Bajirao the destroyer of the Mughal Empire

[Umair Nawaz]

If it can be proved then yes.

As far as I am concerned and most Indians, the Mughals were no more Indians than the British were.

Their rule also came by conquest. The later generations Mughals were Indian, but being Muslims, the bigotry of the ilk of Aurangzeb is not forgotten either.


Well, there were all sorts of reasons.
There were those who were converted by force, there were those who willingly and voluntarily converted by the Sufis, there were those who converted to get in the good graces of the then kings and royals.

In any and all cases, that is long gone by and makes no difference now.

And?
The British also created a sub level of ruling class that were the 'kale angrez'. Makes no difference.
Both got their kingdoms by conquest.

There have been periods of great peace and prosperity even before the Mughals, which is what got the Central Asians here in the first place. What is the point?



Since both the Mughals and the British got their kingdoms by conquest, what gives the Mughals the tag of 'legit' ?
The Britishers exploited the Indians, the Mughals exploited the Hindus.

Makes no difference.
Today, neither are present, and all that had to be ejected, have been ejected.

1)Every rule in ancient civilizations came with conquest.
When u study history u study with the standards of humanity of that time period.
The arias also conquest so did Asoka, Chandr Gupt etc etc.

I dont see really many hindus against muslim rule in general then this new indian generation. I dont know what is fed to them.

U it seems comparing this Digital age in which we r living today with Middle and Dark age period.

Not a Good idea to me.

2)Like i said not everyone was saint from both sides. By force u really cant convert someone because the ones who will in fear will again go back to their believes when fear is gone and i see Muslims in India have grown in numbers not reduced and even today in secular india the fastst growing religion is islam. So u mean to say that in yr non muslim dominated country people r still forcing the non muslims to come to islam?

Tough call.

Still i say that everbody was not good there r bad apples in every society but the forced converts should have been reverted back but they didnt not even their young generations.

3) yes sadly they did and those same kaala angrez is the reason why we r still third world countries in the world against those who looted us.

But do u know that After british left the bureaucracy who ruled India was not even given any mainstream and local jobs in gov and private sector in British?

Because these people were mend to be oppressors and they didnt include them in their system. They had sued the Queen for that and still they were just given pensions even to young people like 27 years of age. What happend to Lord Mount Batten?
The viceroy was shot in london.

There is still that tree in Azad Kashmir where after 1857 coup they had hanged 50,000 Muslim Ulema upside down on fire and skinned them when they were still alive. That was something they did with everyone no matter muslim or non muslim in every corner of india.

This was the character of these people.

I suggest u to study about the role of congress, Darul Allom Deoband, Jamayat e Ulema e Hind, Khangah Raipur in Haryanna, Titu Mian in Bengal,Molanna Mehmood ul Hassan Madani the grand father of lok saba member molanna Mehmood Madani, Molanna Gangohi who established the Daral uloom in Deoband, Sheikh Abdul Qadir Raipuri in Raipur, Molanna Abdul Kalam Azad etc etc.

Do u even know that in 1857 coup we were fighting for a nationalistic cause and we had again established Bahadur Shah Zafar when we seized dehli as our King including Hindus too then again after betrayal of sikhs again Dehli had fallen to British and u know what they did to King in Yangoon. I dont need to remind u where ''aprail fool'' comes from.


4) Do u even know how many how many non muslims were part of aurangzeb's army?
Im sure u dont the army had comprised 43-44% non muslims(hindus in particular).

The times of Aurangzeb were the most bright times of ancient india. Even in the words of yr own hindu historians. I think u should read few books about our join history. U dont see invaders doing this much in a country which they had supposedly invaded look at brits. According to to Carl Marx's Dos Capital Book the britis hadnt been able to do in development what they had done today if they hadnt looted india.
and i havnt talked abt what winston churchill did in bengal drought.

In the times of Muslims there were only 2 droughts but in the Britis's just 90 years more then 90 droughts happened across india.

This what Lord Meculay has to say about the indians n her prosperity as a country and it was then under Muslim rule. And Also notice what they did.

[/IMG]


This is exactly what they did too. Hence stared Divide First Hindu Muslim then Now Sikh-Hindu or Muslim- Sikh, Then Maratha- Non maratha, Punjabi-Non Punjabi, Pathan-Non Pathan etc etc.

Now Muslim System...

Mughal government structure :
1529 × 800 pixels


Related link. [/B]

Courtesy @neolithic


U r wrong in comparing people like them to us.

I was hoping u will take my advise n leave yr prejudice against Muslims for 1 second and think with an open mind and a Hindustani only. Actually this is something u should be telling us not we to u as yr country is based on same secularism/nationalist principals not we. That u dont do.

All of that is not associated and happened during Muslim rule or did it??

 

[Umair Nawaz]

@umair Nawas. I read and re-read your posts. What is your point? the thread was about a specific prince and about his conquests to propagate his kingdom. In the process, he made allies and some not really "good" allies in the hind sight. Just like Pakistan is Allies with USA and fought the Russians and then you again sided with the US to fight the taleban. (for good or for bad, you were allies with USA while fighting the taleban).

If only indegenous people have to rule their lands then there will never be migrations from the earliest nomadic man into newer places and hence spread of civilizations.

Out of your huge post, one sentence really made me to reply:


So there was peace because of voluntary joining into Muslim rule. If not there wont be peace - speaks volume about your "tolerance" and acceptance of other kingdoms' sovereignty and their right to self rule. Doesnt it?



do you really need to get to that level of Hindus Vs Muslims really?

Quoting a section of long post out of its reference to context without reading in exactly whose response that was written speaks volume of yr standards of judgement to me.


My post was not for someone in USA. U cant understand what i said its about our history and demography.

It was just not meant for u to understand.

this is Mughal Empire, the areas u mention were not even part of it so yr dry claim of them merging with kingdom and etc etc is out of question.

Yes that still speaks volume, volume and volume of our tolerance standards

 

[Kompromat]

No Source posted.