I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.
If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. i think that would have been even more disastrous than the white man’s british raj for the muslims?
the British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan’s leadership in the late 1800s and later the Quaid-e-Azam’s muslim league fought to ensure that we have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don’t rule over the entire sub-continent
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
is there one unified muslim perspective on anything in the subcontinent? are the destinies of people linked based solely on religion? it is dumb to pit everything as pious muslims vs schemy hindu banyas. of course one can always rationalize that two centuries of slavery under the white man's yoke was better than being under hindu raj.
speaking of power vacuums and the british raj, i believe it did pave the path for native rulers in many parts of the subcontinent. punjab and sindh hadnt seen a local ruler in almost a millenium (counting ranjeet singh out).
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Before you can say 'In...', queer is there, before you can say 'Hin...', queer is there to defend and before you can say 'Gan...' queer is there with the history of the peace movement started by Gandhi...
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
I think the british should have ruled over the sub-continent for a little longer and partitioned it into many more than just 2 different countries.
Sub-continent should have been partitioned into atleast a dozen different countries on a linguistic basic if not religion.
if i was an indian muslim, i would prefer to live under the white man's british raj instead of a hindu-dominated country
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
when i see posts like this i cant help but be awestruck at what a difference 60 years has had on the collective IQs of populations split across a manmade line; one fed a socialistic wannabe-secular agenda, and the other a religious supremacy one. lahori pai, your wish for white man's raj's over your nation has been granted - check lajawab's signature for further info.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
you still have not answered my question.
I think the british raj was a good outcome for the muslim interests at that crucial time in history.
the only mistake made by the british was that they didn’t partition sub-continent into atleast a dozen countries based on a linguistic basis.
As for your snide remarks about Pakistan’s alliance with USA. People like Lajawab are jahil mullahs who don’t care about Pakistan’s strategic interests.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Don't be a khota.
Brits were just as bad as Sikhs and Hindus, Muslims suffered all the same under them.
From what my Punjabi and Bangali friends tell me from their grandparents Brit Raj was an ugly period of our history, however in our areas they left us pretty much alone becuase they were probably scared of us.
Sikhs didn't rule much of India though, Mughals were just gandus anyway but maybe with a bit of determination Mughals/Afghans could have easily regained what we'd lost but I suppose what was to happen was to happen, Brit Raj was inevitable.
We still would have been better of in a united India, we Muslims would have had a better representation in the country, now we're weaker than we ever would have been and we're divided into three and we've let ourselves down and the Indian and Bengali Muslims down.
The real jaahils are your types blind moranic nationalists who don't know what they're standing up for, whether they're coming or going.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
The Hindu Marathas were always too divided amongst themselves (with a few brief years of exception) too ever form a functional large scale empire.
Beside which, viewing it as Muslim-championing Mughals versus Hindu-championing Marathas is a gross oversimplification.
The Mughals raised Hindus to positions of great power in their empire and the Marathas raised Muslims to positions of power.
For example, one of the Mughal expeditions to try and crush the marathas was commanded by a Hindu Prince who had sworn loyalty to the Mughals. In the army facing him, Maratha Confederation forces included Muslim commanders who were opposed to the Mughals.
If the British had not occupied India, all that you would end up with would be many countries on the Indian Subcontinent. Most, if not all, would still be dictatorial monarchies. From the example of Japan, the countries would probably have gotten indutrialised of their own accord - the argument that the British were the only way India could have modernised is torpedoed by the japanese example.
India would probably have been better off without the British, even with being heavily divided, it would eventually just turn into another Europe, methinks.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
the hindu baniya had been enslaved by the muslims and british for over 1000 years. That is why i consider the british raj a good thing.
it is just my contempt for the hindu, that i would not mind having the british ruling over the sub-continent for a few hundred more years as long the baniya remained enslaved.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
I think the lowest point of the Muslim was that they let them selves to be enslaved. I could never understand why they didn’t resist the British. Rather they became their pitho and fought their wars. Pathetic.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Minime Bhaijan, if that didn’t happen, my ancestors wouldn’t have made so much money. The oldest British Indian Ironsmith (Lohar) firm was registered in Zila Sargodha in 1870s by my great great grandfather, and we were the largest supplier of Bayonets (the Khanjar placed on the rifle) in both World Wars.
Good bless the King.
The Bunyaad of our ancestral home in my village was laid by The representative of the Viceroy of India himself. We are told that the Cement was placed on a plate made of pure Gold for Sahib to use the Trovel (also made of pure Gold) to poar the cement with.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Sir ji, but the poor people of Sargodah never knew that the gold was stolen from their cities in the first place. Anyway, I am not proud of what our ancestors did when the British were in India. Especially the (muslim) Punjabis, they were like drooling in front of the Raj, never ever thought beyond their tid.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Minime Bhaijan, I think you have been jobbed by some Molvi. You should be proud of your heritage and ancestry regardless of how much they fkd up. Blaming them for the current misery is taking a cheap shot. It is only sorryass Punjabis who will take blame for what wrong was done by their predecessors. My ancestors lived peacefully with people of all faiths, and now we can’t even live with people who we share our faith with. So blaming them for the current day mess is rather cynical. They did the best the could under the circumstance. We should do what we can, starting with rejecting the fanaticism imported from Soodi Arabia.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Sir ji, your fascination of Saudi fanaticism sometime surprises me, may be you have developed this since you been to the US, its a norm here, but thats not the point. The strange part is that even the Molvi succumbed to Raj and the masses followed. But still, I am very proud of my heritage and even more so for my ancestors, that Allah showed them the right path. But what they did during the Raj is what I am not so proud off and they totally fcukedup, they chose to live in slavery rather than living free, and there can be no excuse for that. I wish they had done what the Americans did to the British.
May be, since now I have used America as an example you would understand what I mean.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
No Minime Bhaijan, You certainly have no legs to stand on. How can you talk about being slave of the British while not mentioning a single world about the biggest (400 years of slavery) of the Moghals? Having a circumcised pepe doesn’t mean that one type of slavery is right while the other is not. Moghals did the most horrible things to the natives, starting with killing the indigenous cultures (luckily they couldn’t exterminate it). all sub-continental cultures thrived under the British. So if you wana talk about forced Slavery, talk about the Muslim conquests of mother India.
Re: Was The British Raj In Sub-continent a good outcome from a muslim perspective?
Buzurgo, all you are doing is adding more Panni to the Katchi lassi, so where its going to stop? Since the topic was regarding British Raj, I said we should have resisted just like the Americans.
