<!--QuoteBegin-agnivayu+Aug 28 2006, 10:09 AM-->QUOTE(agnivayu @ Aug 28 2006, 10:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only good thing about British rule was that it kept muslim rule in check, and bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline.
[right][snapback]56345[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agnivayu, I think two notions in this sentiment are against the historical facts.
1. "it kept muslim rule in check." Muslim rule was already in check. Most of the muslim kings left were just puppets to Hindus, and it was only a matter of time. In north west, Sikhs were already a power. Past the death of Abdali, Maharaja Ranjit Singhji was even controlling the politics of Kabul. Maratha federation was growing stronger too in the north center and in south. Even in the muslim heartland - UP, hindu kingdoms were coming up all over. Even in Awadh, Nawabs ruled very much to the wishes of Hindus - participating in Holi, Diwali and playing Raslila.
So I think, more or less, muslim rule was already in check by the time British arrived. If they did something, they gave it a new lease of life, and a modern Pakiland to the Ummah in the end.
2. "bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline" As I mentioned, Hindus were already on the recovery path, politically, militarily, culturally, by the time British arrived.
Actually, in initial 50 years of the British phenomenon, till about year 1800, some Hindus may have thought of partnering with European powers in accelerating their freedom struggle from fundamentalist Muslim rulers. (Example - against Tippoo Sultan in south, against Sirajuddaula in east). But for sure, soon they had realized the designs of and greater danger posed by the British.
In my opinion, actually British affected a greater danger for Hindus. They inflicted the philosophical, institutional, and thought-process-injury to Hindus. Today's phenomenon of lack of self-respect and looking down at our traditions, is a lasting injury caused by British to the Hindu nation and its future generations.
[right][snapback]56345[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agnivayu, I think two notions in this sentiment are against the historical facts.
1. "it kept muslim rule in check." Muslim rule was already in check. Most of the muslim kings left were just puppets to Hindus, and it was only a matter of time. In north west, Sikhs were already a power. Past the death of Abdali, Maharaja Ranjit Singhji was even controlling the politics of Kabul. Maratha federation was growing stronger too in the north center and in south. Even in the muslim heartland - UP, hindu kingdoms were coming up all over. Even in Awadh, Nawabs ruled very much to the wishes of Hindus - participating in Holi, Diwali and playing Raslila.
So I think, more or less, muslim rule was already in check by the time British arrived. If they did something, they gave it a new lease of life, and a modern Pakiland to the Ummah in the end.
2. "bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline" As I mentioned, Hindus were already on the recovery path, politically, militarily, culturally, by the time British arrived.
Actually, in initial 50 years of the British phenomenon, till about year 1800, some Hindus may have thought of partnering with European powers in accelerating their freedom struggle from fundamentalist Muslim rulers. (Example - against Tippoo Sultan in south, against Sirajuddaula in east). But for sure, soon they had realized the designs of and greater danger posed by the British.
In my opinion, actually British affected a greater danger for Hindus. They inflicted the philosophical, institutional, and thought-process-injury to Hindus. Today's phenomenon of lack of self-respect and looking down at our traditions, is a lasting injury caused by British to the Hindu nation and its future generations.