The British Raj in the sub-continent was a good thing for the muslims?

[Ghauri_Ghaznavi]

I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.
If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's British raj?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s. And later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that muslims have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

 

[Rig Vedic]

Muslims lost control of some major provinces to the British - Bengal and Avadh, but overall you are right. Had it not been for the British, those provinces would have been lost to the Marathas anyway.

 

[The|slander]

Oh wow, that's something new I learnt. So this ongoing India-Pakistan struggle technically harks back to the days of a civil war within the Mughal Empire. The British basically created the solution of 2 countries then as a final resolution to that conflict?

 

[Ghauri_Ghaznavi]

If we are talking about india after mughal decline. Muslims were leaving a vaccum and someone had to fill it. If not for the British, certainly the hindus would have done that. They had the majority in india and the muslims were on decline. Who else? Maybe there may be some small pockets of "states" like hyderabad etc. but on the whole the hindus would have taken over whole sub-continent.

The British raj gave us breathing space. Sir syed and iqbal and then quaid-e-azam got time to organize muslims and work for their educational training etc under the british raj. So within a 100 years muslims were able to establish a state of their own. If we had not got this space, our future would have been very different.

We should not ignore this.

 

[pak-marine]

isnt it true that it was because of the British Raj it helped achieve muslims a separate state otherwise we never REALLY REALLY struggled hard for independence we got it as a compensation by the brits !!?

 

[jayron]

Now I am even more convinced that he is an indian false flagger. Why would a Pakistani openly brown nose the British colonizers and put this nation to shame?

 

[Ghauri_Ghaznavi]

On second thought, it is probably not appropriate to say that the British raj was a good thing for muslims in sub-continent. But if as a muslim i had to choose between living under the white man's british raj or a hindu-dominated country then i would consider the british raj to be the lesser of the 2 evils!!

 

[forcetrip]

As a muslim you should have said you would rather die than be under someones domination.

 

[debottam]

I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.
If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's British raj?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s. And later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that muslims have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

Too simplistic a view. In short it's impossible to guess today what would have happened if European powers (not just British) didn't intervene in India.

First, By the time of Bahadur Shah Jafar at 1850s the British power had completely captured India anyway. So you at least need to go back a century at the beginning of British expansion around 1750s. By this time Muslim power in India was in decline but it was still substantial. The Marathas were powerful in the South but they were thoroughly defeated in 1763 by the Durranis and this ensured that they won't make much headway in the northern plains for quite a while. Sikhs later captured Punjab but it is unlikely that they could have dominated the whole of India. Throughout the country Marathas, Rajputs, the Nizam in Hyderabad, the Nawabs of Bengal and Lucknow and other smaller Hindu/Muslim kingdom would have continued fighting among each other for a century(and probably still today) after the collapse of the Mughals.

 

[Saleem]

british raj was the best thing for the muslims ---they got lots of practice at being slaves and even more servile to the native warlocks and magicians and mendicants [p*** and mur***** etc] who have succeeded the britishers ---

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

This is misconceptions...
Bahadur shah had no army that time, only a palace to rule for...
After the demise of Aurengzeb, Marathas had vanquished the Mughals.. And after that came the Sikhs...
So the British defeated the Marathas and Sikhs (who inturn had defeated the mughals and local muslim rulers) to take control of india...

On second thought, it is probably not appropriate to say that the British raj was a good thing for muslims in sub-continent. But if as a muslim i had to choose between living under the white man's british raj or a hindu-dominated country then i would consider the british raj to be the lesser of the 2 evils!!

PS: werent ur anchestors hindus?
Really when they had converted(either peacefull or force is another matter), they will never have thought that their future generation will hate hinduism like this...

 

[Redbull]

PS: werent ur anchestors hindus?
Really when they had converted(either peacefull or force is another matter), they will never have thought that their future generation will hate hinduism like this...

No they were mainly Bhuddist and Zorastrian. This has been discussed a million times already.

 

[Sam_Bajwa]

Too simplistic a view. In short it's impossible to guess today what would have happened if European powers (not just British) didn't intervene in India.

First, By the time of Bahadur Shah Jafar at 1850s the British power had completely captured India anyway. So you at least need to go back a century at the beginning of British expansion around 1750s. By this time Muslim power in India was in decline but it was still substantial. The Marathas were powerful in the South but they were thoroughly defeated in 1763 by the Durranis and this ensured that they won't make much headway in the northern plains for quite a while. Sikhs later captured Punjab but it is unlikely that they could have dominated the whole of India. Throughout the country Marathas, Rajputs, the Nizam in Hyderabad, the Nawabs of Bengal and Lucknow and other smaller Hindu/Muslim kingdom would have continued fighting among each other for a century(and probably still today) after the collapse of the Mughals.

that's not true by the time British came both Maratha and Sikh empires were quite strong though facing initial leadership crises. i don't think there was any other prevalent force that would have checked their influence.

No they were mainly Bhuddist and Zorastrian. This has been discussed a million times already.

Really i don't think so some thing to back up your claim?

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

No they were mainly Bhuddist and Zorastrian. This has been discussed a million times already.

U must discuss ur own anchestory with pakistani members such as Icarus and superkaif...
Know ur own history properly.. Am tired for this discussions.. Discussed lotta times... But u r new here... Need to prop up old threads and read it..

 

[neutral_person]

No they were mainly Bhuddist and Zorastrian. This has been discussed a million times already.

Your ancestors were mostly Buddhists and Hindus actually. Zoroastrians mostly came to India from Iran when Arabs ransacked Iran. Pakistan had Zoroastrians but not a significant amount, I would say less than 5%.

On topic: Well, I think that the Maratha and Sikh empires would only have gotten stronger had the British not invaded. It was very unlikely that a Muslim leader would be in the subcontinent for a while.

On second thought, it is probably not appropriate to say that the British raj was a good thing for muslims in sub-continent. But if as a muslim i had to choose between living under the white man's british raj or a hindu-dominated country then i would consider the british raj to be the lesser of the 2 evils!!

When I read posts like these, the sheer stupidity shocks me and makes me thank Jinnah 100 times over for partition. On the bright side, your nation is still a slave to the white man, getting droned by them and licking their backsides for aid money. So yes, congrats on choosing the lesser of the two evils