Numbers do not add upto 1000 years

[Truth Finder]

Indian civilization is about 4000 years old. And, some in PDF claim that Muslims rule India for 1000 years. Their calculation is from 712 AD to 1707. But, being History my second favorite subject, I find it amusing.I am giving the reasons below:-

1) 500 years gone:- On the third attempt, Muhammad bin Qasim became successful in 712 AD. But, not a single piece of land of modern day India was captured(only confined to Sindh). But, the latter progress of the Arabs was stopped for next 500 years in the Battle of Rajasthan. First Islamic dynasty in India was Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi) in 1206. So, officially it cannot be before 1206. And, 500 years gone.

Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammad bin Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2) Another 300 years gone:-Only six (Alauddin Khilji,Muhammad bin Tughluq,Akbar,Jahangir,Shah Jahan,Aurangzeb taken together less than 200 years ) out of dozens of Muslim rulers, had a so called pan India rule. All others were regional kings like Cholas, Palas,Rajputs, Jatts, Gorkhas, Sikhs and many south Indian kings . They had no power to control whole of India's destiny. If they were pan India rulers, then all others are so.

3) Remaining 200 years:- I doubt if remaining less than 200 years can be called absolute Muslim rule in India because of Hindus' overwhelming presence in the administrations unlike Hindu rulers (before the MARATHA) with full administrative control of Hindus.


After 1707(death of Aurangzeb), Marathas rose to power and de-facto ended MUSLIM RULE. Then, came the British and the rest is known to all.

So, out of the 4000 years of Indian Civilization or the concept of India , the number of Muslim Rule in India does not add upto 1000 years, but it's seems less than one fifth of that so called thousand years which is less than 5% of 4000 years.

Correct me if I am wrong. I will accept that with open mind.

 

[doppelganger]

Indians see the picture as foreign versus indigenous rule.

Pakistanis understandably see it as Hindu versus Muslim rule.

 

[Jackdaws]

You are absolutely correct. I have pointed this out on a few posts before. Even amongst the Mughals - Akbar was not an adherent of Islam - he was an adherent of Din-e-Elahi, a religion he himself founded and he was Emperor for almost 50 years - so you can shave off those as well.

 

[GURU DUTT]

You are absolutely correct. I have pointed this out on a few posts before. Even amongst the Mughals - Akbar was not an adherent of Islam - he was an adherent of Din-e-Elahi, a religion he himself founded and he was Emperor for almost 50 years - so you can shave off those as well.

i some time wonder why no mullah has issuesd a fatwa aginst akbar for his conversion to deen e ilahi but are so vocal against ahmedis

 

[Truth Finder]

i some time wonder why no mullah has issuesd a fatwa aginst akbar for his conversion to deen e ilahi but are so vocal against ahmedis

Akbar worshiped Idols, got married to a Hindu and cremated his mother like Hindus. I doubt all these are allowed in Islam or not.

 

[Truth Finder]

Why is not getting any contrary view or narrative? Is the narrative 100% correct? OK.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Why is not getting any contrary view or narrative? Is the narrative 100% correct? OK.

If you were hoping for a serious logical rebuttal based on facts, expect to be disappointed. If you want to be bashed half to lunacy by lunatic trolls, you stand a good chance

Nice calculation by the way. In any case an interesting thing is that the Mughal empire ceased to exist as an independent entity after the 1760s when the Marathas captured Delhi. After the Anglo Maratha wars, they converted from a Maratha vassal to a British one. So Mughal empire lingering on till 1857 on the shoulders of the frail rulers is actually a fantasy. It was more of a joke. The later Mughals were not all that harmful either. Except to themselves of course

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Indians see the picture as foreign versus indigenous rule.

Pakistanis understandably see it as Hindu versus Muslim rule.

Not to forget that for them they got Independence from India in 1947 and not from the British empire.

 

[kurup]

2) Another 300 years gone:-[/B]Only six (Alauddin Khilji,Muhammad bin Tughluq,Akbar,Jahangir,Shah Jahan,Aurangzeb taken together less than 200 years ) out of dozens of Muslim rulers, had a so called pan India rule. All others were regional kings like Cholas, Palas,Rajputs, Jatts, Gorkhas, Sikhs and many south Indian kings . They had no power to control whole of India's destiny. If they were pan India rulers, then all others are so.

I am no expert in history but how can Alauddin Khilji be called a Pan-India ruler ??

 

[Truth Finder]

If you were hoping for a serious logical rebuttal based on facts, expect to be disappointed. If you want to be bashed half to lunacy by lunatic trolls, you stand a good chance

Nice calculation by the way. In any case an interesting thing is that the Mughal empire ceased to exist as an independent entity after the 1760s when the Marathas captured Delhi. After the Anglo Maratha wars, they converted from a Maratha vassal to a British one. So Mughal empire lingering on till 1857 on the shoulders of the frail rulers is actually a fantasy. It was more of a joke. The later Mughals were not all that harmful either. Except to themselves of course

Bahadur Shah Zafar was the ruler of only RED FORT, not even the whole of Delhi city. Some here consider rulers like him to be the ruler of whole of India.

I am no expert in history but how can Alauddin Khilji be called a Pan-India ruler ??

He led a successful expedition in the south which is not included in the map.

 

[kurup]

He led a successful expedition in the south which is not included in the map.

Can you post that relevant map ??

 

[karan.1970]

Why is not getting any contrary view or narrative? Is the narrative 100% correct? OK.

Oh Come on.. The Pakistani fanboys have pretty much nothing else left except the notion (no matter how flawed) of 1000 (sometimes 800) years rule over Hindus. Do not take that as well away from them

 

[Truth Finder]

Can you post that relevant map ??

Malik Kafur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia( He was originally a Hindu and the commander in chief of Alauddin Khilji )

Malik Kafur led two campaigns in south India. The first against Warangal and other against Dwar Samudra, Mabar and Madurai. Kafur was made malik naib, the senior commander of the army after its southern campaigns. In 1294 Kafur led the sultan's army against the capital city of the Yadava kingdom, Devagiri. Kafur led further invasions southward into the Kakatiya dynasty, winning immense riches for the sultanate and sacking many Hindu temples.according to legend he was rumored to kill alauddin khilji.

 

[shuntmaster]

My hometown in coastal karnataka was never under muslim rule, except for a few years under Tipu Sultan..

 

[Indischer]

My hometown in coastal karnataka was never under muslim rule, except for a few years under Tipu Sultan..

Yaav ooru Tammdu? If I am right, The stretch from Kasargod to Bhatkal had come under Tipu's rule once. My hometown in coastal Karnataka was NEVER under Muslim rule.