[REFRANCE HISTORIAN-MR.SARKAR.HEAD OF HISTORY DEPT.AND AUTHOR OF M.A.2nd YERR HISTORY
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY]
AND ACCORDING TO ROMILLA THAPAR…
AKBAR WAS A MEMBER FOR GURUDWARA AND GAVE LAND FOR GOLDEN TEMPLE,[SUWARNMANDIR]
MANY MARATHAS,RAJPUTS,SIKHS,WAS IN THE TROOPS OF MUSLIM EMPERRORS,
MUSLIMS ARE BORN TO RULE,OTHER COMMUNITIES USED TO RESPECT SOME OF MUSLIM EMPERRORS,LIKE SHIVAJIS FATHER SHAHAJI WAS A GENERAL FOR NIJAM KINGDOM,NAWAB ADDOPTED BRAHMIN CHILD. SAIF ALI KHAN-THIS NAWAB IS ORIGINOLI BRAHMIN GENERATION.[ROOT]

U WILL FIND MANY HINDUS CONVERTED IN ISLAM BUT THERE SURNAMES ARE STILL HINDU LIKE MY SURNAME IS TAMBOLI.U WILL GET MUSLIM- DESHMUKH,DESHPANDE,JAHAGIRDAR,MUJUMDAR,SUBHEDAR,CHAUDHARI,KASKAR,NERKAR,FHULARI,PANDEY, MY GREAT GRANDFATHERS NAME WAS CHANDULAL HIRALAL TAMBOLI.
MICHEL JACKSON BECOME MUSLIM BECAUSE OF PERFECT ISLAMIC RULES.
WHAT IS A CAUSE OF TERRERISOM? BECAUSE OF FEW BAD PEOPLE IN EVERY RELIGION,HINDUS,SIKHS,MUSLIMS,CHRISTENS.
JUDGE EVERY RILIGIN ON THE BASIC OF GOOD ROOLS

Whatever has been taught to you is lies. Whoever has taught it to you is a liar.

Your empty claim is not backed up by any historian. Please refrain from spreading lies in this forum & in the world. Please seek out the truth & learn the value of speaking the truth. Learn from the Father of the Nation.

The matter of money comes later, the war was loosed because he refused to provide food to kafir troops, fighting for him….

That is a very real possibility.

We can, but we must attempt not to.

And why can’t you , me or Kaleem be biased or unbiased?

Does your using the word “unbiased” for Kaleem’s review imply that he is normally biased?

Kaleem Sa’ab…

I have to agree with Chirag. Shia-Sunni violence isn’t instigated from the outside. It has it’s roots in the Karbala carnage. I’ve heard reports of clashes in Lucknow, which is pretty far from Iraq.
Unless you have a different point of view, that we’re missing.

before just condemning the British for their tactics, remember that they were putting down a rebellion. Muslim empires used similar tactics as well, in places like ancient Persia, where nearly the entire Zoroastrian nobility and upper class was massacred or forced to flee; or in ancient Byzantium, for that matter, and in parts of ancient India, as well (read:Afghanistan, and what is now Pakistan). Those were tremendous civilizations, with tremendous cities and cultural treasures, much of them lost due to brutal military tactics.

In more modern times, China has used very oppressive tactics in Tibet; India has been slightly less heavy-handed, but still oppressive, in Kashmir.

The British tactics were age-old, perhaps belying their idea of themselves as “better” or more civilized than all other peoples, but it’s not as though their approach is unique or particularly European in nature. Scorched-earth policies: far too common, in too many places, too many times.

I only make this point because there is a tendancy amongst Muslims on the subcontinent to demonize British or European colonization of India. If you don’t want the Mughals demonized, you can’t demonize the Brits, either. Yes, the Mughals nativized themselves, but so did a large number of Brits – and for evidence of that all you have to do is go to London today. Yes, they still thought of themselves as better than everyone else, but the Mughals did, too; as in fact have all of India’s rulers for basically eternity.

And as far as making Shia-Sunni go at each other’s throats in Iraq – is that really what you believe? Is that really your take on shia-sunni violence in that part of the world – it is an American plot to divide and conquer? For starters, surely you know that Bush isn’t that smart; and secondly, if that was the aim, wouldn’t they have just broken it and then just left for a while, let everyone kill each other, then come back? For what you’re suggesting, that would have been more effective?

The remarks of several British army top commanders show extreme racial hatred of the Indian people in general, the masses and the elite. They used the elite by promising them mercy but actually treated them like helpless animals. And ofcourse they treated the people from the less affluent segments of society like slaves.

In the book there are excerpts from several American and British writers outside India who criticise the extreme brutality and oppression of the British army in the aftermath of the Ghadar in late 1857 and 1858.

The British simply could not have won without the immense help of manpower and supplies from the north Indian princely states. Before the Ghadar they had already divided those states against each other and made them beholden to them. And they exploited them with false promises that they never kept. They made Indians go at each others’ throats; the same way it is being done witrh Sunnis and Shias in Iraq today by the occupiers.

I have also noticed that though Dalrymple has stated many factual accounts of the Ghadar and armies, in general he has treated the British with respect treating them as superior and maintaining moral standards in many ways; while the Indians including the elite are shown in very poor light. Especially he has almost no words of respect for the Indian sepoys who came from the masses and who took over the city of Delhi and freed it of the British. In fact often he has described them as savage-like, but he has used such expressions sparingly against the British.

Also in the aftermath of Ghadar the British destroyed tons of written records and documentation of the then happenings written by Indian writers of that time. And they had their writers write it the way they wanted the world to remember the Ghadar which truly was the First War of India’s Independence.