Centuries of Muslim rule

>it's 80% Hindu now so it must have always been that way

It was far more mixed, then most "moved" to Pakistan

Outside Delhi, Muslim identity wasn't really a thing in India. It was regional/linguistic identity first, religious second and finally a broad nationalism. Only the nawabs, sultans and British insisted on a purely Muslim identity.

Modern day Pakistan didn't even want an Islamic state. Bengalis did want one but realized their mistake quickly and reverted to a Bengali first identity. Though things are looking bad again. The ones who wanted one were the nawabs of UP and CP and relatively wealthy of Bombay and Delhi.

Identity politics has always been a game of the rich.

Identity politics has always been a game of the

Hindus were too strong, Mughals could only get vassal states not completely overrun everyone like Muhammad. Read up on the Mughals, much of their armies were Hindu and had several Hindu generals. This is similar to the Janissaries of the Ottomans.

When the British left they did their best to divide and separate India. What you see today is actually the result of piecing back together +500 principalities by the initial Indian Governments the British had purposefully separated to the best of their abilities to keep India splintered. They succeeded as far as religion was concerned because Islam is just fucked up and crazy.

>Thread

India didn't even fucking exist before the Raj.

>India didn't even fucking exist before the Raj

Nation states were not really an Indian concept, they are more of a European one, but the shared identity of India as a civilization is very much real. Both the Greeks and Iranians collectively referred to the whole region as 'India'. This is also why you see apart from Islamic elements the country has remained whole, different from say, UK, an inorganic state, which could realistically fall apart in the next 5 years.

>mughals
>allowed Hindus to live in peace

Found the Marxist.

>nation states are the only way people have a shared identity.
pretty much this. The Ahmadiyya community of bombay were some of the principal financers of the two nation movement, and Gandhi opened a pandora's box by starting the khilafat movement, thus tying religion and nationalism in india irrevocably.

There was also a huge amount of migration from western UP and delhi during the actual partition and the culture of delhi was changed from a islamic, mughal nawab one to a punjabi dominated one. You can still see small parts of the original culture in old delhi.

hey bhakt, every mughal wasn't aurangzeb. The Rajputs were allowed to keep their faith and were major supporters of mughal rule after Rana Pratap died. Or are you gonna call that a gommie lie too?

Mughals were shit. All Islamic invaders were, Islam is a fucked-up religion. See: Present day. Nothing has or will change. Better to nuke the Kaba and just call it a day.

Thank god that cancer never went past the Balkans.

what the fuck are you babbling about retard. Islam being shitty has nothing much to do with mughal rule that was generally tolerant compared to it's western cousins.

>Islamic Rule
>Tolerant

Literally doesn't exist. Even present day scholars admit that most references to 'tolerance' are just bullshit from Islamic sources. unironically propaganda.

And I never said anything about the 'West' being tolerant. Just that Islam is a fucked up region and anyone that really follows it turns into a crazy fucker that blow people up over cartoons.

It's funny how left-wing historians deal with Islamic sources in India.

Sources that talk about toleration in the Mughal era must be taken at face value, while sources that talk about massacres during the Middle Ages, like chronicles of Mahmud of Ghazni campaigns that talk about huge massacres and destruction of temples are to be considered exaggerations.

Whatever works to clean the record of Islam in India. After all, the INC really needs those Muslim votes.

What does any of that have to do with Mughal rule in India retard?
The mughals were known for having a tolerant streak because it helped maintain their empire. So did the previous delhi and deccan sultanates because they were largely turkic elites that were stuck in a foreign land and playing the religion card didn't get them that far.

The akbarnama which is an important document in mughal history is now propaganda?
good, kindly explain how the fuck the marathas were unpopular once they started expanding in northern india and kept mughal traditions and forms of government despite it being so shitty?

We aren't talking about the initial invasions or the spread of islam into india and the loss of sindh. You are welcome to start a thread about those if you want to.

>Buddhists who converted to Islam
unfortunate

>that's why there are no more Buddhists around in India but still shitloads of Poos

Though there are about 8 million Buddhists in India and most of Sri-Lanka is still Buddhist

a lot of those buddhists followed ambedkar because india has a nauseating tradition of hero worship.

Well the Mauryan empire did unify most of India and most of Afghanistan as well as parts of Burma directly and vassalize the remainder and rule over it indirectly so it arguably existed for a time

plus the entire concept of aryavarta

>The mughals were known for having a tolerant streak because it helped maintain their empire

This is factually not correct. Most real historians admit that Mughals did their best to whitewash their own histories, very similar to how countries like France try to whitewash their colonial record. The idea that Islamic rule was somehow a 'peaceful' one is fucking insane.

Might as well claim that ISIS is 'tolerant', because they are a very real and honest interpretation of how Muslims did things. Although, probably less brutal than Muhammad.

>mughals regularly have hindu courtiers, hindu generals and orthodox hindu rajputs serving in their armies and rising to high positions while keeping their faith.
>this means they were intolerant.

The mughals were far less tolerant than the marathas or most local nawabs or petty kingdoms, but compared to other islamic empires of the era or mainland europe during that age, they were far more tolerant than was the norm.

>all the Muslims in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are actually the descendants of Buddhists who converted to Islam

This isn't really true. Mostly this is a myth pushed by Pakistan to try and separate their ancestors from India. They also claim to have primarily Arab descendant, and think that Urdu is a form of Arabic instead of Hindi mixed with Farsi. Which is all total horseshit as well.

>they were far more tolerant than was the norm.

They were brutal and bloodthirsty as fuck by any modern standard. ISIS would be seen as 'tolerant' compared to them. Maybe if you compare them to the atrocities of that gay bastard Muhammad they can gain some semblance of 'tolerance'.

Bengal was at the far edge of India at the time the muslims came to power in India, with brahmins only recently given land under the Senas. Were the muslims late by a hundred years, bengal's culture might well have been different. As it was, bengal was too diffuse to actually resist islamic conversion efforts.

The spread of the disease called Islam is a curse that will keep giving until it is finally wiped out by the rest of the world tired of Islamic bullshit.

I just wonder who is going to be first: China, India, or Europe?

>any modern standard
we aren't talking about modern european standards retard. We are talking about the 1500s and the 1600s.
I like how morons like you suddenly compare the mughals to ISIS when wahabism didn't exist during the mughal era.

The modern era also saw millions of people killed by their own leaders for ideology and ethnocentric nationalism, and millions more displaced.

can we talk about history?
or do you want to make a new thread to contain your verbal discharge?

Quite literally by the 1500 and 1600 standards in Europe they would have been intolerant bastards. By the standards of quite literally anyone, including every other Indian empire up until that point, other than other Islamic Empires they would be seen as shit.

They full qualify as intolerant bastards and murders. Par for the course of that shit death cult and false prophet.

>intolerant bastards
>europeans chimp out and kill people because some blokes print the bible in a non latin language
>meanwhile akbar starts his OC donut steel religion and dara shikhoh writes a treatise on how islam and hinduism are pretty cool.

You aren't even talking history. Just trying to back-peddle and redefine things to suit your interests.

Mughals were not a tolerant empire. Not by today's standard, not by Indian standards, not by European 1500-1600s standards, not to anyone's standards but a few Caliphates that had no qualms butchering and force-converting millions.

>not by 1500 to 1600 european standards
oh yes, because europe was a tolerant bastion of humanism in the 1500s and the 1600s with all the religious struggles between proddies and catholics being epic funposting and all around banter. The Thirty years war was just a prank bro.

>Kill and convert millions
>impose taxes on non-muslims
>regularly butcher non-muslims
>let violent groups roam the country killing non-muslims
>destroy precious artifacts and countless temples
>build mosques over them
>engage in total warefare
>put babies on pikes and attempt multiple genocides on Sikhs
>get defeated in the end
>have your legacy be 'le tolerant' empire by a bunch of retarded communist histories, corrupt politicians, and Wahhabi funded Islamic groups.

When the day of reckoning comes, and Mecca itself is annihilated by the nations tired of that cancer known as Islam, I hope you are there to see it.

Only Akbar could really be considered "tolerant" desu.

>Though there are about 8 million Buddhists

Literally less than one percent of the population famalam.

shah jahan and jehangir were more like "don't rock the boat" types of fellas that sat on their asses and built pretty persianate buildings.

I do not give a fuck about islam.
Whining about sikh oppression when it was started under aurangzeb in an organized and systematic manner is pretty fucking one sided. Please feel to overlook that akbar started the din i ilahi, invited missionaries and theologians from portugal, regularly hosted jain and hindu gurus and allowed reconversion back to hinduism under his rule.

>Kill and convert millions
>impose taxes on non-muslims
>regularly butcher non-muslims
>let violent groups roam the country killing non-muslims
>destroy precious artifacts and countless temples
>build mosques over them
>engage in total warefare
>put babies on pikes and attempt multiple genocides on Sikhs
>get defeated in the end
>have your legacy be 'le tolerant' empire by a bunch of retarded communist histories, corrupt politicians, and Wahhabi funded Islamic groups. Because of ONE emperor who didn't go full Islam jihadi.

When the day of reckoning comes, and Mecca itself is annihilated by the nations tired of that cancer known as Islam, I hope you are there to see it. Fuck Islam and fuck anyone who is fucking stupid enough to defend them. Stop trying to whitewash what is literally pure evil ideology.

mecca has already been annihilated several times over

Not enough brainwashing.

Yeah, but never with nukes.

Some nice radiation fallout over the holiest site in Islam would be beautiful.

>Under muslim rule for centuries
>84% chatolic
You are an idiot if you cant answer your own question

>pure evil
spooky

Western India became Islam controlled Pakistan after World War II.
Jammu and Kashmir became mixed, and Eastern India is now economically mixed due to trade, but trade died down between India and Islamic States after WWII.
The South had some contact with Islam, but due to the diversity of the religion and region, a single conversion strategy, like they used in the north, didn't work.
On top of that Islam could not offer more comfort to the people suffering during droughts or war, and as such religion conversion was considered unnecessary, especially since Vedic tradition stipulates all religions are different sides of the same true multi-faceted story ("All paths are paths to God").

You do realize the Japanese started rebuilding right on top of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the same day the bombs were dropped, right?
And that people live there right now, right?
You do realize that "OMG RADIATION" is an exaggeration, right? Fallout doesn't last for hundreds of years and radiation doesn't hang around unless materials that can "hang onto to it" are around; ie: heavy metals, still water, etc.

>western india
>gujarat and maharashtra have relatively small muslim populations.
>J&K became full muzzie after the kashmiris chimped out.
ftfy
>Northern india had a single conversion strategy
but it didn't. Parts of UP and bihar had significant muslim populations that migrated to pakistan. Same with Sindhi hindu businessmen and punjabi landowners, bureaucrats and teachers coming to india post independence.

>J&K became full muzzie after the kashmiris chimped out.
A.) They're called "Muslims"... calling them slang terms just makes you look uneducated and therefore full of shit opinions.
B.) No, that UN statistics don't lie; you're 100% incorrect and are not relying on any official statistics that I'm aware of.

>but it didn't. Parts of UP and bihar had significant muslim populations that migrated to pakistan. Same with Sindhi hindu businessmen and punjabi landowners, bureaucrats and teachers coming to india post independence.

A.) After WWII there was a deliberation than ended with the majority of the Muslim population moving to North West India, which became a separate Country (Pakistan).
That was over 70% of the Muslim population.
The Middle and Northern Muslims were converted during the Gupta Empire using the Trade And Conquer conversion method.
This didn't not work in the South.

I don't know what college textbooks you're reading, but they're not what the rest of the World relies on.

>UN statistics
do they take into account the 1989 and early 90s pandit exodus? Or the large scale settling of punjabi pakistanis into the gilgit baltistan?

>the northern muslims were converted during the gupta empire
The gupta empire fragmented by the 500s and were replaced by their vassals.
Islam gained a proper foothold in northern india around the time of the first crusades when mohammed of ghazni got a lucky break and managed to topple the Chauhans of delhi.

There was also a pretty significant migration of afghani tribesmen in the area around delhi, rohillakhand in UP comes from the rohilla tribe of afghans for instance. Islamic rule was rarely secure enough in Northern india to facilitate the memetic "trade and conquer" thing you spouted.
What you said happened in kerala which was a major trading spot for arab traders who were based around kochin, which is why you have an indigenous community of keralite muslims on the coast, famous for being regressive shitheads and part of the moplah riots.