Major Indian hsitory Myth: 1000 Years of Muslim Rule

[Cobra Arbok]

Hello everyone. I have encountered several people in various threads propagating this myth, and I got tired of correcting them, so I decided to make a thread on this topic.

First of all, lets aknowledge the truth behind the myth. There are some parts of Northern India(mainly UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, and parts of MP) that were ruled by Muslims for long periods of time. Muslim rule in India was first established in the 10th Century CE when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded east of the Indus. The Dehli Sultanate was established in 1206 and lasted until 1526, or 320 years. It was succeeded by the Mughal Empire started by Babur which remained a major power until the early 18th century.
However, that is only the story of Northern India. South India was a completely different story. Many proponents of this myth use the Tughlaq Dynasty of proof that the Delhi Sultanate had conquered even south India

However, they neglect to point out that the Tughlaqs lasted for less than a century, shorter than the amount of time modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan were ruled by the Mauryans.
Towards the end of the Tughlaqs, a Kannadiga commander in the army of the Hoysal Empire called Harihara began resisting the invaders from the North. By 1336, the Tughlazs had completely fallen, and the entirety of Southern India was under Harihara's control. His Empire became known as the Vijayanagar Empire. The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(

The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(Odisha) and the Sultanate of Madurai In 1407, King Deva Raya I of Vijayanagar forced Sultan Firoz Bahmani to enter a treaty that required Bahmani to pay tribute to Vijayanagara. It was described as the most powerful Empire of medieval India by International travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fernao Nunes, and Niccolo Da Conti. Even King Akbar considered it one of the most powerful empires of the subcontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empire
In 1565, the Vijayanagara Empire lost the battle of Talikota against the combined force of the northern Deccan Sultanates. This loss weakened Vijayanagar which finally fell in 1646, although remnants of it survived in areas such as Tami Nadu and Kerala(Travancore is a good example). After Vijayanagar fell, the Deccan Sultanates rose to power, such as Hyderabad and Mysore. But their dominance did not last long, because the next major player the Marathas, rose to power.

For a short period of time, the Mughal King Aurangzeb came close to finally conquering the Deccan. The height of his Empire is shown below

However, this lasted very shortly, as the Marathas under SHivaji rebelled and fought Mughal control in the Deccan. Shivaji was eventually able to liberate Maharashtra, of which he was crowned king in 1674. By Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the Marathas had already gained control of most of the Deccan. Below shows the Marathas at their height

Obviously, the Marathas were not able to control that much territory in modern day Pakistan for long. But this picture shows they were the major power in India by the second half of the 18th century. And contrary to popular belief, they did not fall after Panipat. Ten years later, the Marathas had regained control of Northern India. When the British arrived, the Mughal "Empire" was just a City state with a puppet ruler that paid tribute to the Marathas. To gain control of India, the British had to defeat the Marathas in the Angol Maratha Wars. Here are some more pictures.

And of course, there is also the story of Northeast India. The Mughlas made several attempts to cross the Brahmaputra and invade the Ahom Empire(Assam) but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_kingdom
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lachit-barphukan-the-battle-of-saraighat.304596/

So, in conclusion:
1. North India WAS ruled by the DS and Mughals, but only for about 500 years.
2..South and East India(with the exception of Bengal) was mostly ruled by indigenous kngdoms/empires.
3. The entirety of Modern day India(including Northeast) was never ruled until the British
4. The entirety of India did come CLOSE to being conquered, but for very short periods of time.

I hope this post was educational. I am always willing to engage in open debate and discussion, but please keep it civil and stay on topic.
@Indus Pakistan @Taimoor Khan @Talwar e Pakistan @Taimur Khurram @HariPrasad @Tshering22 @Dalai Lama @AUSTERLITZ @Joe Shearer @KAL-EL @Suriya @GURU DUTT
@Rollno21 @Śakra @Nilgiri @Clutch

 

[Chakar The Great]

Bullshit mainly based on assumption and your personal opinion. Goes to my dustbin.

In 1965, the Vijayanagara Empire lost the battle of Talikota against the combined force of the northern Deccan Sultanates.

1965?? what nonsense.

In 1965, the Vijayanagara Empire lost the battle of Talikota against the combined force of the northern Deccan Sultanates.

1965?? what nonsense.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Bullshit mainly based on assumption and your personal opinion. Goes to my dustbin.



1965?? what nonsense.



1965?? what nonsense.

I meant 1565. sorry
Do you have any facts to counter what I have posted?
And what do you mean by "Assumption?" I am basing this post completely on historical facts. If you do not like them, that is your right, but you cannot re-write history to your liking.

 

[Chakar The Great]

I meant 1565. sorry
Do you have any facts to counter what I have posted?

I dont know where to start its all rubish. When we say Muslims ruled india for 1000 years , no one says its India in its current geography, you lose your whole argument there. During this 1000 year period there were wars and uprising in different parts of subcontinent ruled by non Muslims as well in between. But by far Muslims ruled most parts of subcontinent for nearly 800-1000 years.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I dont know where to start its all rubish. When we say Muslims ruled india for 1000 years , no one says its India in its current geography, you lose your whole argument there. During this 1000 year period there were wars and uprising in different parts of subcontinent ruled by non Muslims as well in between. But by far Muslims ruled most parts of subcontinent for nearly 800-1000 years.

If you count Pakistan as India, that is true. But I was referring strictly to the modern day Republic of India in this thread. Let me ask you again, do you have any counters to any of the facts I have posted?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

If you count Pakistan as India, that is true. But I was referring strictly to the modern day Republic of India in this thread. Let me ask you again, do you have any counters to any of the facts I have posted?

Thanks Cobra. I like your nuanced approach to history. The sub-continent is larger then Europe, has twice the population and thrice the diversity. A study of European history entails differant threads from Britain, France, Iberia, Germany, Balkans, Scandanavia etc.

However all too often when it comes to our part of the world one story is told under the tag "India" and that is it. The reality as you are touching on we have a very complicated history involving many narratives playing out over this huge geography. What was going in Punjab was entirely differant to what was playing out in Assam and that was very differant to what was going on in Tamil Nadu to what was happening in Sindh. Further because of the disconnect in those days what was happening in one place had no effect in another. Very rarely do we get periods where all histories of South Asia converge to one beat. So thanks for giving us a more accurate picture rather then the simplified crude tales we hear about South Asia.

 

[faithfulguy]

If you count Pakistan as India, that is true. But I was referring strictly to the modern day Republic of India in this thread. Let me ask you again, do you have any counters to any of the facts I have posted?

The Republic of India was created in 1947, from British India. Prior to that, India was a geographical expression.

 

[krash]

Hello everyone. I have encountered several people in various threads propagating this myth, and I got tired of correcting them, so I decided to make a thread on this topic.

First of all, lets aknowledge the truth behind the myth. There are some parts of Northern India(mainly UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, and parts of MP) that were ruled by Muslims for long periods of time. Muslim rule in India was first established in the 10th Century CE when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded east of the Indus. The Dehli Sultanate was established in 1206 and lasted until 1526, or 320 years. It was succeeded by the Mughal Empire started by Babur which remained a major power until the early 18th century.
However, that is only the story of Northern India. South India was a completely different story. Many proponents of this myth use the Tughlaq Dynasty of proof that the Delhi Sultanate had conquered even south India

However, they neglect to point out that the Tughlaqs lasted for less than a century, shorter than the amount of time modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan were ruled by the Mauryans.
Towards the end of the Tughlaqs, a Kannadiga commander in the army of the Hoysal Empire called Harihara began resisting the invaders from the North. By 1336, the Tughlazs had completely fallen, and the entirety of Southern India was under Harihara's control. His Empire became known as the Vijayanagar Empire. The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(

The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(Odisha) and the Sultanate of Madurai In 1407, King Deva Raya I of Vijayanagar forced Sultan Firoz Bahmani to enter a treaty that required Bahmani to pay tribute to Vijayanagara. It was described as the most powerful Empire of medieval India by International travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fernao Nunes, and Niccolo Da Conti. Even King Akbar considered it one of the most powerful empires of the subcontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empire
In 1565, the Vijayanagara Empire lost the battle of Talikota against the combined force of the northern Deccan Sultanates. This loss weakened Vijayanagar which finally fell in 1646, although remnants of it survived in areas such as Tami Nadu and Kerala(Travancore is a good example). After Vijayanagar fell, the Deccan Sultanates rose to power, such as Hyderabad and Mysore. But their dominance did not last long, because the next major player the Marathas, rose to power.

For a short period of time, the Mughal King Aurangzeb came close to finally conquering the Deccan. The height of his Empire is shown below

However, this lasted very shortly, as the Marathas under SHivaji rebelled and fought Mughal control in the Deccan. Shivaji was eventually able to liberate Maharashtra, of which he was crowned king in 1674. By Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the Marathas had already gained control of most of the Deccan. Below shows the Marathas at their height

Obviously, the Marathas were not able to control that much territory in modern day Pakistan for long. But this picture shows they were the major power in India by the second half of the 18th century. And contrary to popular belief, they did not fall after Panipat. Ten years later, the Marathas had regained control of Northern India. When the British arrived, the Mughal "Empire" was just a City state with a puppet ruler that paid tribute to the Marathas. To gain control of India, the British had to defeat the Marathas in the Angol Maratha Wars. Here are some more pictures.

And of course, there is also the story of Northeast India. The Mughlas made several attempts to cross the Brahmaputra and invade the Ahom Empire(Assam) but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_kingdom
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lachit-barphukan-the-battle-of-saraighat.304596/

So, in conclusion:
1. North India WAS ruled by the DS and Mughals, but only for about 500 years.
2..South and East India(with the exception of Bengal) was mostly ruled by indigenous kngdoms/empires.
3. The entirety of Modern day India(including Northeast) was never ruled until the British
4. The entirety of India did come CLOSE to being conquered, but for very short periods of time.

I hope this post was educational. I am always willing to engage in open debate and discussion, but please keep it civil and stay on topic.
@Indus Pakistan @Taimoor Khan @Talwar e Pakistan @Taimur Khurram @HariPrasad @Tshering22 @Dalai Lama @AUSTERLITZ @Joe Shearer @KAL-EL @Suriya @GURU DUTT
@Rollno21 @Śakra @Nilgiri @Clutch

So am I correct to understand that India as a unified state entity never existed until the British? That the claims of some Indians on the matter are incorrect? That Akhand Bharat is incorrect?

 

[Orca]

Hello everyone. I have encountered several people in various threads propagating this myth, and I got tired of correcting them, so I decided to make a thread on this topic.

First of all, lets aknowledge the truth behind the myth. There are some parts of Northern India(mainly UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, and parts of MP) that were ruled by Muslims for long periods of time. Muslim rule in India was first established in the 10th Century CE when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded east of the Indus. The Dehli Sultanate was established in 1206 and lasted until 1526, or 320 years. It was succeeded by the Mughal Empire started by Babur which remained a major power until the early 18th century.
However, that is only the story of Northern India. South India was a completely different story. Many proponents of this myth use the Tughlaq Dynasty of proof that the Delhi Sultanate had conquered even south India

However, they neglect to point out that the Tughlaqs lasted for less than a century, shorter than the amount of time modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan were ruled by the Mauryans.
Towards the end of the Tughlaqs, a Kannadiga commander in the army of the Hoysal Empire called Harihara began resisting the invaders from the North. By 1336, the Tughlazs had completely fallen, and the entirety of Southern India was under Harihara's control. His Empire became known as the Vijayanagar Empire. The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(

The Vijayanagar Empire became extremely powerful and defeated many nearby Kingdoms such as the Gajapatis of kalinga(Odisha) and the Sultanate of Madurai In 1407, King Deva Raya I of Vijayanagar forced Sultan Firoz Bahmani to enter a treaty that required Bahmani to pay tribute to Vijayanagara. It was described as the most powerful Empire of medieval India by International travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fernao Nunes, and Niccolo Da Conti. Even King Akbar considered it one of the most powerful empires of the subcontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empire
In 1565, the Vijayanagara Empire lost the battle of Talikota against the combined force of the northern Deccan Sultanates. This loss weakened Vijayanagar which finally fell in 1646, although remnants of it survived in areas such as Tami Nadu and Kerala(Travancore is a good example). After Vijayanagar fell, the Deccan Sultanates rose to power, such as Hyderabad and Mysore. But their dominance did not last long, because the next major player the Marathas, rose to power.

For a short period of time, the Mughal King Aurangzeb came close to finally conquering the Deccan. The height of his Empire is shown below

However, this lasted very shortly, as the Marathas under SHivaji rebelled and fought Mughal control in the Deccan. Shivaji was eventually able to liberate Maharashtra, of which he was crowned king in 1674. By Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the Marathas had already gained control of most of the Deccan. Below shows the Marathas at their height

Obviously, the Marathas were not able to control that much territory in modern day Pakistan for long. But this picture shows they were the major power in India by the second half of the 18th century. And contrary to popular belief, they did not fall after Panipat. Ten years later, the Marathas had regained control of Northern India. When the British arrived, the Mughal "Empire" was just a City state with a puppet ruler that paid tribute to the Marathas. To gain control of India, the British had to defeat the Marathas in the Angol Maratha Wars. Here are some more pictures.

And of course, there is also the story of Northeast India. The Mughlas made several attempts to cross the Brahmaputra and invade the Ahom Empire(Assam) but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_kingdom
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lachit-barphukan-the-battle-of-saraighat.304596/

So, in conclusion:
1. North India WAS ruled by the DS and Mughals, but only for about 500 years.
2..South and East India(with the exception of Bengal) was mostly ruled by indigenous kngdoms/empires.
3. The entirety of Modern day India(including Northeast) was never ruled until the British
4. The entirety of India did come CLOSE to being conquered, but for very short periods of time.

I hope this post was educational. I am always willing to engage in open debate and discussion, but please keep it civil and stay on topic.
@Indus Pakistan @Taimoor Khan @Talwar e Pakistan @Taimur Khurram @HariPrasad @Tshering22 @Dalai Lama @AUSTERLITZ @Joe Shearer @KAL-EL @Suriya @GURU DUTT
@Rollno21 @Śakra @Nilgiri @Clutch

hello kid you have a typical safroonic mindset as you started history thread with the very selective time period, i think you should go to a well known library

The peaceful spread of Islam was suddenly checked when Muslim armies began to invade India. Mohammed Bin Qasim (672 CE) at the age of 17 was the first Muslim invader and he managed to reach Sindh. Centuries later Mahmud of Ghazni (971 - 1030 CE) was the second, much more ferocious invader, who swept up into Northern India as far as Gujarat.[31]

 

[khansaheeb]

Bullshit mainly based on assumption and your personal opinion. Goes to my dustbin.



1965?? what nonsense.



1965?? what nonsense.

Yes , definitely more concocted history and fabrication by the Hindus to appease their inferiority complex.

 

[Orca]

hello kid you have a typical safroonic mindset as you started history thread with the very selective time period, i think you should go to a well known library

The peaceful spread of Islam was suddenly checked when Muslim armies began to invade India. Mohammed Bin Qasim (672 CE) at the age of 17 was the first Muslim invader and he managed to reach Sindh. Centuries later Mahmud of Ghazni (971 - 1030 CE) was the second, much more ferocious invader, who swept up into Northern India as far as Gujarat.[31]

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I can see that no one has been able to counter any of the facts. I never denied parts of India were never ruled by Muslims. I am simply pointing out the misconception that the entirety of India was ruled by Muslims, especially for a thousand years. If you disagree than I have two challenges for you:
1. Name me anytime the entirety of the Modern day Republic of India was ruled by more than a century.
2. Name any part of India that WAS ruled by Muslims that was under rule for a thousand years.

hello kid you have a typical safroonic mindset as you started history thread with the very selective time period, i think you should go to a well known library

The peaceful spread of Islam was suddenly checked when Muslim armies began to invade India. Mohammed Bin Qasim (672 CE) at the age of 17 was the first Muslim invader and he managed to reach Sindh. Centuries later Mahmud of Ghazni (971 - 1030 CE) was the second, much more ferocious invader, who swept up into Northern India as far as Gujarat.[31]

Why are you mentioning Sindh when I am clearly talking about the modern day Republic of India?

Yes , definitely more concocted history and fabrication by the Hindus to appease their inferiority complex.

Everything posted are facts. I even provided links and pictures to support them. DO you have anything to counter them.

The Republic of India was created in 1947, from British India. Prior to that, India was a geographical expression.

The name Pakistan never even existed before the 1930s. And almost the entirety of South Asia was united under the Mauryas for several centuries, closer than the Mughals ever got. But that is not the point.

 

[Orca]

I can see that no one has been able to counter any of the facts. I never denied parts of India were never ruled by Muslims. I am simply pointing out the misconception that the entirety of India was ruled by Muslims, especially for a thousand years. If you disagree than I have two challenges for you:
1. Name me anytime the entirety of the Modern day Republic of India was ruled by more than a century.
2. Name any part of India that WAS ruled by Muslims that was under rule for a thousand years.


Why are you mentioning Sindh when I am clearly talking about the modern day Republic of India?

see the map, if someone talks 1000 years of slavery then he is clearly referring to that time of India, not a modern one. Pathetic safroonic rascal trying to teach us history

 

[Cobra Arbok]

see the map, if someone talks 1000 years of slavery then he is clearly referring to that time of India, not a modern one. Pathetic safroonic rascal trying to teach us history

I am confused as to what you are referring to. Do you mean the modern day Republic of India(which I am clearly talking about) or the entire subcontinent(which also was called India). If it is the latter that you are referring to, then the only part of India that was ruled for 1000 years was modern day Pakistan. Essentially, you are calling yourselves slaves.
@Indus Pakistan

 

[Orca]

I'm referring to medieval India, and for your information whenever we said 1000 years of rule over India it starts from Medieval India to Last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. As you said you are confused but we are not, now go get a life kid

I am confused as to what you are referring to. Do you mean the modern day Republic of India(which I am clearly talking about) or the entire subcontinent(which also was called India). If it is the latter that you are referring to, then the only part of India that was ruled for 1000 years was modern day Pakistan. Essentially, you are calling yourselves slaves.
@Indus Pakistan

Pathetic And ignorant you must join school again from prep. Whenever we said that Muslims ruled India for 1000 year it doesn't means whole India but for 1000 years Muslim ruled over Hindus successfully in different (majority) parts of India