Mughals - Sikhs - Marathas - Victims or Perpetrators?

[vinod2070]

Originally Posted by Selma Shirazi

But Afghanistan is not disputed dear, Kashmir is. ;)

If I remember correctly atleast two Indian states were devided before the partition, Bengal and Punjab, mostly to mark the religious devide though both states were historically more connected with the other half than the rest of British India. Without the division both would have been lost to Bangladesh and pakistan respectively due overall muslim majority.

So if thats ok, why can't you accept that what we're doing with Gilgit-Baltistan is the only right thing to do. They were never part of Kashmir and no way these overly muslim states would want to join Indian Union.

OK, let me quote you a remark by Mr. G M. Sayeed that I read a while back. May be words are out a bit, the spirit is not.

We have been Pakistanis for 50 years (make it 62 now), we have been Muslims for 1000 years but we have been Sindhis for 10,000 years.

For you history starts after the Muslim invasions of India. For us, that was but a mere blip in a long loooong history of this land and our people. The effects of those invasions are again transient and can be reversed as they were changed earlier.

[vinod2070]

Originally Posted by Selma Shirazi

Because English devided and ruled us, its time to undo their mistakes and redraw the boundries. :biggthumpup:

The Muslim invaders did that to a far larger degree, judging by the Hindu-Muslim violence, partition and the hatreds sowed in the communities.

The fact that the Hindu converts have the greatest antipathy in the world to their former faith suggests the same!

[DarkStar]

Originally Posted by vinod2070

The Muslim invaders did that to a far larger degree, judging by the Hindu-Muslim violence, partition and the hatreds sowed in the communities.

I don't think there were any instances of hindu-muslim violence per se, before the British invasion of INdia. Yes, there were wars between the different rulers of India, and the reasons were mainly money and land. The religion of those fighting each other was hardly ever an issue, unless for exploitative reasons. This can be evidenced in the fact that many times Hindu and Muslim rulers banded together to fight others of whatever religion.

Although systematic persecution of minorities (muslims) can be witnessed in the Maratha bandit rule, as well as the barbarity displayed by Ranjit Singh, when the Sikhs ruled Punjab and the Frontier.

[vinod2070]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

I don't think there were any instances of hindu-muslim violence per se, before the British invasion of INdia. Yes, there were wars between the different rulers of India, and the reasons were mainly money and land. The religion of those fighting each other was hardly ever an issue, unless for exploitative reasons. This can be evidenced in the fact that many times Hindu and Muslim rulers banded together to fight others of whatever religion.

Although systematic persecution of minorities (muslims) can be witnessed in the Maratha bandit rule, as well as the barbarity displayed by Ranjit Singh, when the Sikhs ruled Punjab and the Frontier.

The communal situation before the British is not well documented or at least I am not much aware of that. The Muslim rule was bad enough for the Hindus and there is no doubt of that. But yes, I do agree that at least against the British, Hindus and Muslims banded together. If not for the divisive TNT, may be we could have turned a new leaf and overcome the narrow divide. Most of us are after all the same people.

With the division of the country for narrow sectarian reasons, this gap is that much harder to fill now.

I have shared multiple instances of well documented proofs of Muslim atrocities on Indians in the myth thread.

The Marathas and Sikhs were trying to throw out the yoke of foreign invaders and the little I have read of the Chhatrapati Shivaji and Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule, they were extremely fair to Muslims. May be these accounts were a bit one sided but I have not yet seen another account.

[DarkStar]

Originally Posted by vinod2070

The Marathas and Sikhs were trying to throw out the yoke of foreign invaders and the little I have read of the Chhatrapati Shivaji and Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule, they were extremely fair to Muslims. May be these accounts were a bit one sided but I have not yet seen another account.

Do you really think that after 1000 years, the muslims of India were still foreign? Are the muslims living today in Delhi, Hyderabad, still foreigners?

How many more millenia do they have to live in Bharat for them not be considered as foreigners by people like yourself?

By the time the Sikhs and Marathas emerged, the muslims of iNDIA and their rulers were very much an integral part of India, and had more in common with their non-muslim countrymen than muslims elsewhere. Or does their religion mean thtat they will always be considered outsiders?

The Sikh rule in Punjab started well before the birth of Raja Ranjeet Singh, and I have heard stories of Sikh atrocities from my grandmother, who heard from great-grandmother how muslim women were forced to jump into wells in order to save their chastity, yet die in the process.

Before their rule in Punjab, they had always attacked cities in the PUnjab, plundering and killing people, until the Royal troops arrived, when they fled back into the hills and jungles. Hindus and muslims were the victims of first the Ghakkars and then the Sikhs in those days.

Lahore has a very unfortuante history, having been destroyed 11 times...thrice by Sikh attackers.

The famous historian Kanhayya Laal (whose book Tareekhe Lahore I have had the pleasure to read) wrote about the state of Lahore at the time it was liberated by the British. The city had gone to the dogs, the economy and bathouses destroyed, and the mosques including the famous Badshahi Mosque turned into stables for the sikhs horses. Many mosques were used as rubbish dumps and madrassas were closed. Business of muslims had been appropriated.

The capture of Peshawar by Ranjit Singh's forces resulted in many atrocities. Raja Ranjit Singh insisted upon seeing the bodies of two dead Peshawaris tied to the main gate posts, every morning that he passed through them. A famous portrait of this scene can be found on the internet too.

As for the Marhattas, they have been variously called as highway robbers and tories, by several european historians, and succeeded in establishing a shadow administration within the Mughal empire.

Always on horseback, always read to move to the next atrocity.

Of cours, Shivaji was a great leader, and the great unifier of the Marhattas, yet it must be remembered that he himself was a Mughal Sardar, and had fought for them on various occasions, as many other Marhattas had.

Shivaji's father, Shahaji had been serving under the Bijapur muslim ruler Adil Shah (after he defecnted from another muslim ruler, Nizamshah), who awarded him with his jagir of Banglore to add to the jagir at PUne awarded to him by the Mughals.

Shivaji followed his father's ways, and rebelled against the Bijapur State. AdilShah, the ruler of the Bijapur state, sent Shivaji's former comrade, friend, and renowned commander Afzal Khan at the head of an army to quash the rebellion.

Shivaji sued for talks and negotiation, and history tells us that when the two met to embrace each other, Shivaji skilfully stabbed Afzal Khan in the back, killing him on the spot. It was said that he also mutilated his body, pulling out his entrails.

These methods aside, he was personally not a Xenophobic person, although his zeal for the Hindu religion was obvious. He had many muslims in his army and advisers, just as he had worked with muslims rulers prior to his own rise to power.

But Shivaji could not control the marhatta horsemen, who let loose a reigh of terror on h orseback, all the way from rajasthan, to the South, usually targetting muslim civilians. No amount of romanticising about the only Hindu king of the last 1000 years can hide these facts.

[wtf]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

Do you really think that after 1000 years, the muslims of India were still foreign? Are the muslims living today in Delhi, Hyderabad, still foreigners?

How many more millenia do they have to live in Bharat for them not be considered as foreigners by people like yourself?

You sound like Gandhi now. it is not the Indians who considered the Muslims foreigners, it is quite the other way around. If the people did not consider them as foreigners, why did they leave to form Pakistan and Bangladesh ?
(Jinnah's other plan, of separate electorates would have the same effect - having a country within a country).

Obviously, any Muslim who lives in Delhi, Hyderabad etc. are as Indian as any other Hindu citizen.

[vinod2070]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

Do you really think that after 1000 years, the muslims of India were still foreign? Are the muslims living today in Delhi, Hyderabad, still foreigners?

How many more millenia do they have to live in Bharat for them not be considered as foreigners by people like yourself?

By the time the Sikhs and Marathas emerged, the muslims of iNDIA and their rulers were very much an integral part of India, and had more in common with their non-muslim countrymen than muslims elsewhere. Or does their religion mean thtat they will always be considered outsiders?

The Sikh rule in Punjab started well before the birth of Raja Ranjeet Singh, and I have heard stories of Sikh atrocities from my grandmother, who heard from great-grandmother how muslim women were forced to jump into wells in order to save their chastity, yet die in the process.

Before their rule in Punjab, they had always attacked cities in the PUnjab, plundering and killing people, until the Royal troops arrived, when they fled back into the hills and jungles. Hindus and muslims were the victims of first the Ghakkars and then the Sikhs in those days.

Lahore has a very unfortuante history, having been destroyed 11 times...thrice by Sikh attackers.

The famous historian Kanhayya Laal (whose book Tareekhe Lahore I have had the pleasure to read) wrote about the state of Lahore at the time it was liberated by the British. The city had gone to the dogs, the economy and bathouses destroyed, and the mosques including the famous Badshahi Mosque turned into stables for the sikhs horses. Many mosques were used as rubbish dumps and madrassas were closed. Business of muslims had been appropriated.

The capture of Peshawar by Ranjit Singh's forces resulted in many atrocities. Raja Ranjit Singh insisted upon seeing the bodies of two dead Peshawaris tied to the main gate posts, every morning that he passed through them. A famous portrait of this scene can be found on the internet too.

As for the Marhattas, they have been variously called as highway robbers and tories, by several european historians, and succeeded in establishing a shadow administration within the Mughal empire.

Always on horseback, always read to move to the next atrocity.

Of cours, Shivaji was a great leader, and the great unifier of the Marhattas, yet it must be remembered that he himself was a Mughal Sardar, and had fought for them on various occasions, as many other Marhattas had.

Shivaji's father, Shahaji had been serving under the Bijapur muslim ruler Adil Shah (after he defecnted from another muslim ruler, Nizamshah), who awarded him with his jagir of Banglore to add to the jagir at PUne awarded to him by the Mughals.

Shivaji followed his father's ways, and rebelled against the Bijapur State. AdilShah, the ruler of the Bijapur state, sent Shivaji's former comrade, friend, and renowned commander Afzal Khan at the head of an army to quash the rebellion.

Shivaji sued for talks and negotiation, and history tells us that when the two met to embrace each other, Shivaji skilfully stabbed Afzal Khan in the back, killing him on the spot. It was said that he also mutilated his body, pulling out his entrails.

These methods aside, he was personally not a Xenophobic person, although his zeal for the Hindu religion was obvious. He had many muslims in his army and advisers, just as he had worked with muslims rulers prior to his own rise to power.

But Shivaji could not control the marhatta horsemen, who let loose a reigh of terror on h orseback, all the way from rajasthan, to the South, usually targetting muslim civilians. No amount of romanticising about the only Hindu king of the last 1000 years can hide these facts.

I am glad you shared this. Some of these things are new to me and I will share my detailed response.

To your question if I consider Muslims to be foreigners after living here for a thousand years. Its a difficult question and needs a bit nuanced response.

The straight answer is no, they are Indians. But only those who were either natives to the soil or those who have embraced this land and become Indians in heart and body.

Those who proudly claim "pure" foreign ancestry have not earned their Indian spurs in my opinion, the likes of the Hyderabad and Junagarh nawab ruling Indian masses were not Indians and were rightly kicked out (the Hyderabad razakaar threatened a Hindu genocide if India tried to take Hyderabad and carried out several atrocities!), the Bahamnis who used to carry out genocides in the Decan and destroyed the Vijayanagara empire and several temples did not become Indians irrespective of how many hundred years they stayed here and deserved to be punished and kicked out.

The Mughals were foreigners as well irrespective of the fact that some of thier rulers were just. The British rule is also considered to be much better than the native rule by some, that does not make them Indian.

Those who came to India in peace and embraced the country are Indian, those who conquered and mistreated Indians would never be Indian and hundreds of years won't change any of that.

Spain kicked out Arabs after 800 years. The point is the invaders always live o borrowed time and when times change, should expect to be given as good as they gave when they were ascendant.

Finally, the Indian Muslims would not side with foreign invaders to their land. Those who are happy for Mehmud's or Qasim's destruction of India were never Indians. Iranians did not welcome the Iraqi attackers just because they were Muslims too! Nor should Indian Muslims (and they don't, they have fought Pakistan as much as other Indians in the wars).

The division of India in 1947 does put a serious dent in the theory too. When some Pakistani Muslims deny the very idea of India, they prove they were never Indians. When they claim that India was not even civilized before the Islamic invaders, they lose all claims to having been Indians ever.

It is complex and I am not sure I have been very coherent.

[vinod2070]

Again, lets make a distinction between Muslims being Indians and throwing out the yoke of foreign Muslim rule. For the rule was surely foreign and needed to be thrown out.

The likes of Aurangzeb made it plain how Indians the Mughals were. In effect he undid all the good work done by Akbar, the only Mughal who really laid the foundations for the empire that became Indian to a large degree. His successors proved themselves unequal to the task however and were waiting to be kicked out.

[vinod2070]

Even though I have never read of the Sikh atrocities, it is certainly possible that they may have happened. You would expect that after what was done to the Sikh gurus by Jehangir and Aurangzeb.

I know Marathas and Jaats indulged in some banditry. If that led to the weakening and finally throwing of the foreign yoke, I think it was well worth it. A people getting their independence after hundreds of years would surely do all they can to get their independence.

Especially against the likes of Aurangzeb who does not even allow them their religious freedom.

The "crimes" don't seem that big when compared against the long history of Hindu persecution in their own land.

[vinod2070]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

No amount of romanticising about the only Hindu king of the last 1000 years can hide these facts.

Tuluva Sri Krishna Deva Raya (Tulu: ತುಳುವಾ ಶ್ರೀ ಕೃಷ್ಣದೇವರಾಯ, Kannada: ಶ್ರೀ ಕೃಷ್ಣದೇವರಾಯ, Telugu: శ్రీకృష్ణదేవరాయ) a.k.a. Krishna Raya (1509-1529 CE) was the famed Emperor of Vijayanagara empire. Presiding over the empire at its zenith, he is regarded as an icon by all Indians and especially the Tuluvas, Kannadigas and Telugus, one of the great emperors of India

Krishnadevaraya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So he was not the only Hindu king of the last 1000 years! Try and you will find hundreds of others, including scores in Rajasthan upto the time of Akbar and beyond.

I assume you know better than the myth of 1000 year Muslim rule!