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

[meghdut]

---

---

Funnily had it not been for British, Assam and some parts of NE states would have been part of Myanmar.

[Syama Ayas]

Was colonialism ever a good thing? Even so can we really see the alternative course of history if British hadn't come up

[Ghauri_Ghaznavi]

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.



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

If there was no partition, then for the muslims in sub-continent, 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 The imperialism of the British raj would have been replaced by a hindu-dominated government.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 the British raj would have been the lesser of the 2 evils.

[KS]

I am sorry if you have earlier feeling that Muslim rulers were regarded bad and blood sucking in India. Few are liked and few are not but that dose not mean that it was black and white. Take an example of Aurangzeb , one of the controversial ruler of its time. If you analyze deeply , he was much much better than Shahjahan who is know for Taj Mahal and RedFort. Most of the officers in Aurangzeb's admin were Hindus. Even he is more disliked by Shia community than Hindus for reasons I dont know very exactly .

Why go into accounts of different historians ? Why not according to Mughal sources, his own firmans itself ?

Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records

To give you another example about Sher Shah Soori ( First truly Indian Muslim ruler in my regards) had made Mughals run for their lives. Even today in Sasaram (In Bihar , where he was from) he is a divine feature for Hindus as well as Muslims. He had a much better administration than any medieval rulers and I consider hin in same league as Chandragupta, Samudragupta.

Completely agree with Sher Shah Suri. He is one of the most under-rated rulers of India.

[future_bound]

If there was no partition, then for the muslims in sub-continent, 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 the British raj would have been the lesser of the 2 evils.

Interesting thread
and i Agree

[future_bound]

Agreed that the ancestors of most pakistanis were once buddhist or hindus but that has no relevence today because we are now muslims. My ancestors were also probably hindus but i am forever thankful to the Mughals for converting us to the true great religion of Islam.

Big up Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Babar, Aurangzeb and Abdali

[bronxbull]

---

---

Even if we were to agree that they were hindu, saying " werent ur anchestors hindus?,they will never have thought that their future generation will hate hinduism like this". is just silly. The ancestors of Germans didn't think thier children will hate naziism, but they do and for good reason.

funny that u take some random example for comparison.

Imran Khan describes our dedication to the British and their laws, rules and regulations as one of our foremost problems and rightly so in his book Pakistan: A personal history.

Your post proves the same, that we still follow a colonial mindset. We should have grown out of this praise for the British and their ways but we are still at stage one. For example the FCR, an age old british law which holds entire tribes responsible for the actions of a few and which is against human rights still exists in the tribal areas. We haven't given the local people a chance to properly integrate.

The Marathas and the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh etc weren't half a threat as the British. They were cheap knock-off kingdoms when compared to the British. Possibly if the British hadn't come the Mughals could have still been dominating India. A weaker version of India perhaps but they still might have been in power...

I strongly disagree that the British Raj helped strengthen the Muslims. The end of urdu as a language in the courts and nobility automatically reduced the literacy rate of Muslims by a huge percentage. Clerks and waiters were made to wear the uniform of the defeated Mughal army strengthening and building the mindset that we were a conquered race and mocking us, all land owned by trusts which gave free education and healthcare (34% of all land) was taken and taxed as they abolished the trusts, and waqf boards. Theres much more they did to keep the Muslims backwards. Their primary objective was to keep the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus at each others throats so that a unified force or threat could not appear before them.

No doubt the #British kept the Hindus backward but they also kept the Muslims backward and no one can deny this.

Hoshiarpur in east punjab had a literacy of 84% when the Mughals were ruling and was left with a literacy of 9%. The very same thing happened in the provinces that were to become Pakistan.

Quaid E Azam & Sir Syed Ahmed Khan rose only due to their own obstinacy to do something good for Muslims despite the difficult conditions alone not due to any help from the British.

And please don't use the word baniya for Pakistani hindus. Call the Indians whatever you want but I don't like the way we drag our people into this because of their religion.

I highly doubt that,