Sir Nadeem Paracha sahib gi….now that you have finally decided to examine history ..deeply ..HERE is what you should & must study deeply…..the British & Imperial technique used to achieve their END…Divide & Rule ….Typically, imperial powers depend on the inability of oppressed local populations to muster a unified resistance, and the most successful occupiers are skilled at exploiting the differences among the occupied. Certainly that was the story of the British Empire’s success, and its legacy of nurtured local hatreds can be seen wherever the Union Flag flew, from Muslim-Hindu hatred in Pakistan and India, to Catholic-Protestant hatred in Ireland, to, yes, Jew-Arab, hatred in modern Israel. Ancient Rome was as good at encouraging internecine resentments among the occupied as Britain ever was…..Some argue that the development and propagation of the Bahai faith in the 1920s and onwards was a distinctly British tactic designed to add another “religious minority” to the Muslim fabric of the Middle-East, most notably in Iran and other lands with an Iranian populace….I can go on & on….the idea is SIR gi Nadeem sahib , don’t ignore..the real issue & stop tracking off track..it want get u anywhere……lol
Nadeem has happily forgotten that The Rise of Marathas and Several other Hindu Powers – Jats (Under Suraj Mal), Bundelas (Under Chattrasal) and Sikhs lead to this insecurity among Muslims. Shah Waliullah quoted many bad words against Surajmal Jat as he plundered Delhi. More than 70% of territory was already under Hindus. Britishers came later. At the time Brits came, Mughals were confined to Delhi only. Other Muslims states in Continent were Awadh – Shia Siraj ud Daulah and Tipu Sultan- Ruler of Mysore. Please reflect the true history.
There have been clear tilts and a certain glorification of ancient Indian (almost completely Hindu of course) as well as medieval Hindu rulers; however, I do not think that the Mughal Empire has been painted as demonic (as mentioned below.Sher Shah Suri was an extremely gifted administrator ruler, and the Mughals (and India as well) benefited from his many contributions – civic administration, the Indian postal system, and the Grand Trunk Rd to name a few. That he was Muslim somehow never even comes to mind. Akbar is seen in the same light as Ashoka – as one of India’s greatest rulers. He must have also been a brilliant strategist, because his reaching out to nearby Hindu kingdoms and his famed religious tolerance did not come in the way of the growing empire. Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is seen to have been the pinnacle of intolerance, and Hindu-Muslim amity (or peaceful co-existence) in future centuries has been marred by his excesses. However, despite this dark period and the subsequent decline in the fortunes of the empire, the longevity of the greater Mughals ensured their wide acceptance as the rulers of India – which is why Bahadur Shah Zafar was the consensus choice if the 1857 mutiny had succeeded.
I feel pained that Pakistan disavows so much of its history in its unbridled dislike for all things Indian – unlike other Muslim nations like Iran and Egypt which are proudly laying claim to their pre-Islamic past. We (Pakistan and India) must accept that while we are not the same, we have much in common, and highlight our shared history and heritage (of which very little has purely religious overtones), rather than magnifying our differences.
Talking Tall: A peep through Muslim history in India, by NF Paracha, comments are most interesting: http://t.co/m7mfE4n