The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

by Rishi Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:20 pm

Majority of Hindus are unaware of their history and seem to think they were always very peaceful even when attacked and oppressed but this itself is a myth which unfortunately even hindus with good intentions seem to promote..During the islamic periods India was in a continuous state of civil war which ended with the mugal empire being destroyed by various hindu warriors from many regions.This myth of thousand years slavery then being saved by the british is a myth of all myths and is pointed out by British author, H.G.Keene
'The idea, however, that the British have wrested the Empire from the Mohamadans is a mistake. The Mohamadans were beaten down — almost everywhere except in Bengal — before the British appeared upon the scene; Bengal they would not have been able to hold, and the name of the “Mahratta Ditch” of Calcutta shows how near even the British there were to extirpation by India’s new masters. Had the British not won the battles of Plassey and Buxar, the whole Empire would ere now have become the fighting ground of Sikhs, Rajputs, and Mahrattas and others. Except the Nizam of the Deccan there was not a vigorous Musalman ruler in India after the firman of Farokhsiar in 1716; the Nizam owed his power to the British after the battle of Kurdla in 1795), and it was chiefly British support that maintained the feeble shadow of the Moghul Empire, from the death of Alamgir II. to the retirement of Mr. Hastings. Not only Haidarabad but all the other existing Musalman principalities of modern India owe their existence, directly, or indirectly, to the British intervention.'
So Parag Tope is right that hindus celebrate weapons as for the protection of Dharma( righteousness ) .More can be read here
http://www.hinduhistory.info/t...

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/hinduism_calls_for_an_armed_and_vigilant_society_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz2OnTD09Sn
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:37 pm

The 1857 war of independence in which Maharastrians like Nana Saheb and Tatya Tope, UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai, and others all fought against the British was fought under the banner of the Mughal emperor. Even though the Mughal emperor by now had become politically weak and only controlled some region in and around modern Delhi. But such was the prestige of the Mughals. It is clear from this that there was a tremendous amount of goodwill for the Mughals amongst the Hindus notwithstanding the Mughal black sheep Aurangzeb.

by Idéfix Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:05 pm

When the Europeans first landed their ships in India, the Mughals were on the ascendant. When the British established their East India Company circa 1600 CE, the Mughal empire was near its zenith under Akbar. Then came Aurangzeb and Shivaji, and the Mughal Empire was practically done for by 1700 CE. By 1757, just 50 years after Aurangzeb's death, Marathas controlled a good chunk of Uttar Pradesh and were on about to fight the Afghans in the Punjab. In Bengal, the Nawab was completely independent of the Mughal emperor. The emperor himself was restricted to Delhi and depended on others -- including the Marathas -- for protection. The Afghans were no friends of the Mughals; they had deposed Humayun from Delhi 200 years prior, and they had kicked out the Mughals from their own lands later. If the Marathas had prevailed over the Afghans in 1761, the East India Company likely would not have succeeded in taking over India.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:The 1857 war of independence in which Maharastrians like Nana Saheb and Tatya Tope, UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai, and others all fought against the British was fought under the banner of the Mughal emperor. Even though the Mughal emperor by now had become politically weak and only controlled some region in and around modern Delhi. But such was the prestige of the Mughals. It is clear from this that there was a tremendous amount of goodwill for the Mughals amongst the Hindus notwithstanding the Mughal black sheep Aurangzeb.

So, all this love and respect for Muslims evaporated in 1947? Obviously, Hindus were foolish.

Not everything is lost. India can invite the taliban to rule India and revive the Moghul super secular love. Mulayam mian is waiting to become the first PM of such a wonderful country.

I wonder what would have happened if Gandhi didn't ask Muslims to stay back. India would have been deprived of vote-bank politics and Mulayam and CONwallahs would be begging on the streets of rural UP. Thanks to Gandhi, all Indians can still use the Moghul name to get good governance. How wonderful!

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:31 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The 1857 war of independence in which Maharastrians like Nana Saheb and Tatya Tope, UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai, and others all fought against the British was fought under the banner of the Mughal emperor. Even though the Mughal emperor by now had become politically weak and only controlled some region in and around modern Delhi. But such was the prestige of the Mughals. It is clear from this that there was a tremendous amount of goodwill for the Mughals amongst the Hindus notwithstanding the Mughal black sheep Aurangzeb.

So, all this love and respect for Muslims evaporated in 1947? Obviously, Hindus were foolish.

Not everything is lost. India can invite the taliban to rule India and revive the Moghul super secular love. Mulayam mian is waiting to become the first PM of such a wonderful country.

I wonder what would have happened if Gandhi didn't ask Muslims to stay back. India would have been deprived of vote-bank politics and Mulayam and CONwallahs would be begging on the streets of rural UP. Thanks to Gandhi, all Indians can still use the Moghul name to get good governance. How wonderful!

The partition of 1947 took place because of the British policy of divide and rule and also because of Jinnah. Your father's hero Maulana Azad writes in his autobiography that a section of communal Hindus were also to blame for the partition. According to Azad communal Hindus had started voicing the demand for two nations long before Jinnah.

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The 1857 war of independence in which Maharastrians like Nana Saheb and Tatya Tope, UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai, and others all fought against the British was fought under the banner of the Mughal emperor. Even though the Mughal emperor by now had become politically weak and only controlled some region in and around modern Delhi. But such was the prestige of the Mughals. It is clear from this that there was a tremendous amount of goodwill for the Mughals amongst the Hindus notwithstanding the Mughal black sheep Aurangzeb.

So, all this love and respect for Muslims evaporated in 1947? Obviously, Hindus were foolish.

Not everything is lost. India can invite the taliban to rule India and revive the Moghul super secular love. Mulayam mian is waiting to become the first PM of such a wonderful country.

I wonder what would have happened if Gandhi didn't ask Muslims to stay back. India would have been deprived of vote-bank politics and Mulayam and CONwallahs would be begging on the streets of rural UP. Thanks to Gandhi, all Indians can still use the Moghul name to get good governance. How wonderful!

The partition of 1947 took place because of the British policy of divide and rule and also because of Jinnah. Your father's hero Maulana Azad writes in his autobiography that a section of communal Hindus were also to blame for the partition. According to Azad communal Hindus had started voicing the demand for two nations long before Jinnah.

With respect to vote bank politics it would have continued even if there were no Muslims in India. It would have continued, as it continues today also, on the basis of caste.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:40 am

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The 1857 war of independence in which Maharastrians like Nana Saheb and Tatya Tope, UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai, and others all fought against the British was fought under the banner of the Mughal emperor. Even though the Mughal emperor by now had become politically weak and only controlled some region in and around modern Delhi. But such was the prestige of the Mughals. It is clear from this that there was a tremendous amount of goodwill for the Mughals amongst the Hindus notwithstanding the Mughal black sheep Aurangzeb.

So, all this love and respect for Muslims evaporated in 1947? Obviously, Hindus were foolish.

Not everything is lost. India can invite the taliban to rule India and revive the Moghul super secular love. Mulayam mian is waiting to become the first PM of such a wonderful country.

I wonder what would have happened if Gandhi didn't ask Muslims to stay back. India would have been deprived of vote-bank politics and Mulayam and CONwallahs would be begging on the streets of rural UP. Thanks to Gandhi, all Indians can still use the Moghul name to get good governance. How wonderful!

The partition of 1947 took place because of the British policy of divide and rule and also because of Jinnah. Your father's hero Maulana Azad writes in his autobiography that a section of communal Hindus were also to blame for the partition. According to Azad communal Hindus had started voicing the demand for two nations long before Jinnah.

Your desire to continue with the Moghul prestige may be fulfilled soon! The population of SI will be shrinking while some people in UP and Bihar will continue to breed like rabbits. You may not need to import the taliban.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/South-India-lags-national-fertility-rate-slows-population-boom/articleshow/19249154.cms

by ashdoc Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:30 am

Rashmun wrote: UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai,

correction---rani laxmibai was not a UPite . she was a maharashtrian settled in UP .

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:04 am

ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote: UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai,

correction---rani laxmibai was not a UPite . she was a maharashtrian settled in UP .

Was she born and brought up in UP? If yes, she was a UPite.

by ashdoc Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:35 am

Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote: UPites like Rani Lakshmi Bai,

correction---rani laxmibai was not a UPite . she was a maharashtrian settled in UP .

Was she born and brought up in UP? If yes, she was a UPite.

wikipedia says her parents came from maharashtra .

all marathas who ruled over other parts of india like gaikwads of baroda , shindes ( now scindias ) of gwalior or holkars of indore are marathas , not gujaratis or MPites .

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:42 am

Wow..so UPites were first ruled by Muslim kings, then by Marathas and then by the British? That's a long period of servitude to alien rulers. Could that be the reson for today's backwardness?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:25 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Wow..so UPites were first ruled by Muslim kings, then by Marathas and then by the British? That's a long period of servitude to alien rulers. Could that be the reson for today's backwardness?

No. Blame the current crop of bhaiyya politicians.

Guntur, Vizag, Puducherry and Chennai became prominent during colonial rule. They are still doing fine.

by Propagandhi711 Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:05 am

historical circle jerk

by Sponsored content

The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.

Re: The British did not put an end to the Mughal empire. It was the Hindus who did that.