What's new

Mughal vs British rule - Which was worse?

Is this even a question? Even the worst Mughal emperor was better than the best colonizer.
 
Both were bad and both were foreign occupiers.

At least Mughals became Indians after a few decades. In the end, they looked like Kumars and indistinguishable from local population.

British still were reporting to Queen thousands of miles away.
 
Hindus should be thankful to the British, who entered a mughal ruled india and left with the largest chunk of the land given to hindus. The mughals built mausoleums, the british built universities, railways and institutions for government. Mughals indulged in debauchery, with the exception of Alamgir Aurangzeb, who was the most pious of them and brought dignity to the mughal throne.
 
I often wonder what India would have been without colonisation. As mentioned above, the British built transport and institutions, the Moghuls gardens and Mausoleums. What did India look like before all this took place?
 
The Cambridge historian Angus Maddison writes in his book, Contours of the World Economy 1–2030 AD: Essays in Macro-economic History, that while India had the largest economy till 1000 AD (with a GDP share of 28.9 per cent in 1000AD) there was no economic growth. It was during the 1000 AD-1500 AD that India began to see a economic growth with its highest (20.9 per cent GDP growth rate) being under the Mughals. In the 18th century, India had overtaken China as the largest economy in the world.
Click to expand...

In 2016, on a PPP adjusted basis, India’s was 7.2 per cent of the world GDP.In 1952, India’s GDP was 3.8 per cent. “Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income," former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh once said.
Click to expand...

ill just leave that there..also view Shahshi Tharoors analysis about the british..
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I often wonder what India would have been without colonisation. As mentioned above, the British built transport and institutions, the Moghuls gardens and Mausoleums. What did India look like before all this took place?
Click to expand...

Really what did india look like ? All the invaders rigjt from mughals were attracted to the wealth of india. India was known as the one of the wealthiest place on planet.
Ever heard about harrapa mohan jodero civilization ? It was one of the oldest and advanced civilization of the world . Even alexendra the great cudnt conquer bharat at that time.
The amount of gold even now in indian temples after looting by the invaders since centuries is still i am sure greater than the most of the world.
You really dnt know much about bhaarat. Ever heard about world first university ? Nalenda university was the oldest university where people around the world used to come to study untill it was destroyed by mughals. There are thousands of examples i can give you.
Nobody want to loot and invade a poor place you must have common sense to know this.
 
Akbar I – peak net worth: $21 trillion
Renowned for his lavish lifestyle and patronage of the arts, this emperor conquered hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory and ruled over much of the Indian subcontinent, known as the Mughal Empire from 1556 until 1605. He controlled around 25% of the world's GDP at the time, which would translate to a staggering $21 trillion today.
Click to expand...

another indication
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I often wonder what India would have been without colonisation. As mentioned above, the British built transport and institutions, the Moghuls gardens and Mausoleums. What did India look like before all this took place?
Click to expand...

Even at their zenith Mughals never entered Kerala and Tamil Nadu, may be that's where you need to look at to get your answer.
 
akki said:
Really what did india look like ? All the invaders rigjt from mughals were attracted to the wealth of india. India was known as the one of the wealthiest place on planet.
Ever heard about harrapa mohan jodero civilization ? It was one of the oldest and advanced civilization of the world . Even alexendra the great cudnt conquer bharat at that time.
The amount of gold even now in indian temples after looting by the invaders since centuries is still i am sure greater than the most of the world.
You really dnt know much about bhaarat. Ever heard about world first university ? Nalenda university was the oldest university where people around the world used to come to study untill it was destroyed by mughals. There are thousands of examples i can give you.
Nobody want to loot and invade a poor place you must have common sense to know this.
Click to expand...

Correction Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed Nalanda University, 320 years before the 1st Mughal Babur came here.
 
akki said:
Really what did india look like ? All the invaders rigjt from mughals were attracted to the wealth of india. India was known as the one of the wealthiest place on planet.
Ever heard about harrapa mohan jodero civilization ? It was one of the oldest and advanced civilization of the world . Even alexendra the great cudnt conquer bharat at that time.
The amount of gold even now in indian temples after looting by the invaders since centuries is still i am sure greater than the most of the world.
You really dnt know much about bhaarat. Ever heard about world first university ? Nalenda university was the oldest university where people around the world used to come to study untill it was destroyed by mughals. There are thousands of examples i can give you.
Nobody want to loot and invade a poor place you must have common sense to know this.
Click to expand...

I was brought up in Britain, we are taught very little about India other than it was once a part of a great British empire. No one teaches anything about Harappa or Nalenda university, you should assume I am extremely ignorant on this matter so your patience is appreciated.
 
akki said:
Really what did india look like ? All the invaders rigjt from mughals were attracted to the wealth of india. India was known as the one of the wealthiest place on planet.
Ever heard about harrapa mohan jodero civilization ? It was one of the oldest and advanced civilization of the world . Even alexendra the great cudnt conquer bharat at that time.
The amount of gold even now in indian temples after looting by the invaders since centuries is still i am sure greater than the most of the world.
You really dnt know much about bhaarat. Ever heard about world first university ? Nalenda university was the oldest university where people around the world used to come to study untill it was destroyed by mughals. There are thousands of examples i can give you.
Nobody want to loot and invade a poor place you must have common sense to know this.
Click to expand...

agree with most of what you said. You forgot to mention the concept of zero.

however I would dispute the term University for Nalenda as it did not issue certificates or diplomas or doctorates. That distinction goes to the Qaireen that was setup by Fatima al firhi in Morrocco in 859 AD and is the oldest continuous running University in the world..
 
I dont know may be some gross root work would have been missing for year in transportation etc.
 
Mughals came to India to rule. British came to India to loot. Mughals became Indians after some years. British wrote dogs and Indians not allowed outside many public places.
 
Madplayer said:
Mughals came to India to rule. British came to India to loot. Mughals became Indians after some years. British wrote dogs and Indians not allowed outside many public places.
Click to expand...

This is why British have my respect. They treated muslims and hindus equally. Not the case with mughals.
 
CricketCartoons said:
This is why British have my respect. They treated muslims and hindus equally. Not the case with mughals.
Click to expand...

The British won the respect of the Indian majority people to be fair, that is why they earned the title of British Raj. Raj as we know is the title bestowed to the kings.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
The British won the respect of the Indian majority people to be fair, that is why they earned the title of British Raj. Raj as we know is the title bestowed to the kings.
Click to expand...

They didnt earn the respect of muslim indians. Anyway muslim views on British should not count, as they were ruled only the british, so would be naturally biased against them.. the non muslims, particularly the hindus who got ruled by both are better judge of who was the best, or was the lesser evil.
 
It is a joke to compare the civilized british with the savage mughals.. Mughals had a tradition of killing/imprisoning their own brothers and fathers and sons in a brutal way. Even Hitler was a patron of art.
 
Swashbuckler said:
Even at their zenith Mughals never entered Kerala and Tamil Nadu, may be that's where you need to look at to get your answer.
Click to expand...

What about the British? Did they enter Kerala and Tamil Nadu? Would be an interesting insight as to the reasons why and how if they did.
 
CricketCartoons said:
It is a joke to compare the civilized british with the savage mughals.. Mughals had a tradition of killing/imprisoning their own brothers and fathers and sons in a brutal way. Even Hitler was a patron of art.
Click to expand...

No they didnt have this tradition.
 
The Mughals were Indians.

The British just ruined everything.
 
Varun said:
The Mughals were Indians.

The British just ruined everything.
Click to expand...

What was the court language of the mughals? Was it hindustani? The only time the mughals became true indians when they got their rear kicked by the british.
 
Madplayer said:
No they didnt have this tradition.
Click to expand...

They had timurid formula of succession, not primogeniture. Jehangir had his son Khusrau Mirza blinded, instigated by Khurram (also had Guru Arjun killed for blessing Khusrau). Aurangzeb during his savage days, had his father imprisoned, broke treaty with his brother Murad and had him killed, had his brother Dara killed, and later his nephew killed. It may or may not qualify as tradition, but leaves no doubt that these "greats" were barbarians who had no imaan when it came to usurping power.
 
The British were far worse, the mughals became naturalized while the British never wanted to put down roots in India.
 
CricketCartoons said:
They had timurid formula of succession, not primogeniture. Jehangir had his son Khusrau Mirza blinded, instigated by Khurram (also had Guru Arjun killed for blessing Khusrau). Aurangzeb during his savage days, had his father imprisoned, broke treaty with his brother Murad and had him killed, had his brother Dara killed, and later his nephew killed. It may or may not qualify as tradition, but leaves no doubt that these "greats" were barbarians who had no imaan when it came to usurping power.
Click to expand...

Those are definitely barbarian acts, but I suppose Indians could take solace from the thought that at least they were instigated on the Moghul dynasties themselves rather than on the general public, or at least the examples you have given.

Still waiting for someone to give an answer to my question about the British in Kerala and Tamil Nadu by the way, seeing as those states were given as an example of states which the Mughals never entered.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Still waiting for someone to give an answer to my question about the British in Kerala and Tamil Nadu by the way, seeing as those states were given as an example of states which the Mughals never entered.
Click to expand...

Answer about what? I am sorry I didn't understand your question else I would have responded earlier. Not just British but even French (Pondicherry), Danes (Tranquebar), Portugese (Cochin) and Dutch (Malabar) had significant presence in these 2 states. Mughals didn't enter here but we still have many Muslims because both states had trade links with Arabs, more so Kerala. Both these states had many important sea ports and many Muslim traders settled down and married locals especially in the coastal districts. Unlike in North where Islam came in the form of invasions, Islam came in South via peace (merchants, traders, saints) and that is why there is more communal harmony here than North India. Oldest mosque in the subcontinent isn't in modern day Afghanistan or Pakistan or India. Oldest one is Cheraman Juma Mosque in Kerala constructed in 629 A.D. by Arab merchants. The 2nd oldest mosque in the subcontinent is the Palaiya Jumma Palli in Tamil Nadu constructed in 630 A.D. , again by merchants. If you check out the architecture of these 2 mosques they are unlike mosques in rest of South Asia. Again I am sorry I didn't understand your post, if you could specifically point out what you want to know I will try my best to answer.
 
Swashbuckler said:
Answer about what? I am sorry I didn't understand your question else I would have responded earlier. Not just British but even French (Pondicherry), Danes (Tranquebar), Portugese (Cochin) and Dutch (Malabar) had significant presence in these 2 states. Mughals didn't enter here but we still have many Muslims because both states had trade links with Arabs, more so Kerala. Both these states had many important sea ports and many Muslim traders settled down and married locals especially in the coastal districts. Unlike in North where Islam came in the form of invasions, Islam came in South via peace (merchants, traders, saints) and that is why there is more communal harmony here than North India. Oldest mosque in the subcontinent isn't in modern day Afghanistan or Pakistan or India. Oldest one is Cheraman Juma Mosque in Kerala constructed in 629 A.D. by Arab merchants. The 2nd oldest mosque in the subcontinent is the Palaiya Jumma Palli in Tamil Nadu constructed in 630 A.D. , again by merchants. If you check out the architecture of these 2 mosques they are unlike mosques in rest of South Asia. Again I am sorry I didn't understand your post, if you could specifically point out what you want to know I will try my best to answer.
Click to expand...

If you look back to my first post on this thread I asked

I often wonder what India would have been without colonisation. As mentioned above, the British built transport and institutions, the Moghuls gardens and Mausoleums. What did India look like before all this took place?
Click to expand...


You answered:

Even at their zenith Mughals never entered Kerala and Tamil Nadu, may be that's where you need to look at to get your answer.
Click to expand...


So without having much knowledge of the period I found that answer somewhat cryptic. You have filled in the gaps to some degree with that last answer so thanks for that. As for how it relates to the thread, seems other European colonies had established themselves already in those states and I am assuming that is why the Mughals and British stayed out. Or perhaps the British did enter since you mentioned only the Mughals.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
If you look back to my first post on this thread I asked




You answered:




So without having much knowledge of the period I found that answer somewhat cryptic. You have filled in the gaps to some degree with that last answer so thanks for that. As for how it relates to the thread, seems other European colonies had established themselves already in those states and I am assuming that is why the Mughals and British stayed out. Or perhaps the British did enter since you mentioned only the Mughals.
Click to expand...

British did have control in large parts of the region but they were in competition with other European powers for a majority of the time. For example Pondicherry (enclave within Tamil Nadu) which was a part of French territories joined the Indian Union only in 1954. Even today many people of Pondicherry have voting rights in France, French is an official language here. If you follow Bollywood movies you must have heard of/seen Kalki Koechlin, she's from Pondicherry and is a Tamil French. If you visit these 2 states you will find a great deal of influence of Portugese, French, Dutch and Danish cultures, especially architecture and cuisine. The British influence is also palpable but not the only European influence.

Regarding my post about Mughals not entering I wanted to say that the Islamic culture in these 2 states is very different, locally grown thanks to exposure to Muslim merchants and traders. The Islamic architecture, art forms and cuisine too are very different, lots of emphasis on locally available resources eg wooden mosques with clay roof tiles of Kerala, sculptured pillars in Tamil Nadu mosques etc. Language again for Muslims here is predominantly Malayalam and Tamil. There are a few Urdu speakers in Tamil Nadu (almost nil in Kerala) but they mostly migrated from Nizam areas in comparatively recent times. Mughals never had control here but some districts (northern ones) of these 2 states were under the sphere of influence of Muslim kings like Tipu Sultan and Hyderabad Nizam. I feel Mughals are over rated a lot and Delhi Sultanate not given its due in Indian history. While the southern campaigns of Mughals always ended in failure the only time North Indian based Muslims entered into interior Tamil Nadu was during Madurai Sultanate (a branch of Tughluqs) around the city of Madurai but quite short lived (1335-1378) before being overthrown by a local hero called Kampana.

Not just Islam even Christianity came to these 2 states much before the colonizers. St Thomas, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ came to Kerala and Tamil Nadu around 50 A.D. and preached Christianity. Just like the oldest mosques I mentioned in an earlier post, the oldest churches in the subcontinent too are in these 2 Southern states, built more than 1500 years before our first contact with European colonizers. St Thomas died in modern day Chennai in the heart of the city called St Thomas Mount, the hill shrine today attracts many Christian devotees from all over the world. The St Thomas Christians are called Syrian Christians, the oldest Christian community in India.
 
Last edited:
Swashbuckler said:
British did have control in large parts of the region but they were in competition with other European powers for a majority of the time. For example Pondicherry (enclave within Tamil Nadu) which was a part of French territories joined the Indian Union only in 1954. Even today many people of Pondicherry have voting rights in France, French is an official language here. If you follow Bollywood movies you must have heard of/seen Kalki Koechlin, she's from Pondicherry and is a Tamil French. If you visit these 2 states you will find a great deal of influence of Portugese, French, Dutch and Danish cultures, especially architecture and cuisine. The British influence is also palpable but not the only European influence.

Regarding my post about Mughals not entering I wanted to say that the Islamic culture in these 2 states is very different, locally grown thanks to exposure to Muslim merchants and traders. The Islamic architecture, art forms and cuisine too are very different, lots of emphasis on locally available resources eg wooden mosques with clay roof tiles of Kerala, sculptured pillars in Tamil Nadu mosques etc. Language again for Muslims here is predominantly Malayalam and Tamil. There are a few Urdu speakers in Tamil Nadu (almost nil in Kerala) but they mostly migrated from Nizam areas in comparatively recent times. Mughals never had control here but some districts (northern ones) of these 2 states were under the sphere of influence of Muslim kings like Tipu Sultan and Hyderabad Nizam. I feel Mughals are over rated a lot and Delhi Sultanate not given its due in Indian history. While the southern campaigns of Mughals always ended in failure the only time North Indian based Muslims entered into interior Tamil Nadu was during Madurai Sultanate (a branch of Tughluqs) around the city of Madurai but quite short lived (1335-1378) before being overthrown by a local hero called Kampana.

Not just Islam even Christianity came to these 2 states much before the colonizers. St Thomas, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ came to Kerala and Tamil Nadu around 50 A.D. and preached Christianity. Just like the oldest mosques I mentioned in an earlier post, the oldest churches in the subcontinent too are in these 2 Southern states, built more than 1500 years before our first contact with European colonizers. St Thomas died in modern day Chennai in the heart of the city called St Thomas Mount, the hill shrine today attracts many Christian devotees from all over the world. The St Thomas Christians are called Syrian Christians, the oldest Christian community in India.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the detailed reply. So to take it back to my first question which initiated the response, I was wondering what India would have looked like without colonisation, but from your posts it seems even those areas were colonised, just by different countries from Europe. Is that a fair assumption or were Indian leaders of Kerala and Tamil Nadu equal in stature to the Europeans?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Thank you very much for the detailed reply. So to take it back to my first question which initiated the response, I was wondering what India would have looked like without colonisation, but from your posts it seems even those areas were colonised, just by different countries from Europe. Is that a fair assumption or were Indian leaders of Kerala and Tamil Nadu equal in stature to the Europeans?
Click to expand...

Indian leaders in Kerala and Tamil Nadu were never equal in stature to the Europeans, we were colonized by different European powers. And IMO the colonizers had a positive impact in many areas like western education, railways, utility infrastructure, banking, medicine/healthcare, dams, telegram, institutions, rational thinking, getting rid of social evils etc. While it is true that we were economically exploited but at that time in our history we were going nowhere. When I say 'we' I mean all the countries that were colonized by European powers after the age of discovery. Because of European renaissance, industrial revolution, scientific progress etc the Europeans had taken a lead over the rest of the world while we Indians were a decadent civilization. In that sense I don't think colonization was all that bad, the modern world we see around us, all the wonderful facilities we enjoy....we owe it to those who colonized us. It is rather telling that the Brits laid more railway tracks than we Indians have managed since Independence. We still depend a lot on British era institutions like civil services, judiciary, law enforcement etc, even after so many years we haven't come up with more efficient ones.

My original response was to your question 'What did India look like before all this took place?' and not what India would have been without colonization. Regarding the latter I believe we would have been worse off without colonization simply because we were in terminal decline when it happened. Regarding the former I wrote posts about how the 2 Southern States interacted with the Muslim and Christian worlds, how the foreign culture was assimilated into local culture etc. Sorry if I was vague in my initial response or didn't word it properly.
 
Swashbuckler said:
Indian leaders in Kerala and Tamil Nadu were never equal in stature to the Europeans, we were colonized by different European powers. And IMO the colonizers had a positive impact in many areas like western education, railways, utility infrastructure, banking, medicine/healthcare, dams, telegram, institutions, rational thinking, getting rid of social evils etc. While it is true that we were economically exploited but at that time in our history we were going nowhere. When I say 'we' I mean all the countries that were colonized by European powers after the age of discovery. Because of European renaissance, industrial revolution, scientific progress etc the Europeans had taken a lead over the rest of the world while we Indians were a decadent civilization. In that sense I don't think colonization was all that bad, the modern world we see around us, all the wonderful facilities we enjoy....we owe it to those who colonized us. It is rather telling that the Brits laid more railway tracks than we Indians have managed since Independence. We still depend a lot on British era institutions like civil services, judiciary, law enforcement etc, even after so many years we haven't come up with more efficient ones.

My original response was to your question 'What did India look like before all this took place?' and not what India would have been without colonization. Regarding the latter I believe we would have been worse off without colonization simply because we were in terminal decline when it happened. Regarding the former I wrote posts about how the 2 Southern States interacted with the Muslim and Christian worlds, how the foreign culture was assimilated into local culture etc. Sorry if I was vague in my initial response or didn't word it properly.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, colonisation has mostly been a positive force, even though intellectually and emotionally it is indefensible. There was a thread about driving in India and Pakistan where I also pointed out that left to their own devices, desis can't even establish a highway code. Even arabs who are lampooned on here for being useless have managed to do a better job of it.

This is the reason I have welcomed Pakistan's future colonisation by China despite the warnings of dire consequences on here. I have noted that those who have shouted the loudest against Chinese influence are the ones who have previously been the most critical and self-hating voices that are ultra critical of Pakistan's self-governance. You can't have it both ways. Don't like the Pakistani religious culture? Fine...bring on the atheist Confucian leadership I say. When you are at the bottom the only way is up!
 
British rule was the best, very impressed by their domination over India
 
Greenstorm said:
British were worst, specially for Muslims.
Click to expand...

Well think about loigic ?how could mughals be bad rulers for subcontinent when there were no muslims here before ??? Both were worst for us hindus .Invaders never invade to do prosperity and do growth,educate and everything .
How indian temples such as somnath got invaded at 17th try by mughals ,thousands of examples ,
About britishers less we say better it would be....they did nothing except looting and exploiting.....
People here are too much misinformed when they say about roads ,infrastructure ,railtracks etc given by britishers...
 
Last edited:
Which rulers presided over the most and worst famines?
 
Theres no comparison. Britain sucked the life out of India and left a rotten carcass.

The only good thing to come out of their rule was the creation of Pakistan.
 
How about the corrupt politicians of the Three Nations?

Who have collectively robbed and plundered more than both?

And continue to be celebrated!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hoshiarpurexpress
What If Series: What will be state of non muslims in Mughal Renaissance era of India
2 3
Replies
191
Views
6K
Romali_rotti
Romali_rotti
sweep_shot
Did British empire made a blunder in 1947 by not balkanizing India further?
Replies
50
Views
1K
SpiritOf1903
SpiritOf1903
hoshiarpurexpress
The murderous regime of Mughals for Sikhs and Hindus : A History of Bloodshed and Resistance
2
Replies
136
Views
4K
Cpt. Rishwat
Cpt. Rishwat
The Bald Eagle
Why Indians applaud Shiv Maharaj more than Prithvi Raj Chohan? Although the latter was more valiant
Replies
44
Views
779
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Cpt. Rishwat
The forgotten Empire - Portuguese rule in India
Replies
58
Views
1K
gani999
gani999
Back
Top