sir Syedâs death in 1898, his successor, Viqar-ul-Mulk, wrote a letter to The Pioneer of Lucknow. He said: âWe start with the firm conviction and seek to implant it in the mind of every Indian Musalman that our destiny is now bound up with the presence and permanence of British rule in this country, and that in the government of the day we have got our best and surest friend.â17
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch7.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No wonder then that even the tiny minority of Sikhs made more of a contribution to the freedom movement than Muslims ever did (Muslims were too busy having wet dreams of good old Mughal Empire to do anything of use).
As for the positives of Mughal rule, if there are any then they would be recognised, all they did was loot Hindus and persecute Hindus and Sikhs and massacre us by the millions, atleast under the British we could practice our religion without Muslim persecution.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Accusation#7: Mughals didn't contribute.
response: why should they? They were conquerors, they did not come to India to do social service. Like other races at the time, they too wanted to conquer and earn wealth. So why blame them, when the whole world was doing the same?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No they wanted to conquer, earn wealth but above all they wanted to wage a Jihad against Hindus which no Hindu or Sikh kings did which is why Mughals were and always will be foreigners to Hindus and detestable imperialists on par with the British (infact they surpass the British).
Hindus never hesitated to honor kings considered to be of a different religion if they were truly great, that is why Maharaja Ranjit Singh is considered the Lion of Punjab even though he was a Sikh even by Punjabi Hindus and is considered as one of the national heroes of Hindustan.