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

[Developereo]

I loled on your comment. Marathas controlled most of India by 1758 while treated Nizams of Hyderabad as their tributary by forcing them to pay tribute until British came otherwise they have united rest of them.

So you are admitting that the full landmass called Republic of India was not unified until the British came?
Paying tribute is not the same as being part of a unified political entity.
Good!

I think it is actually a remarkable feat on the part of Indian government how many diverse ethnic communities across state lines hold themselves to be Indian.

What the Indians have done with the British's gift is another matter altogether. My point was that a unified political entity -- one that was held together for a substantial period of time to accustom the people with the concept of unity -- was a British gift.

Gupta(300 ad to 600 ad) direct rule.

Again, you are proving my point.

As I mentioned, throughout the thousands of years, there was ebb and flow of regional empires, bot no unified political entity covering the whole mass (except for those early empires).

 

[Truth Finder]

Again, you are proving my point.
As I mentioned, throughout the thousands of years, there was ebb and flow of regional empires, bot no unified political entity covering the whole mass (except for those early empires).

Paying tribute is the same thing.

 

[Developereo]

Paying tribute is the same thing.

No, it isn't. Paying tribute is like paying off a crime gang.

That's not the same as the patriotism and loyalty that comes from being part of a unified nation.

 

[INDIC]

So you are admitting that the full landmass called Republic of India was not unified until the British came?
Paying tribute is not the same as being part of a unified political entity.
Good!





What the Indians have done with the British's gift is another matter altogether. My point was that a unified political entity -- one that was held together for a substantial period of time to accustom the people with the concept of unity -- was a British gift.



Again, you are proving my point.

As I mentioned, throughout the thousands of years, there was ebb and flow of regional empires, bot no unified political entity covering the whole mass (except for those early empires).

You need to look at the map of Maratha Empire and read your previous comments.

 

[Truth Finder]

No, it isn't. Paying tribute is like paying off a crime gang.

That's not the same as the patriotism and loyalty that comes from being part of a unified nation.

So, how can the British India be an unified country? There were 550+ princely states which were almost 40% of the land mass. They all pay tributes and rule almost independently.

 

[Developereo]

You need to look at the map of Maratha Empire and read your previous comments.

Where's the contradiction.
Was the landmass of RoI united before the British (except for the ancient empires)?

So, how can the British India be an unified country? There were 550+ princely states which were almost 40% of the land mass. They all pay tributes and rule almost independently.

The princely states were still considered part of the British Raj, under British jurisdiction (with varying degrees of autonomy).

 

[Truth Finder]

The princely states were still considered part of the British Raj, under British jurisdiction (with varying degrees of autonomy).

One can consider anything he likes. But, reality was different. They pay tributes, did not cause harm to the British empire and ruled independently.

 

[future_bound]

When British arrived, Muslims were loosing to Marathas. India was independent from Mughals 100s of year before Brits came. Muslims (Who have allegiance only to there Arabic religion and arabic god) were pro british, They never participated in freedom movement. Out of 1000s of revolutionary We have only one Muslim "Ashfaq-ulla-Khan".

If there was no partition, then for the muslims, there was not much point in getting rid of the British raj. The imperialism of the British raj would have been replaced by a hindu-dominated government. And yes in that scenario as a muslim i would have preferred to live under the British raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government.

Muslim wanted there Mughal rule which was not possible so they devided the country and our visionless leader agreed to it.

LOL There was not much your visionless leader (or leaders) could do to prevent partition and you make it sound like they agreed to partition out of generosity. The muslims wanted their own country and we got it and there was nothing the hindus could have done to stop us

 

[Barakah]

If there was no partition, then for the muslims, there was not much point in getting rid of the British raj. The imperialism of the British raj would have been replaced by a hindu-dominated government. And yes in that scenario as a muslim i would have preferred to live under the British raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government.



LOL There was not much your visionless leader (or leaders) could do to prevent partition and you make it sound like they agreed to partition out of generosity. The muslims wanted their own country and we got it and there was nothing the hindus could have done to stop us

Yeah I dont know where these indians are getting the idea of their "leaders" being generous to us. It was us Muslims who fought for an independent country and it was our sacrifices which made it happen and it was gonna happen regardless of whether Britain was in control or hindus

 

[KingMamba]

Living under natives is always better than foreign rule.

 

[FaujHistorian]

To understand this two parameters should be known.What was the percentage share of Punjabi Muslims in over all Muslim population of India? and what was the over all percentage share of Muslims in Raj's government?

Scorp!

I don't think this thread deserves a good poster.

Please leave.

The only humble question for OP

--- In 2014, Are Muslims good thing for Pakistan?

 

[Silverblaze]

Its an important historical question.

British rule has different meaning for different areas of the sub continent. For the north west it was not so pleasant despite the railways. For the bengal, again it was not so pleasant as the British never trusted the Bengalis after their revolt against the raj ( which was the right thing to do).

Punjabis (muslims in particular) benefited as they were bothered by the mughals and the bhangi sardars and the british brought relief to them and recruited them in large numbers.

Varies.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Its an important historical question.

British rule has different meaning for different areas of the sub continent. For the north west it was not so pleasant despite the railways. For the bengal, again it was not so pleasant as the British never trusted the Bengalis after their revolt against the raj ( which was the right thing to do).

Punjabis (muslims in particular) benefited as they were bothered by the mughals and the bhangi sardars and the british brought relief to them and recruited them in large numbers.

Varies.

Punjabi and pashtun Muslim soldiers were also recruited by Ranjit singh's army.

British just used the centuries old tradition in the pothohar region.

heck that region produced the gems like Manekshaw a parsi soldier

 

[utraash]

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

So now ur fear of Hindu raj end up with American strawberry. ..... We indian always feel indebted to Jinnah for creating land of pure.....

 

[utraash]

You still have the enthusiasm to continue arguing with logic?
Do you still believe that you can convince people that Hindus are not evil or hypocrites?

They are heavily intoxicated by hatred to justify thr separation. .......

Our true religion is islam, the will of God

We would never have gone back to worshipping monkeys or idols

The Muslims were too strong to be subdued and had a history of domination of the sub continent, even without the Mughals there was the likes of Tipu Sultan etc

A stong muslim sub continent would have defeated the british and other colonials, its was sikh and marath ineptitude that meant their rule was short and pathetic and their fight against the british was shamefull

If mass killing plundering n rapes were will of ur god then i wud prefer to worship a monkey....... may b u shud hav asked ur forefathers will too who at sword surrender thr will or u shud know how women were raped in ur side to produce ur martial race.....