Radicalism in the US and Europe

[Anakin]

Let me apply the same logic to some other things as well. Hitler wasn't responsible for the holocaust, rather it was the groundsmen of german army, or at best they were equally responsible for that. Of course for few it'd seem very logical, unfortunately in real life it's as absurd as it gets. Yes there is some blame on the part of the soldiers, but the lion's share lies elsewhere.

[CC1981]

Indian jaminders used to collect taxes for the english as well.

I don't think the comparison of zameendars and kings under british raj compares to that of the system under the Mughals. Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate/Bahmani empire operated under the concept of feudetory lords- lords of provinces who could maintain their own army, which would then be called upon by the King/Emperor when/if needed. Ie, during the mughal time, the rana of sanga had his own army, rana of mewar, the auodh nawaabs, bengal nawaabs, etc. all were provincial governors with their own armies. Often these 'posts' of nawabs/governors were not heriditary but brothers/cousins of the emperor- much the same way as in Europe of the same timeframe. The concept is completely analogous (in its military sense) to that of Dukes in medieval/reneissance Europe. As such, those people had the power to rebel and often did. In India however, there was neither enough unity, nor enough collective need of the lords to band up against the mughals. Consider the factor too that the Rajputs themselves fought amongst each other like madmen. The Ranas were not concerned about rest of India or how to overthrow the Muslim emperor of Delhi- they were more concerned about how to swallow up the Rana next to them. If Ajmer didnt wanna chomp Rahore, Mewa wanted to chomp on Malwa. Etc etc. Once it became clear to the Rajputs that sindh/punjab cannot be won back from muslim hands, their focus shifted almost entirely on how to dominate Rajputana. After the fall of the last empire of the gangetic basin (Pal empire), any military and nobility structure in UP,Bihar,Bengal and much of east India was shattered- hence those areas had governors that much much later became nawaabs when the mughals weakened. The subduing of the Deccan by the muslims kept the indians in central/southern India busy with their own immediate problem than challenging Delhi. In the British times, (1750s onwards, mind you, not too ancient history) the structure of governance had changed. Militaries were much more centralized in their organization back at Europe. Nobility were moving towards mecantilism and political power and military power was beginning to stratify in the hand of the emperor/king under modern setup of Admirals and Field Marshals. As such, when the British were in control of India, the local zameendars/puppet kings were most certainly not allowed to maintain an army- barring one or two exceptions. In overwhelming majority of cases, the king or nawab had no army, the british garrison answered to the major posted there, who answered to the military head in British India, who answered to overall military head of British forces and so on and so forth. Not a fair comparison.

[Anakin]

Agree, but the point remains which is they either had to rebel (and mostly likely be defeated) or comply (and do things as mughals wanted). But complying doesn't mean it was a combined effort, or jiziya was their idea, or whatever. And I mentioned infighting before as well. The english took advantage of it as well.

[CC1981]

Yes but a rebellion under the muslims had infinitely more chance of success than rebellion under the British. Under the british, you have literally no army. Under the mughals, you atleast had your own army and an alliance of dukes/governors to challenge central authority is not unheard of either, particularly in tumultous times such as dynasty changes. If there were enough political common will, instead of infighting, the rajputs could've easily marched on Delhi and taken it over when the muslims changed dynasties. Delhi sultanate changed dynasties several times. There was the Aibak dynasty, Khilji, Tughlag, Lodhi, Mughal, etc. dynasties, not to mention one or two i am forgetting. Indian kings wernt interested in expelling the muslims barring one or two exceptions. That is the sad reality. It certainly blows apart lurid ideas of Bheem and others who think that there were continuous and ongoing struggle against the muslim domination/opression. If that was so, muslim rulers would've been chucked out during their inter-dynastic struggles.

[Anakin]

If there were enough political common will, instead of infighting, the rajputs could've easily marched on Delhi Indian kings wernt interested in expelling the muslims barring one or two exceptions. That is the sad reality. It certainly blows apart lurid ideas of Bheem and others who think that there were continuous and ongoing struggle against the muslim domination/opression. If that was so, muslim rulers would've been chucked out during their inter-dynastic struggles.

A big IF. And there were some notable rebels, but as you pointed out yourself, you'd need a much more concerted effort. But generally indians have always been avoiding conflicts, and usually if the kings thought they'd survive themselves they'd avoid it more eagerly. Besides they weren't thinking in terms of religion or divine duty to fight and convert unlike the muslims. In spite of all these, it's simply ridiculous to say jiziya was a combined effort.

[The Outsider]

India witnessed an almost century long freedom movement against the British but there is no history of a nationwide rebellion against the Muslim rulers. PS: Am guilty of not reading the entire thread.

[CC1981]

By the time the Rajputs realized and got united it was a little too late.

When did the Rajputs oppose the mughals or any other muslims as an united force ?

Why this love for a Draconian Evil ideology ?

You fail to differentiate between ideology and people. Your approach is wrong and it will not work- as i've explained many times.

[Anakin]

India witnessed an almost century long freedom movement against the British but there is no history of a nationwide rebellion against the Muslim rulers. PS: Am guilty of not reading the entire thread.

Question of leadership and unity. Not because of what some of you are thinking ie they were better.

[The Outsider]

Question of leadership and unity. Not because of what some of you are thinking ie they were better.

Maybe these questions arose only when they felt truly under the hammer and oppressed?

[Lurker]

Some good discussion going on in this thread, and most of them in good environment. :thumbs_up: Okay if I may bring the discussion back about jaziya, what are the historical evidences of Jaziya being imposed in Indian subcontinent. I am pretty sure about it was so under Aurangzeb, what are the others? BB, to answer your question yes I do have problems with jaziya. Definitely when someone tells that I have to submit infront of his religion or face the sword. xxxx

[CC1981]

I am pretty sure about it was so under Aurangzeb, what are the others?

Jizya was instituted by most muslim rulers in India, few names (as i've mentioned before) are the exceptions to the rule but most implimented jizya.

[kumble_rocks]

Some good discussion going on in this thread, and most of them in good environment. :thumbs_up: Okay if I may bring the discussion back about jaziya, what are the historical evidences of Jaziya being imposed in Indian subcontinent. I am pretty sure about it was so under Aurangzeb, what are the others? BB, to answer your question yes I do have problems with jaziya. Definitely when someone tells that I have to submit infront of his religion or face the sword. xxxx

Other than Babur and Aurangzeb, Jizya was not implemented by any other Mughal rulers. Shah Jahan toyed with the idea simply because he had drained his resources and it was a means of war tax. Their was no religious angle that I can think of here. In fact , none of the Mughals other than Aurangazeb and babur were religious. In fact , Jahangir had a hindu mother. These are the facts and it is also a fact that Jizya was levied by most Islamic rulers before Akbar. But , their were periods, for example during Sher Shah or Razia Sultan administration , this tax was not levied.

[CC1981]

In fact , none of the Mughals other than Aurangazeb and babur were religious.

Humayun and Jahangir were fairly religious though they somehow managed to squeeze in their whoring and opium-smoking in there somehow. They wern't religious enough to go convert at sword-point but were complicit of putting forth an islamic state policy and not the multicultural policy that was previously adopted by hindu/buddhist rulers and only sparingly adopted by muslim rulers.

[kumble_rocks]

Humayun and Jahangir were fairly religious though they somehow managed to squeeze in their whoring and opium-smoking in there somehow. They wern't religious enough to go convert at sword-point but were complicit of putting forth an islamic state policy and not the multicultural policy that was previously adopted by hindu/buddhist rulers and only sparingly adopted by muslim rulers.

Humayun suffered from indifferent health throughout his lifetime and on that count I could agree that he was fairly religious , but by no means a Sharia follower. In fact we celebrate Raksha Bhandan because of him . After all, Rani Karnavati of Chittor sent a rakhi to Humayun when she was threatened by Bahadur Shah of Mewar. Humayun came to the rescue of a Hindu women against a muslim ruler. Anakin, please take note.:wink_smile: In my opinion, Jahangir was not a religious person. To me , it was a facade by this pot smoking drunkard to please his Islamic subjects. But like you said, no way they were religious enough to go convert at sword-point and implement strict sharia. They enjoyed music, dance and booze after all.:wink_smile:

[Lurker]

Other than Babur and Aurangzeb' date=' Jizya was not implemented by any other Mughal rulers. Shah Jahan toyed with the idea simply because he had drained his resources and it was a means of war tax. Their was no religious angle that I can think of here. In fact , none of the Mughals other than Aurangazeb and babur were religious. In fact , Jahangir had a hindu mother. These are the facts and it is also a fact that Jizya was levied by most Islamic rulers before Akbar. But , their were periods, for example during Sher Shah or Razia Sultan administration , this tax was not levied.[/quote'] Thanks KR. :thumbs_up: I wouldn't read much into Aurangzeb's act. The guy was a nutcase plain and simple. What sane person kills his own brothers(Dara Sikhoh and Muraad), overthrows his father(Shah Jehan) and was in continued fight with his sons. One of his sons, Akbar, rebelled against him first with the help of Rajput Kings, and lateron faught alongside Shivaji's son Sambhaji Rao against his Dad. Aurangzeb might be the only person who faught with all the three generations of his bloodline. I am not sure why certain Pakistani hold him in high light at all, he was a nut case. Babur, I need to read a bit on him. A good warrior who somehow settled in India but never lost his love for Samarkhand, modern Afganistan where he was born and raised. Other than that Mughal rulers were certainly not anti-Hindu,many of them were born of Hindu women, including the very last Bahadaur Shah Zafar. While there were kings like Akbar who was very impartial to a religion, there were also personalities like Dara Sikoh who got the Hindu religious texts Upnishads etc translated into Arabic for wider reach. xxx

[Lurker]

Tax collection Details http://voi.org/books/tpmsi/ch04.htm Full picture : http://voi.org/books/tpmsi/ Apologies for the lengthy nature of the links ... not in moi control :dontknow:

BB, A quick search on "jizyah" on the link gave 1 response, that too in Bibliography :sad_smile::sad_smile:. Last time I checked even for Sharia the response was not very good - 4 responses and 3 of them were non-relevant :sad_smile::sad_smile: Seems like you are hell bent on making me read this entire link. Alright will check it out, but if I don't find any connection you better be prepared to read a 50 page article too :angry_smile::angry_smile: xx

[kumble_rocks]

With due respect can we see some links that provide detailed insight into these events and the context and such other details... ? Otherwise I can quite easily write the opposite of what you say.

Bheem , With all due respect , do you really need proof for incidents such as Raksha Bhandan. Come on mate, I speak from my reading experience , not based on internet links. But , if you still insist , I will look up and provide it later. BTW, with all due respect , you provide links from people who are hostile or who can be deemed to be hostile to Islam. Anyway , I would really welcome your opinion on Jahangir ,Sher Shah and Humayun. Please enlighten me.

[Lurker]

Its not just them .... there is a whole generations of Ummah look upto Aurangzeb as the best thing to have happened to their religion. You will obviously frown upon that ... but that is the truth. One such gentleman was Shah Wali Ullah ... His father was the chief ulema under Aurangzeb and was highly influenced by his "works". So after the decline of the Mughal empire when Aurangzeb passed away this guy invited Afghan rulers to invade Delhi - Reason ? It had fallen into the hands of Hindu rulers and hence had become Dar-Ul-Harb. As I said in my earlier post in this thread ... these letters he wrote to Abdali still exist. He later on went to found the Deobandi(?) Madrasa and that still flourishes IN INDIA as we speak.His works influenced a whole bunch of ML leaders starting from the very early days in 1830s-1850s. Jinnah , Md Iqbal being the prominent ones. One important thing about this guy was he was very critical of Akbar's tolerant policies. Its all there in that site I provided.

Yes I will frown. I will frown on the people who support Aurangzeb just as much as I would frown on people who support Modi, now you would frown upon me. See there would always be some religious hardliner. In the current book - The Last Mughal - that I am reading there are quite a few right wing Muslim preachers who try to convince Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah Zafar to show pro-Muslim and a very anti-Hindu stance. He is suggested to pull away from a lot of activities he did that were exceedingly Hindu, like participating in Holi and Dusshera. Indeed Zafar is so taken by many a Hindu religious practises, like astronomy, that his kingship(whatever remains) is dictated by its influence. I wish I could scan a few pages and put it here. By the way I am almost 3/4th done so you can expect a little review when am finally done.

[CC1981]

too much destruction to write....not pleasant apart from the GT Road. __________________

If you think that there is 'not much pleasant apart from GT Road' when you think of Sher Shah Suri, you clearly know very very little about this excellent ruler. Somehow i don't expect you to know the name of a SINGLE great muslim ruler in India or worldwide with the possible exception of Akbar.

[Lurker]

Iam just providing facts Lurks.... and I await your response on that thread about Gandhi and the destruction he brought upon us...

Man I must say I have to really drag my arse into that thread, its been so long I kinda lost interest, but dont worry I will.

That just highlights the thinking of his administrators and others who are incharge. Anyhow Bahadur Shah Zahar was nothing more than a puppet in the hands of British and had very little control. To use him as an example for forming a opinion on Moghul/Muslim rule is not logical.

Well his Administrators were not anti-Hindu by any remote chance. Some of them would be as is there in any Administration really. Overall they were a good bunch. Zafar's reign does not often get the credit it deserves in Indian history. As an example the literary scholars in his time - Zauq, Ghalib, Hali etc- are all time greats. Unless you are willing to just dump away Urdu achievements you would be hard pressed not to acknowledge its greatness. And like I mentioned the King celebrated all festivals himself, I am talking of the extent where the King hurls abeer/gulal on wives on Holi. Here is an extract from the book. This is an extract from a letter that a British soldier send back home, at height of 1857 rebellion. "I beleive it is a great satire on the Mohammedans, many of which are fighting for their faiths*, that at this Eid, under a Mohammedan King, no one was permitted to sacrifice a cow" * - for a reference towards Ghazis, many Mohammedian jihadis who had joined the 1857 rebellion to take on Brits. Zafar had his fallacies, specially of being indecisive at times, but he was quite good towards Hindus. xxx