Hindus were ruled by Muslims for 900 years. Could this have had an effect on their psyche that even after getting freedom in 1947 they are still in awe of Muslims.

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.  

MG Singh wrote:

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).

True..Such Muslims would be truly only a handful who can be termed as being sincerely tolerant and respectful of Hindus. For most part, Muslims were oppressive and exhibited varying levels of tyranny towards Hindus. Hindu women were never safe anywhere and were constantly in threat of being abducted by the Muslims. Farmers were constantly being looted of their hard earned grains, temples were pillaged and destroyed. The only aspect of positivity that I can see through all those centuries is that our culture has been considerably enriched by Muslim influence in terms of architecture, food, dressing etc. But it is an undeniable fact that it has greatly influenced our psyche so much that our so-called secularism can be defined as 'appeasing Muslims at all costs'.

As I rightly apprehended that my post would spark off some heat and replies of a few good friends have more than enough of it to scorch me!Some Hindus have this incorrigible wont of wallow in anger and self-pity in alternate motions n the face of very harsh facts. Quoting selective historical accounts to suit one's irrational hypothesis is another bad habit. Well, to any student of history , Akabar was more famous as the propunder of a syncretic religion. A person evolves as is a ruler who goes through various phases of life and changes his or views. At what stage and at what age Akbar was an extremist is not known but what is established is that his experience taught him to accept diversity as the core and soul of Indian culture. I hold completely opposite views to what Usha says on Muslim rulers in general but would go the whole hog in rousing approval when she talks about the absurdity of developing obession with a part of history and forming one's preconceived notions  and liberally spicing them up with unauthenticated historical texts. 

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

As I rightly apprehended that my post would spark off some heat and replies of a few good friends have more than enough of it to scorch me!Some Hindus have this incorrigible wont of wallow in anger and self-pity in alternate motions n the face of very harsh facts. Quoting selective historical accounts to suit one's irrational hypothesis is another bad habit. Well, to any student of history , Akabar was more famous as the propunder of a syncretic religion. A person evolves as is a ruler who goes through various phases of life and changes his or views. At what stage and at what age Akbar was an extremist is not known but what is established is that his experience taught him to accept diversity as the core and soul of Indian culture. I hold completely opposite views to what Usha says on Muslim rulers in general but would go the whole hog in rousing approval when she talks about the absurdity of developing obession with a part of history and forming one's preconceived notions  and liberally spicing them up with unauthenticated historical texts. 

Well Chinmoy, you know very well that this is a topic that does makes sparks fly a lot! And I agree with you and Usha that it is indeed absurd to become obsessed with certain parts of history and forms notions etc. But then, isn't it equally true that the certain faction we are talking about gets most benefits, which sadly they do not use to emancipate their own community, all the leaders keep working hard to please them. Those people are teaching their children fanaticism in their madarasas to the extent that the kids grow up hating others. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction so obviously in face of such extremism, it is only fair that Hindus unite and try asserting themselves. So the overall idea should be that when we talk about doing away casteism and religious fanaticism, efforts have to be made by everyone, not just Hindus alone.

Sorry to say all of you have not judged the intentions of Muslims. They have just one point in their mind- WE MUST OWN THIS WORD, THIS WAY OR THAT WAY- INSHALLAH. As far architecture is concerned we have rich heritage of architectural beauty scattered all over PRE- Muslim INDIA.

@Kalyani

As far as growth Muslim fundamentalism in India is conceacceptableme has to be laid at the doors of our dishonest,immoral politicians who have been treated as vote banks. It is a political debacle and needs to be examined as such and has nothing to do with secularism which forms very rightly as one of corner-stones of this nation. Whipping crude emotions in inflammatory language is one thing and forming pragmatic solutions to a complex problem is an altogether different kettle of fish. Ignorance of law is no excuse in the eye of law. Similarly creating history by making an imperfect study of it renders the entire exercise useless, motivated and worse. I have asked in several fora including this one the origin of word "Hindu" and what did "Hinduism" stand for? I haven't got a satisfactory one excepting its association with the river Indus. Who were the ones who pre-lived Aryans? Does the word exist in any religious texts? Was sutee and untouchability sanctioned under any religious prescription? Before you think of forging unity among Hindus , resolve these. If this land witnessed innumberable invasions, don't blame the invaders alone, we invited them openly by engaging fratricidal and internecine strife and war - by our inhuman, pernicious,divisive social practices in the garb of religion.

@M.G

I am quite comfortable with my general line in the absence of any acceptable

I find this business of renaming silly and should be avoided

Dear Gushan, thank you for your learned comment, but in case you read the historicals works of the great historians they always refer to history as per the Muslim period and Hindu period etc. Refer Will Durant and Arnold  Toyanbe( he wote an excellent biography of Bose  as well). We cannot escape from this nomenclature. When we say Mughal rule or Muslim rule , it does not mean that no hindus were intcheir service. The fact is a few Hindus did join them and were exempt from Jizzia etc. but it means that overall rule was by the Muslimm and the common Hindus suffered. Even in Hyderabad during the days of the Nizam, with 93% Hindu population, the repersentation in the Nizaims court was just 5%. It was the same in the Ottoman empire one of the greats of history. many Jews and Christians were part of the Ottoman court, but over all it was a Muslim era.

Would you like to read this message

Click the message to read it

MG Singh wrote:

Dear Gushan, thank you for your learned comment, but in case you read the historicals works of the great historians they always refer to history as per the Muslim period and Hindu period etc. Refer Will Durant and Arnold  Toyanbe( he wote an excellent biography of Bose  as well). We cannot escape from this nomenclature. When we say Mughal rule or Muslim rule , it does not mean that no hindus were intcheir service. The fact is a few Hindus did join them and were exempt from Jizzia etc. but it means that overall rule was by the Muslimm and the common Hindus suffered. Even in Hyderabad during the days of the Nizam, with 93% Hindu population, the repersentation in the Nizaims court was just 5%. It was the same in the Ottoman empire one of the greats of history. many Jews and Christians were part of the Ottoman court, but over all it was a Muslim era.

Basically, all rules were dynastic. Muslim rule does not mean rule by Muslims as such. This was always by certain dynasty. Even the Muslim dynasties competed to get power. Mughals were most powerful. They defeated Sher Shah Suri. Earlier some other dynasties had ruled.  Hindu rule did not mean power to all Hindus as only certain dynasties- Mostly Khstriya were in power. It is also obvious that Muslim rulers also did not largely rule according to Sharia or Islamic law. So their rule cannot be considered as Islamic.  There is no harm in dividing history in Hindu, Muslin, British period as long as we understand limitation of such classification.  There are different ways to classify history.  The Marxist have their own way known as 'materialist interpretation of history- dividing history in period- primitive communism, slavery, feudal, capitalist and so on. 

I think the original inhabitants of India is neither, Aryans or Dravidians, orignal inhabitants are Austic or aborigins or tribals they are popularly called. Though all these are different from religion these are races not religions and Hindu or Sanatan dharma are not from Aryans, as they are derived from austic or traibal race and dravidians. All these three races united to be Sanatan dharma whereas in case of Muslims and other religions it becomes difficult due to certain other issues as most of these religions seemed to be in opposition to sanatan the real reason behind it.