,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Superb thread by @shrikanth_krish (as expected ) . He touches a delicate theme and did fine analysis. In sprit of intellectual engagement (and not in disagreement), there are points where my own understanding is different.
These are as follows..
These are as follows..
First of all the conquest of sindh in 8th cen was done mainly in spirit of plunder and loot. The spirit prevailed for good 300 -400 years. Many intrusions was made from middle East - Gauri & Ghaznvi are 2 well known names.
For all time period India was repeatedly penetrated , but it never understood the new forces (read islamic world) from west which were defining the world.
India in 1000 AD - intellectual class (read brahmans) never understood outside world and Buddhism didn't believed in taking life - was waiting to be captured. Even the conquest of Sindh in 710 was in 9th attempt by Arabs ( 1st being in 634 - just 2 year after prophet death).
By 1200 AD (rough dates ) Muslim power was eventually established in much of North and Delhi. It rose to its peak in 1600 AD and declined in 1700 AD after Aurangzeb.
In fact two extraordinary peoples who came up during that time - Marathas and Sikhs - were championing their own faith against Muslims.
All these powers including Muslims were subdued by British - religious outsiders.
All these powers including Muslims were subdued by British - religious outsiders.
So unlike Iran where Islam reached just after prophet time, India never had settled conquest or rule of Islam.
So project islamization of India lasted for only 500 - 600 years. That too only in North and up to central India. It effects was minimal in South, where mercifully old temples or other architect was saved. This is reflected in population as well.
The idea of this little history is to suggest that real guilt period is not between 1750 to 1880 - where @shrikanth_krish suggest that we awoke too late - but between 700 to 1200 - where never understood outside world and allowed others to ravage us.
The period of British - 90 to 200 years in various parts - was period of Hindus regeneration. It was period in which intellectual accumulation was done by Hindu side. The Muslims side, wounded by loss and for religious reasons, stood aside.
That is difference which is reflected in new age India and Pakistan as well.
Whatever may be said in favor of Sikh & Maratha empire, but my feelings in that these empires were not intellectually superior to Muslim side & thus were not sustainable on long run. Had it not been from British , India may had descended into perpetual civil war from two sides.
So advent of British - religious outsider - was kind of a luck. As indeed the partition of the country in 1947. Undivided India would have been in mental state of potential civil war always.
@shrikanth_krish is right that Congress in 1947 and later played cleverly and smartly. Muslim power in subcontinent eventually was broken into 3 blocks, while India gained strength and remained united.
About the missing rightward tilt due to sham secularism and the resultant rage, I would say the real issue is awakening of people about terrible middle history we have. Indian Society by and large don't know how to deal with that.
Old Hindu India had been badly mauled. It wants it's pride back. Muslims of India have largely reconciled that they are living in Hindu majority country, it is on the Hindus side that some sections are finding history too bitter to swallow.
Some choose to handle it by fantasising about Akhand Bharat...
