Here is the reply of an Historian to a westerner who affirms that the intervention of the BRITISH had saved Indians from being completely islamised and had the British not colonised India , the Moghul would have made a comeback even after being defeated by Shivaji and they would have somehow managed to reconquer the lost Delhi throne. This kind of theory to boost the morale of the western colonialist can arise only in the minds of a egocentric western mind :
I am a history buff and my home library is filled with Indian history books. So i am serious when i write something. ‘Muslim rule’ is a ambiguous term. What do you mean by that ? The Maratha empire got rid of Mughals, the most powerful of Muslim dynasties that ruled India. The remnants of Mughal Empire – some of them were allies of British (Nizam of Hyderabad) and while others were against British (Nawab of Bengal).The British were interested in colonialism first and fore most and they viewed Muslims from their colonial enterprising angle, not in any ideological sense. They encouraged Muslim rule when it suited them (read about the British support to Nizam of Hyderabad in putting out revolts against Muslim rule) and fought against Muslim rule when it was in their interest of colonial expansion (egs. : defeating the nawab of Bengal and Tipu Sultan of Mysore). They displayed the same attitude towards Hindu rulers as well, encouraging some and fighting others based on their interests. In fact, one can argue that had the British did not intervene and defeated the Maratha Empire (with the help of Nizam of Hyderabad and other Muslim rulers i may add), the Marathas would have regained their control over India and that would have sound death knell to the remnants of Mughal empire. The British essentially practiced a divide and rule policy of aligning themselves with Muslims at one time and Hindus at other times based on their colonial interests. That continued right until 1947. The point is not that British created Hindu-Muslim conflict. That was there since Islam forced itself on India. The point is that the British in a classic divide and rule sense took advantage of this divide to further their colonial interests. Hence to suggest that British ended Muslim rule in India is not seeing the wood for the trees.
I am a history buff and my home library is filled with Indian history books. So i am serious when i write something. ‘Muslim rule’ is a ambiguous term. What do you mean by that ? The Maratha empire got rid of Mughals, the most powerful of Muslim dynasties that ruled India. The remnants of Mughal Empire – some of them were allies of British (Nizam of Hyderabad) and while others were against British (Nawab of Bengal).The British were interested in colonialism first and fore most and they viewed Muslims from their colonial enterprising angle, not in any ideological sense. They encouraged Muslim rule when it suited them (read about the British support to Nizam of Hyderabad in putting out revolts against Muslim rule) and fought against Muslim rule when it was in their interest of colonial expansion (egs. : defeating the nawab of Bengal and Tipu Sultan of Mysore). They displayed the same attitude towards Hindu rulers as well, encouraging some and fighting others based on their interests. In fact, one can argue that had the British did not intervene and defeated the Maratha Empire (with the help of Nizam of Hyderabad and other Muslim rulers i may add), the Marathas would have regained their control over India and that would have sound death knell to the remnants of Mughal empire. The British essentially practiced a divide and rule policy of aligning themselves with Muslims at one time and Hindus at other times based on their colonial interests. That continued right until 1947. The point is not that British created Hindu-Muslim conflict. That was there since Islam forced itself on India. The point is that the British in a classic divide and rule sense took advantage of this divide to further their colonial interests. Hence to suggest that British ended Muslim rule in India is not seeing the wood for the trees.
- Vidya Sagar Amirapu This is a mischievous logic of an idle mind. Given the small numbers of the Brits they could not face even one large Indian King.
- Arun K Upadhyaya Absolutely ! Dis logic wd hardly have takers among discerning minds. D brits had der self interest foremost in der minds and had equal contempt for d natives b de hindus or muslims.For hindus both muslims and d british were equally harmful for denting der solidarity and socio political cohesion.
- Ravichandran Raju Real culprits are British. They very well know they were migrated and en-cashed the situations.Totally they want to keep under the both as slaves. Religion clashes were favoured them. what to do ? Still these idiots on both sides remain qualified idiots.
No comments:
Post a Comment