Muslims not ruled till 1947, we only read abt. jijiya and tirthyatri tax in history, now a days medias are excited, and people have other occupations and they do not have to time to ponder upons such minuscle issues. 

It is one way of intrepreting history which may not be accepted by all. I fail to comprehend the rationale behind the construct that we were under an absolute muslim rule for 900 long years and that too was characterized by oppression and repression of hindus. Even among Muslim rulers there existed quite a good number of them who were liberal and enlightened and greatly enriched our rich composite culture. How one can fundamentally and factually deny the fact India is a mosaic of diverse , pluralistic culture and our embracing secularism is a logical acknowledgement and acceptance of this truth. If any misguided mulim ruler imposed punitive taxes, Hindus did even worse by simply trampling upon very basic

rights by denying their own brethren entry into temples and places of worship.

You will not be happy reading my post if I say Hindu is coward race and to add to it we have no shortage of back stabbers. The history has enough to prove we are jealous of each other and have no unity however loud we sing the songs of diversity and unity. I do not find it astounding people saying we were better off during British/Muslim Rule. We have no self confidence, besides being too lazy to uplift our present condition which presents us as a laughing stock. In fact we are best under regime that kicks in the A** to make us work. remember the emergency period the best time in post independence history of India.

Dear suni51, what you have stated will not please many, but in a way is a fact. Yes my own grandfather always said british rule was better as during the war the British kept prices stable. Indians need to have pride and do away with the caste to come to terms with their historical mission

Dear Chinmoy, What you have stated is the general line of thought. If you read the history of Muslim rule ( Will Durant etc) they write that All Muslim rulers were bigoted and so called tolerent Muslim rulers only were a little less  harsh. Even Akbar when  was told by Badyuni that he wanted to die his beard with the blood of Hindus, Akbar was delighted and gave him two fistfulls of Ashrafi( gold coins).

British united India by bringing smaller royalties and cities under one rule which continued after they left and we should be thankful to them for this also spread of English education ..Muslim rulers on the other hand only believed in extending their empire and religion by force. But History cannot be changed and the only thing we can do is to take lessons from it ... 

Yes i agree Usha, it is a good observation

True Usha. History neither can be changed nor distorted, however people may try.

As per history, Akbar ruled moderatelt and that is why he is still be remembered but on the other hand Aurangzeb who tied to implment saria laws on the process he ended Moghul rule, Similarly, during British regime, there are some rulers who are still reverred for their nice work, such as in Odisha, Mr. Ravenshaw, heralded many beneficial works and when two years back, oldest college of Odisha, Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, is a bone of contention for changing names to Subhash Ch, Bose college, as it is birthplace of Netaji and stayed till he was 18 years, but many sholars felts this name should not be changed as this would disrepsect Mr. Ravenshaw for his welfare works.

In fact, the entire line of describing history as Hindu, Muslim or British era is misconceived. The original inhabitants were tribal or Dravadian. Even the North Indian Aryans are said to have invaded from the Arab countries or Afghanistan.  The common people- Hindu and Muslim- were never in ruling or any dominant position. Hindu or Muslim, the rule was just dynastic. The Muslim rule was also a dynastic rule only. Different dynasties- Khilji, Ghulam, Moghul etc ruled from time to time. Akbar, the Great  was most Muslim emperor but he had significant minister like Raja Todar Mal, courtier like Birbal, Army General Man Singh- all Hindus.  The Hindu kings also had some Muslim generals or ministers.

There is another aspect.  There was only dynastic rule before British entry. During Hindu period, this virtually meant rule of Khstriya (warrior caste) in consultation with  Brahmin (intellectual/ priestly castes) for benefit of (Vaishya) trading community. The lower castes were always tyrannized. Most likely, the lower castes would have felt better during so called Muslim rule. It goes to credit of British that they introduced rule of law as against caste based oppression in Hindu period.  It goes without saying that thanks to Dr. Ambedkar,  we have a constitution that gives liberty/ equality/ justice to all irrespective of faith, gender, caste.