Interesting debate. Until now I had thought only us Muslims love to blame everyone else except ourselves for our present day downtrodden situation, but its really heartening to know (based solely on the posts here) that Indians are at too. Them tyrant Muslims, through their forcible conversions, brought a screeching halth to what can only be imagined as heaven on earth. :k:
In a historic sense, u blame where the blame lies. Muslim invaders for being intolerant, hindu rulers for being weak and not defending their borders etc. Certain historical happenings have an effect even today. We should not shy away from what really happened and the consequences just because it makes some people uncomfortable. But we have to be ready to accept a different POV if presented with facts. We can only learn from the mistakes of history and move on. Can we blame the present day situation of the subcontinent on history ? No we need to learn to better ourselves. The present quagmire the countries are caught it is all us because of rising corruption, intolerance and laziness. Wait it looks like history seems to be repeating itself all over again…
You would complain both ways … Integrate then you would say the Hindus were forcefully converted and no integration and you complain of the Hindus being set apart. The proof is that despite Persian being made the state language other languages were allowed to thrive … This is why there are Sanskrit based languages still around in India today.
Once again, Muslim rule did not spread all over modern India. The region around Himalayas (Himachal, Uttaranchal), deep south (Travancore state) and parts of Rajasthan (Mewar) never came under Muslim rule.
Who before Akbar in Mughal dynasty opt for conversion? Babar who died short after conquest of India? Unlucky Humayon, who wandered all his life in Sindh and Persia and could get throne in last years of his life. Even after Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan were not inclined to conversion. Aurangzeb is considered bigot, but did he really got people converted, nothing can be said with absolute authority. People after Aurangzeb to Bahadur Shah Zafar were busy in saving their little state. This shows that whole Mughal dynasty was not inclined to conversion over a period of almost more than 300 years.
Not just Mughal dynasty but Ghaznavids, Muhammad Ghori, Mamluks, Khiljis and Timur. Some opted for conversion and others just executed Hindus and other non-Muslims.
I have absolutely no qualms looking at a different POV that isn’t painting Muslims invaders in a very flattering light, but the way you’re coming across it appears as if everything was hunky dory until Muslims appeared and Hindu rulers’ only fault was being weak. How can you so sure that your opinion and your sources may not have some inkling of bias in them? I am not saying that Muslim invaders didn’t commit any atrocity, but things under their rule can’t be as bad as their naysayers are claiming nor were they as exemplary as their cheerleaders would have us believe.
Most of these dynasties didn’t spare Muslims of India too. Why did you forget to mention Nadir Shah and Abdali, who were invited by people like Shah Waliullah against Maratha and they didn’t looted all without any discrimination of faiths. Most of the time, these wars and invasions were for loot and not for conversion. Even Ghaznavi who is reported as ‘But-Shikan’ idol-destroyer was more interested in the wealth of Somnath. He couldn’t see the Budhas of bamiyan on his way to India.
So there were motivated conversions besides forceful conversion. What are your views about the idea that many people converted to Islam in India due to social problems like caste system?
I agree, but since the topic has veered to persecution of Hindus and others by Muslim rulers I wanted to stick to the topic. I dont deny that Muslims in India might have suffered against Muslim invaders from Central Asia but not as much as non-Muslims did.