#UninstallHotstar: Indian Netizens slam streaming platform's show The Empire for glorifying Mughals

[street cricketer]

Nobody is asking anyone to take pride..but whitewashing the crimes of one and calling the other outsiders because they dont share your religion is wrong.

There was no real thing as a united India. To the people being killed, everyone from another area was an outsider no matter their religion.

I personally don't view the muslim kings as outsiders, good or bad, ultimately they shaped Indian history and for that they should be remembered as a part of Indian history. But I think religion plays the biggest factor here. Religion forms the central identity of an individual in most societies, at least in our part of the world. You can relate more to a muslim from another city than a hindu or a christian from your own city because he lives the way you live, eats the way you eat, prays the way you pray and there's a lot of commonalities in cultural norms. Religion is a way of living for people in a society and therefore people always feel a bigger connection to those who share their religion.

Indian kingdoms kept warring against each other throughout Indian history, whether hindu or muslim and indeed a lot of lives were lost in the process. But crimes committed by muslim kings appear more "unjust" for a hindu because he feels he is being persecuted for what "he" is rather than what his nationality is, in a war between nations. It's the same for muslims who were persecuted by non muslim kings. Muslims kill muslims in the middle east, yet Israel tends to be the bigger villain because it then becomes an another faith persecuting our faith thing. Both Mughals and Dogras ruled Kashmir and both were foreigners and both weren't remembered fondly for their rule. But the Dogras would always get hated more because it's a hindu king persecuting the muslim population rather than a muslim ruler doing it against a muslim population. It is also for the same reason that a Punjabi muslim would relate more to Abdali than Ranjit Singh despite the latter being Punjabi and the former being an Afghan. He is more likely to forget the atrocities of Abdali than Ranjit Singh because religious persecution tends to affect the psyche of individuals on a deeper level due to the way our society is structured around religion.

 

[Vegitto1]

Well most of these conquerors from central asia and arab were brutal murderers and bigots. So if a community in India is peacefully protesting their glorification in India, its not wrong.

The matter hasnt been helped by the utter nonsense statements of the director of the series.

Lol, the scars sure run deep and I am sure your coming generations will have to live with them too.

How many years did your people live as 2nd/3rd class citizens?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] seems to be evading as always so will as directly. do you take pride in Marathas who massacred several hundred thousands bengalis? Are they murderers and tyrants as per you?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Lol, the scars sure run deep and I am sure your coming generations will have to live with them too.

How many years did your people live as 2nd/3rd class citizens?

The exchanges by some Hindu Indians on this thread pretty much prove this thread I remember:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...vasions-and-rule-in-the-past-1000-years/page5

First thing which came to mind after reading your post

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I personally don't view the muslim kings as outsiders, good or bad, ultimately they shaped Indian history and for that they should be remembered as a part of Indian history. But I think religion plays the biggest factor here. Religion forms the central identity of an individual in most societies, at least in our part of the world. You can relate more to a muslim from another city than a hindu or a christian from your own city because he lives the way you live, eats the way you eat, prays the way you pray and there's a lot of commonalities in cultural norms. Religion is a way of living for people in a society and therefore people always feel a bigger connection to those who share their religion.

Indian kingdoms kept warring against each other throughout Indian history, whether hindu or muslim and indeed a lot of lives were lost in the process. But crimes committed by muslim kings appear more "unjust" for a hindu because he feels he is being persecuted for what "he" is rather than what his nationality is, in a war between nations. It's the same for muslims who were persecuted by non muslim kings. Muslims kill muslims in the middle east, yet Israel tends to be the bigger villain because it then becomes an another faith persecuting our faith thing. Both Mughals and Dogras ruled Kashmir and both were foreigners and both weren't remembered fondly for their rule. But the Dogras would always get hated more because it's a hindu king persecuting the muslim population rather than a muslim ruler doing it against a muslim population. It is also for the same reason that a Punjabi muslim would relate more to Abdali than Ranjit Singh despite the latter being Punjabi and the former being an Afghan. He is more likely to forget the atrocities of Abdali than Ranjit Singh because religious persecution tends to affect the psyche of individuals on a deeper level due to the way our society is structured around religion.

One of the biggest massacres in modern Indian history was carried out by Marathas in bengal. So much so that there are srikk songs in Bengali culture about it. But somehow the Bengali Indian on this poster has Stockholm syndrome and sees them as heroes lol

 

[Zaz]

A quote comes to mind listening to hindu posters

Tum karo to sab sahee
Hun kare to Har Gaz Nahee

Every king and ruler hundreds of years ago was the same Muslim or Hindu

Sab ki haathon mein khoon hai tora ya zayaada

The fact of the matter is the mughals after babar were all born and bred in the subcontinent and sons of the land

And the mughals didnt loot and run away with wealth They stayed administered, built, provided, wed locals and assimilated

So to define their 300 year rule to simply plunderers and foreign invaders is pretty brainless imo

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

A quote comes to mind listening to hindu posters

Tum karo to sab sahee
Hun kare to Har Gaz Nahee

Every king and ruler hundreds of years ago was the same Muslim or Hindu

Sab ki haathon mein khoon hai tora ya zayaada

The fact of the matter is the mughals after babar were all born and bred in the subcontinent and sons of the land

And the mughals didnt loot and run away with wealth They stayed administered, built, provided, wed locals and assimilated

So to define their 300 year rule to simply plunderers and foreign invaders is pretty brainless imo

This. You have to be a special kind of stupid to equate Mughal rule to British rule

 

[Vegitto1]

Well most of these conquerors from central asia and arab were brutal murderers and bigots. So if a community in India is peacefully protesting their glorification in India, its not wrong.

The matter hasnt been helped by the utter nonsense statements of the director of the series.

A quote comes to mind listening to hindu posters

Tum karo to sab sahee
Hun kare to Har Gaz Nahee

Every king and ruler hundreds of years ago was the same Muslim or Hindu

Sab ki haathon mein khoon hai tora ya zayaada

The fact of the matter is the mughals after babar were all born and bred in the subcontinent and sons of the land

And the mughals didnt loot and run away with wealth They stayed administered, built, provided, wed locals and assimilated

So to define their 300 year rule to simply plunderers and foreign invaders is pretty brainless imo

Their religion means that they were always outsiders. It still bothers Hindus that Muslim rulers killed Hindu men, kept their women as concubines and did as they pleased with them, fathering an army of illegitimate children who no doubt grew up to be Muslims.

If they same had been done by Hindu rulers it would not have bothered the Hindus much.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

True but good to see people are protesting and uninstalling Hotstar. This awareness was missing before (in Congress/Ghandi era) where people used to meekly accept every TV show. There is a reason this hastag was trending in India non stop.

And this is not the only show. There were also protests against Patalok series, Padmavati movie, Khadims ad etc etc. Basically this is the legacy of present BJP govt where any show against hindus wont be tolerated. Not anymore.

I understand why Hotstar is not removing the show though bcoz lots of money being spend in creating a web series. So business wise they are right but hopefully they will keep the content in mind from next time as well.

What would you propose instead? Rewrite history and ban any shows which don't agree with how you would like it to be portrayed?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think we should stop asking hindus and muslims to take pride in each other's kings. Asking a hindu to take pride in the muslim empires is like asking a Kashmiri muslim to take pride in the Dogra empire or the Punjabi muslim to take pride in the Sikh empire. It's pointless really if we're being honest. Our people are divided based on religion and one's hero is always going to be another's villain because of the way things happened in the history of the subcontinent. Imagine Paul from your neighbourhood asking you to take pride in the British empire just because they were christians, that would be weird.

What we should do though is to understand that it's natural for people to take pride in kings belonging to their own religion (however violent they may have been) and not discriminate people in the present based on what may have happened in the past.

I don't really get this viewpoint. History is history, you can't wish it away. I would imagine Mughal imprint is now part of Indian DNA, what is the point in railing against it?

Britain was conquered by the Romans and the Vikings, who built nothing of any lasting value like the Mughals did, they came to pillage and rape. Yet most Brits today admire them, there are shows dedicated to their valour, and I have personally heard local people brag that they have Viking blood in their veins because of their proximity to the shores of England.

No one is saying one has to take pride in being conquered, but what's the point in burning up about it hundreds of years later? It's not like India is the only country which was ruled by conquerors. Neither was it some wondrous society where the people were suddenly put under some hardship. India at the time was deeply divided by caste discrimination and wife burning, a practice the Mughals tried at various times to phase out.

 

[Rajdeep]

What would you propose instead? Rewrite history and ban any shows which don't agree with how you would like it to be portrayed?

I want history to be shown as it is and not sugarcoat them to appease certain section. The only identity of Mughals is they are plunderer of millions of sub continent Indians and we need to show them as it is. Showing them as heroes is not accepted by Indians anymore. Congress is long gone...India has changed unless you are not aware.

 

[PakLFC]

Their are consequences when you rebel against the King. If you rebel and you lose you should not expect to get ladoo's.

Also all Kings, whether their were Muslim or Hindu or Christian had to be violent to get the throne or keep the throne.

Many Mughal's married Hindu's too. They were not devout Muslim's that Hindu's hold Islam responsible for Mughal cruelty. Akbar even tried to form a new religion called Deen-e-Elahi to further his agenda. It was an attempt to merge Islam and Hinduism that was rightfully totally rejected by the Ulama.

 

[PakLFC]

I want history to be shown as it is and not sugarcoat them to appease certain section. The only identity of Mughals is they are plunderer of millions of sub continent Indians and we need to show them as it is. Showing them as heroes is not accepted by Indians anymore. Congress is long gone...India has changed unless you are not aware.

You are clearly denying the great contributions the Mughal's made to your culture. No one here as calling them angel's but neither were the British who ruled India for 200 years. The only reason Indian's hate the Mughal's more then the Brit's is because the Mughal's were Muslim's. Just admit it and if possible try to get over it. The Mughal's have long gone as to have all people who lived during those times.

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] seems to be evading as always so will as directly. do you take pride in Marathas who massacred several hundred thousands bengalis? Are they murderers and tyrants as per you?

Maratha Bengal battles were between a hindu empire and a muslim kingdom. Scores of such battles took place in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You are clearly denying the great contributions the Mughal's made to your culture. No one here as calling them angel's but neither were the British who ruled India for 200 years. The only reason Indian's hate the Mughal's more then the Brit's is because the Mughal's were Muslim's. Just admit it and if possible try to get over it. The Mughal's have long gone as to have all people who lived during those times.

There is no lesser hate for the brits.

Only difference is that, the left leaning academia didn't make any attempt to white wash the brits. They white washed the muslim invaders and made the brits the only villains.

Secondly, the Christian community doesn't come to defend the Brits saying the built railways and cities like Kolkata or New Delhi or buildings like the Indian parliament.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol, the scars sure run deep and I am sure your coming generations will have to live with them too.

How many years did your people live as 2nd/3rd class citizens?

Atleast my people didn't succumb to greed torture or fear and gave up their religion or culture.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I don't understand why pakistanis are so bothered about what hindus think in India?

If hindus in India think that muslim invaders are tyrannical bigoted and third rate and we dont want their glorification in this country, its our right.

Pakistanis are free to glorify them.

The hypocrisy of pakistanis is astonishing. If Erdogan changes Hagia Sofia to a mosque, its the will of the majority and is correct.

If Indian hindus and sikhs the majority in India want no glorification of muslim invaders suddenly its wrong.

Ultimately, the aim is to have a supremacy of muslim opinion.

I thank my grandfather everyday for leaving east pakistan and coming to Kolkata and participating in the bengali hindu homeland struggle.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Maratha Bengal battles were between a hindu empire and a muslim kingdom. Scores of such battles took place in India.

The question is do you condemn the massacres and are willing to term them tyrants and mass killers which they were?

Also, the almost million people who were killed weren’t all Muslims. Most were Hindus. FINALLY, is it fine if all the murdered were Muslims?

 

[cricketjoshila]

The hate is against invaders not against Islam. Islam came to India via arab traders, long before the invaders came.

Secondly, in a country of more than 80 per cent non muslims, Islamist supremacy wont work, no matter how much white washing the leftists do.

The leftists are themselves losing support and their reactions are hilarious. They wont be able to white wash the islamist agenda any more.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The question is do you condemn the massacres and are willing to term them tyrants and mass killers which they were?

Also, the almost million people who were killed weren’t all Muslims. Most were Hindus. FINALLY, is it fine if all the murdered were Muslims?

I haven't seen or heard many bengalis, and i am one btw, condemning the Marathas.

The issue seems more with muslims who consider the losses of a muslim ruled kingdom the reason for condemning the Marathas.

It would have been ok if Marathas were muslims?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Oh that Ghandy. Not the Gandhi whom the RSS murdered. I see.

You are a Kannadiga?

Have you been to Hampi?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I haven't seen or heard many bengalis, and i am one btw, condemning the Marathas.

The issue seems more with muslims who consider the losses of a muslim ruled kingdom the reason for condemning the Marathas.

It would have been ok if Marathas were muslims?

No it’s not.

It’s simple. If you are condemning Muslim empires for tyranny and murder then you should be consistent and condemn anyone including Marathas for similar thing.

And the fact that you are Bengali makes it worse. Maybe it’s Stockholm syndrome. You refuse to condemn an empire which massacred your ethnic ancestors for fun.

 

[street cricketer]

I don't really get this viewpoint. History is history, you can't wish it away. I would imagine Mughal imprint is now part of Indian DNA, what is the point in railing against it?

Britain was conquered by the Romans and the Vikings, who built nothing of any lasting value like the Mughals did, they came to pillage and rape. Yet most Brits today admire them, there are shows dedicated to their valour, and I have personally heard local people brag that they have Viking blood in their veins because of their proximity to the shores of England.

No one is saying one has to take pride in being conquered, but what's the point in burning up about it hundreds of years later? It's not like India is the only country which was ruled by conquerors. Neither was it some wondrous society where the people were suddenly put under some hardship. India at the time was deeply divided by caste discrimination and wife burning, a practice the Mughals tried at various times to phase out.

Oh come on captain, it's obvious the reason behind it. You're missing the elephant in the room when you're giving the example of the Vikings. Firstly it's not the most appropriate to compare Europeans and Desis, because the former went through the religious phase and are largely irreligious now, it's not the same case with Desis. Secondly, even if you take the Viking invasion of Britain, the Vikings may have followed old Norse religions in the past, but they did end up becoming Christians later and so the Brits don't see the Vikings as people from an alien culture. Both the Brits and the Vikings were or at least ended up becoming part of the same anglo judeochristian culture. The religious christians might not think in the same positive way on the Crusades against the muslim empires.

Like I said before, religion affects the psyche of an individual on a deeper level like no other factor does. There will always be friction between Hindus and Muslims on the perception of history because these two communities are absolutely poles apart in terms of their belief systems - one prays to idols, the other absolutely abhors it, one prays to multiple gods, the other sees it as the biggest sin that a man can commit, one does cow slaughter during Eid, the other thinks harming a cow is sin. And so when some of the muslim kings invaded India, they thought these temples are heretic and quite a few temples did end up getting desecrated or destroyed. It is true that kings kept conquering each other even within India before the muslim empires arrived, and a lot of lives were lost like say for example in the Kalinga war waged by Ashoka.

But from a hindu perspective, here was a bunch of rulers who ended up invading their country from a different part of the world, and said to the people that the religion they followed was backward and sinful, their Gods were fake and a few temples ended up getting destroyed. Now the conquering bit wasn't much different to other hindu empires conquering each other, as for a Bengali, a Maratha was a foreigner then like a Turk. But religious persecution always affects people on a deeper level as they see them being persecuted for what they are as individuals rather than what their nation or country is. Imagine if Israel ended up conquering Pakistan a few decades back and told the muslim majority population that the religion they followed was wrong and destroyed a few mosques, even if a segment of the muslim population did end up becoming Jews on their own free will, the remaining muslim population would hold a grudge against the Jewish rulers even after they've long died. This is how human tribalism works. In the middle east, the Iraqis fought against the Kuwaitis in the past, the Saudis fight against the Yemenis, yet Israel's persecution of Palestinians stand out to muslims because of the same reason even though people died in all these conflicts.

It's very hard for this tribalism to disappear when one man's hero is another man's villain and vice versa (Eg. Ranjit Singh converted a few mosques into horse stables, yet he is revered by the Sikhs but I don't think many muslims would be fond of him). This doesn't exist in Europe because firstly there is way less tribalism in Europe. You can be tribal only if you feel strongly about certain things, and the Europeans don't really care about their religion much to hold a grudge about things happened in the past. I don't think they even care about the Crusades because many are largely irreligious or only culturally christians. This process will happen in the subcontinent too but it will take a century or two for it to happen when people start feeling less strongly about their religion, caste, creed, etc., and start seeing the commonalities between people.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No it’s not.

It’s simple. If you are condemning Muslim empires for tyranny and murder then you should be consistent and condemn anyone including Marathas for similar thing.

And the fact that you are Bengali makes it worse. Maybe it’s Stockholm syndrome. You refuse to condemn an empire which massacred your ethnic ancestors for fun.

Muslim invaders were foreigners, Marathas were not.

Muslim invaders looted and destroyed temples, were involved in religious persecution, tried their best to forcefully exert their foreign culture and religion on the natives. Infact many bengalis feel that the Bargis defeating the muslims was a good thing.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Oh come on captain, it's obvious the reason behind it. You're missing the elephant in the room when you're giving the example of the Vikings. Firstly it's not the most appropriate to compare Europeans and Desis, because the former went through the religious phase and are largely irreligious now, it's not the same case with Desis. Secondly, even if you take the Viking invasion of Britain, the Vikings may have followed old Norse religions in the past, but they did end up becoming Christians later and so the Brits don't see the Vikings as people from an alien culture. Both the Brits and the Vikings were or at least ended up becoming part of the same anglo judeochristian culture. The religious christians might not think in the same positive way on the Crusades against the muslim empires.

Like I said before, religion affects the psyche of an individual on a deeper level like no other factor does. There will always be friction between Hindus and Muslims on the perception of history because these two communities are absolutely poles apart in terms of their belief systems - one prays to idols, the other absolutely abhors it, one prays to multiple gods, the other sees it as the biggest sin that a man can commit, one does cow slaughter during Eid, the other thinks harming a cow is sin. And so when some of the muslim kings invaded India, they thought these temples are heretic and quite a few temples did end up getting desecrated or destroyed. It is true that kings kept conquering each other even within India before the muslim empires arrived, and a lot of lives were lost like say for example in the Kalinga war waged by Ashoka.

But from a hindu perspective, here was a bunch of rulers who ended up invading their country from a different part of the world, and said to the people that the religion they followed was backward and sinful, their Gods were fake and a few temples ended up getting destroyed. Now the conquering bit wasn't much different to other hindu empires conquering each other, as for a Bengali, a Maratha was a foreigner then like a Turk. But religious persecution always affects people on a deeper level as they see them being persecuted for what they are as individuals rather than what their nation or country is. Imagine if Israel ended up conquering Pakistan a few decades back and told the muslim majority population that the religion they followed was wrong and destroyed a few mosques, even if a segment of the muslim population did end up becoming Jews on their own free will, the remaining muslim population would hold a grudge against the Jewish rulers even after they've long died. This is how human tribalism works. In the middle east, the Iraqis fought against the Kuwaitis in the past, the Saudis fight against the Yemenis, yet Israel's persecution of Palestinians stand out to muslims because of the same reason even though people died in all these conflicts.

It's very hard for this tribalism to disappear when one man's hero is another man's villain and vice versa (Eg. Ranjit Singh converted a few mosques into horse stables, yet he is revered by the Sikhs but I don't think many muslims would be fond of him). This doesn't exist in Europe because firstly there is way less tribalism in Europe. You can be tribal only if you feel strongly about certain things, and the Europeans don't really care about their religion much to hold a grudge about things happened in the past. I don't think they even care about the Crusades because many are largely irreligious or only culturally christians. This process will happen in the subcontinent too but it will take a century or two for it to happen when people start feeling less strongly about their religion, caste, creed, etc., and start seeing the commonalities between people.

Few temples?

The cradle of Hinduism, north india has hardly any pre islamic temples, while southern India has many. What does that tell you about the destruction that was unleashed.

What happened to the great universities of Taxila,Nalanda, Vikramshila etc?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is no lesser hate for the brits.

Only difference is that, the left leaning academia didn't make any attempt to white wash the brits. They white washed the muslim invaders and made the brits the only villains.

Secondly, the Christian community doesn't come to defend the Brits saying the built railways and cities like Kolkata or New Delhi or buildings like the Indian parliament.

Atleast my people didn't succumb to greed torture or fear and gave up their religion or culture.

You are already giving up your culture by adopting language and terminology of the Brits. What does left leaning mean in hindu literature? As for giving up religion or culture, I don't think Indians can brag on that account. Name me one major city where Indians are not adopting western culture and ideas about role of religion.

 

[Zaz]

Since the bjp has come in their whole agenda has been to paint muslim residents as foreigners looters and low class citizens

Its good hotstar hasnt succumbed to this prejudice and racist rhetoric like some hindu posters on this forum

Youd think theyd be a bit more intelligent and nuanced in their thinking coming from a educated background but oh no Where they get so much energy to hate they could be doing a lot of good instead

 

[mastimasti]

Some sensitive bigoted hindutvas are angry? Is that anything new in India?

#notmyindia

 

[street cricketer]

Few temples?

The cradle of Hinduism, north india has hardly any pre islamic temples, while southern India has many. What does that tell you about the destruction that was unleashed.

What happened to the great universities of Taxila,Nalanda, Vikramshila etc?

Bruh..All those things happened way back. There's no need to glorify but what's the problem with just a normal tv show. What next.. We've to demolish every Mughal monument just because they've been built by the Mughals?

Also What do you mean north india being the cradle of hinduism..

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

But from a hindu perspective, here was a bunch of rulers who ended up invading their country from a different part of the world, and said to the people that the religion they followed was backward and sinful, their Gods were fake and a few temples ended up getting destroyed. Now the conquering bit wasn't much different to other hindu empires conquering each other, as for a Bengali, a Maratha was a foreigner then like a Turk. But religious persecution always affects people on a deeper level as they see them being persecuted for what they are as individuals rather than what their nation or country is. Imagine if Israel ended up conquering Pakistan a few decades back and told the muslim majority population that the religion they followed was wrong and destroyed a few mosques, even if a segment of the muslim population did end up becoming Jews on their own free will, the remaining muslim population would hold a grudge against the Jewish rulers even after they've long died. This is how human tribalism works. In the middle east, the Iraqis fought against the Kuwaitis in the past, the Saudis fight against the Yemenis, yet Israel's persecution of Palestinians stand out to muslims because of the same reason even though people died in all these conflicts.

The hate is not only against "foreign invaders". Their were Muslim Kingdoms like the Gujarat Sultanate that were formed by Muslim Rajputs. Its not like Hindutva supporters like this Sultanate any better. Heck BJP keeps on bringing up "renaming" Ahmadabad, a city built by scratch by a Muslim King.

And using your example of Israel. Lets say Jews conquered Pakistan, I agree Muslims would not look at them fondly. But here is the difference, Muslims would be honest why. Had Jews conquered the subcontinent 500 years ago, and intermarried with locals, Muslims would not view them as being foreign to the subcontinent. They would be open as to why they dont like them, because of their religion. Same way Muslims dont call Sikhs or Marthas foreign invaders. They are open as to why they dont like them.

And Muslims would completely understand why Jews, Hindus, Sikhs would identify with those empires. To Muslims that would be the most natural thing in the world. So this is the problem with Hindutva supporters. They keep on trying to equate the various "foreign" Muslims with the British, who were actually foreigners. They do this as not only do they want to not identify with the Muslim empires, they dont want subcontinent Muslims to identify with them either.

It's very hard for this tribalism to disappear when one man's hero is another man's villain and vice versa (Eg. Ranjit Singh converted a few mosques into horse stables, yet he is revered by the Sikhs but I don't think many muslims would be fond of him). This doesn't exist in Europe because firstly there is way less tribalism in Europe. You can be tribal only if you feel strongly about certain things, and the Europeans don't really care about their religion much to hold a grudge about things happened in the past. I don't think they even care about the Crusades because many are largely irreligious or only culturally christians. This process will happen in the subcontinent too but it will take a century or two for it to happen when people start feeling less strongly about their religion, caste, creed, etc., and start seeing the commonalities between people.

I dont think if the subcontinent would be irreligious this would go away. For example Europeans viewed the Roman Empire as theirs when they were religious Christians. Now that Europe is irreligious, and Culturally christian they still view the Roman Empire as theirs. Even though the Romans were conquerors and invaded the existing Kingdoms of much of Europe, it does not matter.

However Europeans (with Albania, and Bosnia as exceptions) will never view the Ottoman Empire as theirs. Being religious or irreligious will not change their view on the Ottomans. The Ottomans will be foreign to the Europeans.

Same way the Muslims of North Africa and Levant, dont view the Roman Empire as theirs. Even though the Romans ruled their land for centuries. If Muslims of this region become irreligious it still wont change their opinion on the Roman Empire.

So same way people in subcontinent if Hindus become irreligious they not suddenly start viewing Mughals as their own empire. And vice versa Muslims if they became irreligious will not start seeing the Marthas as theirs.

Only way for that to happen would be for mass intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus, with children of these marriages not being raised in any religion.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Youd think theyd be a bit more intelligent and nuanced in their thinking coming from a educated background but oh no Where they get so much energy to hate they could be doing a lot of good instead

These educated ones are the people who are inciting the others to win elections. They use the word "foreign invader" so the rank and file Hindutva members would see them as the same way people see the British, as complete outsiders to the subcontinent.

Since the bjp has come in their whole agenda has been to paint muslim residents as foreigners looters and low class citizens

Its good hotstar hasnt succumbed to this prejudice and racist rhetoric like some hindu posters on this forum

Ultimately hotstar and Bollywood will do what will make them more money. Which is why banning Indian content in Pakistan does not make sense. If you take the population of Pakistan with Indian Muslims and the more liberal and moderate Hindus, that should exceed the number of Indians who subscribe to Hindutva viewpoint.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Bruh..All those things happened way back. There's no need to glorify but what's the problem with just a normal tv show. What next.. We've to demolish every Mughal monument just because they've been built by the Mughals?

Also What do you mean north india being the cradle of hinduism..

i gave an example of the hit TV show The Vikings, which is very popular in the UK but can't find it now. Brits were conquered by the Romans and subjected to pillage and rape by the Vikings, yet we don't feel it necessary to expunge everything about their history. The Vikings are even now portrayed as heroic figures in tv shows airing today.

 

[OMB]

i gave an example of the hit TV show The Vikings, which is very popular in the UK but can't find it now. Brits were conquered by the Romans and subjected to pillage and rape by the Vikings, yet we don't feel it necessary to expunge everything about their history. The Vikings are even now portrayed as heroic figures in tv shows airing today.

Vikings and Romans pillaging and raping the Brits was news to me. I just googled and find that it has actually happened around 8th century AD. and poor me thought only the Asians and Africans were the ones suffering from European style colonialism.

The Brits hold no grudge and Vikings are heroes in some TV airings and this all goes on to show what a developed society the Brits have evolved into. From the 8th century to the 20th century, Brits have developed amazing patience and tolerance. Though for a while in between in 1800's, they got morally lost and felt it was ok to go and pillage some Asians and Africans but then they realised their mistake once their people developed morality after suffering through a World war and seeing tragedy first hand themselves.

Wish those narrow minded Asians and Africans too learn from experience of the Brits and think about their invaders as heroes. or atleast allow a TV serial as the Brits have experienced all this before and have certified it as a safe and acceptable behaviour.

 

[pillionrider]

But religious persecution always affects people on a deeper level as they see them being persecuted for what they are as individuals rather than what their nation or country is.

This is a good point.

When Indians think of the British, it's mostly about them being looters because the Brits didn't really care about or push a religious agenda. The Portuguese on the other hand did that, but since it was limited to a small pocket in Goa, the rest of India doesn't really care about it.

Years back, in another life, I was a fake journalist doing a piece on Goa and met with a woman who was rising up the ranks in Goan politics. She was a Christian named after a Hindu goddess and part of the BJP. Back then, my first vote had just gone to Vajpayee's BJP and I didn't find her being in the BJP such a big deal. I was more intrigued by her name. I guess my point is - maybe some Christians in Goa feel that the Portuguese represent an oppression of their identity rather than looters of opportunities. And a reaction to that is to identify with the nationalistic (posers), the BJP.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bruh..All those things happened way back. There's no need to glorify but what's the problem with just a normal tv show. What next.. We've to demolish every Mughal monument just because they've been built by the Mughals?

Also What do you mean north india being the cradle of hinduism..

Have you watched the show?

What about the white washing done in the academia?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Vikings and Romans pillaging and raping the Brits was news to me. I just googled and find that it has actually happened around 8th century AD. and poor me thought only the Asians and Africans were the ones suffering from European style colonialism.

The Brits hold no grudge and Vikings are heroes in some TV airings and this all goes on to show what a developed society the Brits have evolved into. From the 8th century to the 20th century, Brits have developed amazing patience and tolerance. Though for a while in between in 1800's, they got morally lost and felt it was ok to go and pillage some Asians and Africans but then they realised their mistake once their people developed morality after suffering through a World war and seeing tragedy first hand themselves.

Wish those narrow minded Asians and Africans too learn from experience of the Brits and think about their invaders as heroes. or atleast allow a TV serial as the Brits have experienced all this before and have certified it as a safe and acceptable behaviour.

So what is your point? It will take Asia 12 centuries to catch up with Britain and have tv shows where Mughals are allowed to be viewed in a positive light? I'm not sure why you think that, even recent generations of Indians were prepared to view positives of Mughal culture, not just the downsides.

 

[Napa]

This is an extremely ignorant statement and limited to an understanding of North India.

Only contribution of value is science, something that lives for ever and provides value to people. Literature is valuable but happens at its own pace. Can’t remember significant Mughal literature.

Indians through history made many contribution to science, for example the Kerala School of Mathematics. Not surprisingly the barbaric Mughals, who had a tradition of murdering their brothers, made only minor contributions to science (mostly observational astronomy).

 

[PakLFC]

There is no lesser hate for the brits.

Only difference is that, the left leaning academia didn't make any attempt to white wash the brits. They white washed the muslim invaders and made the brits the only villains.

Secondly, the Christian community doesn't come to defend the Brits saying the built railways and cities like Kolkata or New Delhi or buildings like the Indian parliament.

What you on about?? If anything you are envious of the Brits who built so much of your infrastructure that is used even today. What is " They white washed the muslim invaders and made the brits the only villains" supposed to mean?

There are not too many Christian's left in India that they can defend their community moreover how do you know they don't?. India has million's of Christian evangelists whose money you love taking that quell's down Hindu hate towards that community too.

If Indian people hate their Muslim's so much then why go to the Middle East to look for better jobs and a good lifestyle?

 

[street cricketer]

The hate is not only against "foreign invaders". Their were Muslim Kingdoms like the Gujarat Sultanate that were formed by Muslim Rajputs. Its not like Hindutva supporters like this Sultanate any better. Heck BJP keeps on bringing up "renaming" Ahmadabad, a city built by scratch by a Muslim King.

And using your example of Israel. Lets say Jews conquered Pakistan, I agree Muslims would not look at them fondly. But here is the difference, Muslims would be honest why. Had Jews conquered the subcontinent 500 years ago, and intermarried with locals, Muslims would not view them as being foreign to the subcontinent. They would be open as to why they dont like them, because of their religion. Same way Muslims dont call Sikhs or Marthas foreign invaders. They are open as to why they dont like them.

And Muslims would completely understand why Jews, Hindus, Sikhs would identify with those empires. To Muslims that would be the most natural thing in the world. So this is the problem with Hindutva supporters. They keep on trying to equate the various "foreign" Muslims with the British, who were actually foreigners. They do this as not only do they want to not identify with the Muslim empires, they dont want subcontinent Muslims to identify with them either.

Oh I know the foreigner bit is just a front. I think the main friction point that causes animosity is religion and particularly any persecution that would have happened in the past under a ruler with different religion.

I dont think if the subcontinent would be irreligious this would go away. For example Europeans viewed the Roman Empire as theirs when they were religious Christians. Now that Europe is irreligious, and Culturally christian they still view the Roman Empire as theirs. Even though the Romans were conquerors and invaded the existing Kingdoms of much of Europe, it does not matter.

However Europeans (with Albania, and Bosnia as exceptions) will never view the Ottoman Empire as theirs. Being religious or irreligious will not change their view on the Ottomans. The Ottomans will be foreign to the Europeans.

Same way the Muslims of North Africa and Levant, dont view the Roman Empire as theirs. Even though the Romans ruled their land for centuries. If Muslims of this region become irreligious it still wont change their opinion on the Roman Empire.

So same way people in subcontinent if Hindus become irreligious they not suddenly start viewing Mughals as their own empire. And vice versa Muslims if they became irreligious will not start seeing the Marthas as theirs.

Only way for that to happen would be for mass intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus, with children of these marriages not being raised in any religion.

I didn't say the hindus and muslims would start seeing their counterpart empires as their own, that would rarely happen. I said the friction and animosity that exists currently may disappear in the distant future.

You're right when you say that Europeans will never see the Ottomans as their own. But they will also not get up in arms and protest against a show on the Ottomans if it were to be produced because they are past the religious tribalism bit which desis are entrenched in.

 

[street cricketer]

i gave an example of the hit TV show The Vikings, which is very popular in the UK but can't find it now. Brits were conquered by the Romans and subjected to pillage and rape by the Vikings, yet we don't feel it necessary to expunge everything about their history. The Vikings are even now portrayed as heroic figures in tv shows airing today.

Yeah but I gave the reason for it. Europeans are not really tribal on religion like desis are and secondly, they don't necessarily view the Vikings as the other as they embraced Christianity and became their tribe.

Europe is largely made up of one majority culture - anglo saxon culture with a judeo christian history. The subcontinent is a bit more complicated where it's made up of significant amounts of differing populations with differing faiths, cultures and history. And so the clash is expected but I hope people get over things happened centuries ago and actually care about what's to happen in the future.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Muslim invaders were foreigners, Marathas were not.

Muslim invaders looted and destroyed temples, were involved in religious persecution, tried their best to forcefully exert their foreign culture and religion on the natives. Infact many bengalis feel that the Bargis defeating the muslims was a good thing.

So Aurangzeb who was 4th generation was invader but Marathas who had never had any role in bengal were not invaders lmao?

Also You do know lot of the bengalis massacres by the Marathas were Hindus as well. So we’re they dying for some greater cause lol?

 

[street cricketer]

This is a good point.

When Indians think of the British, it's mostly about them being looters because the Brits didn't really care about or push a religious agenda. The Portuguese on the other hand did that, but since it was limited to a small pocket in Goa, the rest of India doesn't really care about it.

Years back, in another life, I was a fake journalist doing a piece on Goa and met with a woman who was rising up the ranks in Goan politics. She was a Christian named after a Hindu goddess and part of the BJP. Back then, my first vote had just gone to Vajpayee's BJP and I didn't find her being in the BJP such a big deal. I was more intrigued by her name. I guess my point is - maybe some Christians in Goa feel that the Portuguese represent an oppression of their identity rather than looters of opportunities. And a reaction to that is to identify with the nationalistic (posers), the BJP.

Do Goans dislike their Portuguese heritage? I don't know much about the place but I thought they embraced it. I don't think there's any special dislike for their French history in Pondicherry.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Do Goans dislike their Portuguese heritage? I don't know much about the place but I thought they embraced it. I don't think there's any special dislike for their French history in Pondicherry.

Lol the only 2 goans I’ve met (Indians) would make it appear that they were Portuguese. They had Portuguese names but looked 100% Indian

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

It’s really funny to see cricketjoshila’s mental gymnastics and Stockholm syndrome regarding Marathas massacres and tyranny in Bengal. Hypocrisy and double standards on full display!

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

It’s really funny to see cricketjoshila’s mental gymnastics and Stockholm syndrome regarding Marathas massacres and tyranny in Bengal. Hypocrisy and double standards on full display!

Also these Marathas raped and pillaged Muslims and Hindus alike ( not That exclusively targeting innocent Muslims would be fine). They even looted some temples apparently.

The degree of pillage and plunder carried out by the tyrannical Marathas was so bad that it is seeped into Bengali consciousness till today to the point thay there are lullabies and folklores about it. Nothing similar about the so called tyrannical Muslim ‘invaders’..

Bengali Hindus of today need to get out of the Stockholm syndrome and stop glorifying a fleeting empire which raped and pillaged their ancestors

 

[street cricketer]

Lol the only 2 goans I’ve met (Indians) would make it appear that they were Portuguese. They had Portuguese names but looked 100% Indian

Yeah that's the thing about union territories. Portuguese and French colonies have a big connect to their past colonial periods unlike the general subcontinent and I always thought they liked their Portuguese and French heritages. You'd even see a huge influence in their architecture and cuisine.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So Aurangzeb who was 4th generation was invader but Marathas who had never had any role in bengal were not invaders lmao?

Also You do know lot of the bengalis massacres by the Marathas were Hindus as well. So we’re they dying for some greater cause lol?

Marathas were from India. Mughals were from central asia. So yes Aurangzeb is a foreign invader and Marathas are not. You are free to disagee or celebrate Aurangzeb any which way you want in pakistan. In India hindus and sikhs will consider him as a tyrannical bigoted foreign invader. His and his preceding invaders will have no place of glory in India. No leftist white washing will change it.


Battles were fought between a muslim and a hindu kingdom and i haven't seen hindu bengalis in bengal having any complaints about the Marathas.

But many many have complaints about muslim bengalis and what they did before and during partition and what they have done to hindus in BD.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I find it enlightening that if we were to go back in time and ask those living in Bengal that they would have been comforted at being raped and pillaged as it was being done so by sons of the soil.

 

[KB]

Who said about calling anyone anything? Its about cancel culture taking over. Its so far in the past, move on.

Enjoy the show if its worth it or otherwise dont. It reeks of insecurity if we are still affected by it(as the people complaining about it I believe are), its history it happens

I think the issue is, that for the Hindu nationalist, the way they wish to remember the past is a critical component of their identity.

Of course the ‘history’ they retail is very simplistic and reflects a manichean worldview. Unfortunately, the study (if it can be called this) of history under this mindset is not geared towards enlightenment and learning but instead descends into reinforcing prejudices.

Be that as it may, because the past - as they interpret it - is tied to their cultural sensibilities (and hence provides a sense of purpose, meaning, belonging and identity) there is an existential dimension to how the past is remembered.

 

[MenInG]

Write sensible posts or some of you may end up being banned.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I find it enlightening that if we were to go back in time and ask those living in Bengal that they would have been comforted at being raped and pillaged as it was being done so by sons of the soil.

There’s a word for it. Stockholm syndrome

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yeah that's the thing about union territories. Portuguese and French colonies have a big connect to their past colonial periods unlike the general subcontinent and I always thought they liked their Portuguese and French heritages. You'd even see a huge influence in their architecture and cuisine.

Again I will refer back to Britain. We have no problem recognising that it was the Romans who introduced us to the concept of roads and town structure in general. Even today, Indians don't seem to have a problem with accepting modern advancement from alien cultures, many have adopted western dress and lifestyle, and even the language, but we only see real animosity for Mughals and Islamic influence. I do wonder if it is the neighbours garden syndrome, where the closer you are to someone, the more their success (even if it was from a previous era) hurts.

 

[cric_man]

Only contribution of value is science, something that lives for ever and provides value to people. Literature is valuable but happens at its own pace. Can’t remember significant Mughal literature.

Indians through history made many contribution to science, for example the Kerala School of Mathematics. Not surprisingly the barbaric Mughals, who had a tradition of murdering their brothers, made only minor contributions to science (mostly observational astronomy).

If you ask a foreigner (more precisely a Westerner) what is the most recognizable thing that pops in their mind about India what would it be?

 

[cric_man]

Marathas were from India. Mughals were from central asia. So yes Aurangzeb is a foreign invader and Marathas are not. You are free to disagee or celebrate Aurangzeb any which way you want in pakistan. In India hindus and sikhs will consider him as a tyrannical bigoted foreign invader. His and his preceding invaders will have no place of glory in India. No leftist white washing will change it.


Battles were fought between a muslim and a hindu kingdom and i haven't seen hindu bengalis in bengal having any complaints about the Marathas.

But many many have complaints about muslim bengalis and what they did before and during partition and what they have done to hindus in BD.

Wasn't Auranzeb born in India like his father , grandfather and great grandfather?
So how is he an outside invader?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Mughals were Indians, if they were Hindus a 3 hour Bollywood film would be released daily. One of the great empires, the greatest in 'India', made it the richest nation with great structures. India is still recognised by most outsiders by the buildings built by Muslims. Right wing Hindus need to realise they cannot change history, their decendents for centuries to come will still remember the Mughals.

I wont be watching this but hope Netflix or some other platform produce a better quailty series of the Mughals.

 

[JaDed]

I find it enlightening that if we were to go back in time and ask those living in Bengal that they would have been comforted at being raped and pillaged as it was being done so by sons of the soil.

Similar for Bin Qasim, Babar and others no? Irrespective of religion.

 

[JaDed]

Kings did absolutely nothing anyone that thinks Kings were honorable (of any religion) are biased.They were all for themselves.

If anything we should probably take instances of history to show how cunning these kings, priests religious class were or are ,instead we keep glorifying them.

 

[JaDed]

Mughals were Indians, if they were Hindus a 3 hour Bollywood film would be released daily. One of the great empires, the greatest in 'India', made it the richest nation with great structures. India is still recognised by most outsiders by the buildings built by Muslims. Right wing Hindus need to realise they cannot change history, their decendents for centuries to come will still remember the Mughals.

I wont be watching this but hope Netflix or some other platform produce a better quailty series of the Mughals.

What did they build in Tamil Nadu? Thats the state with highest foreign tourism in India.

 

[KingKhanWC]

What did they build in Tamil Nadu? Thats the state with highest foreign tourism in India.

I didnt mention tourists who actually visit. I wrote oustisders recognise India by images of strutctures made by Muslims. Taj Mahal is the biggest by far & the most recognised building in India by the world.

However I may have used a poor example for Hindutva followers, as one of their BJP officials still believes there was a Temple undernearth. We may see their goons climbing on the Taj in the coming years, tough climb tho.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Similar for Bin Qasim, Babar and others no? Irrespective of religion.

They are equally part of our heritage.

Who knows maybe some modern Indian Hindu nationalists are descended from the Hindu loyalists of Bin Qasim that served happily?

A modern Hindu Bengali Indian like Joshilla bhai has nothing in common with Hindu Sindhi people who lived under Bin Qasim.

Its about as laughable as some Punjabi Pakistanis claiming Turkish history as their own just on a basis of shared religion.

 

[Napa]

If you ask a foreigner (more precisely a Westerner) what is the most recognizable thing that pops in their mind about India what would it be?

Depends upon the foreigner, a mathematician would say the invention of zero. Anyway, you should get over your colonial mentality of valuing things according to Westerners and learn to think for yourself.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

What did they build in Tamil Nadu? Thats the state with highest foreign tourism in India.

What is the site with the highest people visiting?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Marathas were from India. Mughals were from central asia. So yes Aurangzeb is a foreign invader and Marathas are not. You are free to disagee or celebrate Aurangzeb any which way you want in pakistan. In India hindus and sikhs will consider him as a tyrannical bigoted foreign invader. His and his preceding invaders will have no place of glory in India. No leftist white washing will change it.


Battles were fought between a muslim and a hindu kingdom and i haven't seen hindu bengalis in bengal having any complaints about the Marathas.

But many many have complaints about muslim bengalis and what they did before and during partition and what they have done to hindus in BD.

There was no India.

To a Bengali at the time, Marathas and Mughals were equally foreign (actually Mughals a bit less since they had had relations into Bengal prior to that)

 

[cric_man]

Depends upon the foreigner, a mathematician would say the invention of zero. Anyway, you should get over your colonial mentality of valuing things according to Westerners and learn to think for yourself.

Typical condescending response from our resident knowitall.

I will make it more obvious. Excluding the 2 mathematicians who maybe into origins of zero, majority would answer Taj Mahal as the most iconic thing about India.

All heads of state visiting India will have their photo taken in front of Taj Mahal.
I think KingKhanWC already answered it much better.

Mughals were Indians, if they were Hindus a 3 hour Bollywood film would be released daily. One of the great empires, the greatest in 'India', made it the richest nation with great structures. India is still recognised by most outsiders by the buildings built by Muslims.

 

[JaDed]

What is the site with the highest people visiting?

The comment was about “Structures” plural, plus i recognize Indian born Mughals as Indians but they are not the only “ones” that built structures which are recognized abroad.

Hell most people in USA recognize India with Yoga, Spiritualism( Two things personally I don’t care about).

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

The comment was about “Structures” plural, plus i recognize Indian born Mughals as Indians but they are not the only “ones” that built structures which are recognized abroad.

Hell most people in USA recognize India with Yoga, Spiritualism( Two things personally I don’t care about).

That is not true. lot of the people in the west who actually do yoga have no idea about origins of yoga. The hippies are into spiritualism but they form a small portion

For better or worse the most iconic thing know about India abroad is the taj mahal

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

The muslim invaders were foreigners and remained so. They forced upon their religion. Tried to destroy the native religion, culture and language. Kept their foreign language, culture and religion until the last day and tried their best to make the native culture extinct.

Those who married them were converted.

As you have accepted, the muslim invaders kept their foreign language, culture and religion while tried to destroy the native culture, religion and persecuted the natives. Hence they are hated as foreign invaders.

What about the Gujarat Sultanate? They were Muslim Rajputs, but they had a "foreign religion". Persian was the official language. Any children they had with Hindu women were raised Muslim. They also destroyed a few mandirs, particularly a famous one in Somnath.

Does this make them foreigners? Or since they were Muslim Rajputs are they Indian?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Lol, the scars sure run deep and I am sure your coming generations will have to live with them too.

How many years did your people live as 2nd/3rd class citizens?

Probably never. Brahmin's were a privileged class in the Mughal Empire.

 

[street cricketer]

I think the Taj Mahal is definitely the most famous site in India for foreigners. But the question that what comes to your mind when you think of India is a very broad question that encompasses everything from history, culture, architecture, food and cuisine, etc.

If you asked the same question about Italy to me, the first thought that immediately pops up in my mind is definitely the pizza. People may think about Pizza/Pasta, the Colosseum, the leaning tower of Pisa, the Italian football team or even Venice when they think of Italy.

I think Curry, Bollywood, Taj Mahal, Yoga, bright colours (holi), the spiritual stuff and just extreme crowds might all pop up in people's minds when they think of India. The most famous building would obviously be the Taj Mahal.

 

[Cyclotron]

It was false information propagated by dutch as maratha descreted dutch camp.so he gave random number

 

[Rajdeep]

Mughals were Indians, if they were Hindus a 3 hour Bollywood film would be released daily. One of the great empires, the greatest in 'India', made it the richest nation with great structures. India is still recognised by most outsiders by the buildings built by Muslims. Right wing Hindus need to realise they cannot change history, their decendents for centuries to come will still remember the Mughals.

I wont be watching this but hope Netflix or some other platform produce a better quailty series of the Mughals.

A) Mughals were not Indians. Babur, who was the decendent of Taimur and Gengis Khan, came to India from Central Asia.

B) Plenty of bollywood movies being made on Mughals including the superhit Mughal E Azam.

C) YesTaj Mahal is a landmark but India is known for many other things. Since India along with Brazil are the 2 biggest emerging markets in the world, its known for a country with immense growth potential. India is also known for producing IT wizards, ISRO space missions and its delicious cuisines. India is also known for spectacular himalayan peaks, Kerala backwaters or worlds largest statue. India is also known for giving Yoga around the world. India is also known for inventing '0'.

D) Trust me, Indians are much more aware of the history now and no one is interested in remembering bigoted empires of the past. There is a reason this web series has Web rating of 2.7/10 and finding tough to gain enough sponsor.

India since 2014 has moved on...not sure how many times I have to reiterate the same point again and again. No amount of agenda will work anymore.

 

[pillionrider]

Do Goans dislike their Portuguese heritage?

I don't think so. They celebrate it culturally in their music and festivals.

I was talking specifically about some Christians that I've interacted with.

You are a Kannadiga?

Have you been to Hampi?

I know where you're going with this. And yes, every time I've been there ,it is difficult to not feel sadness at so much beauty lost.

But let me also point out that, if you go to Badami-Pattadakal, there are temples where the garbagrihas are open to tourists without any restriction because their idols were removed by later Hindu kings while installing their own deities in another section.

The difference between pillaging Hindu and Islamic kings was that the former rarely destroyed the idols. But destruction of the vanquished was a common event.

And since you've mentioned both the Marathas and Tipu Sultan here. Firstly, I don't consider Tipu a freedom fighter as some have tried to portray him. He was loyal to his kingdom of Mysore and did his best to protect it. That's about it. And he was also a great king doing pretty much what every other great king did. Only difference was, he was a Muslim who butchered his opponents who happened to be Hindus. Why is it different and ok when Hindu kings butchered other Hindus. And if you're gonna start with conversions - Mysore is pretty much the cradle of being a Hindu Kannadiga. If he was up to all the conversion drama that is claimed, how did his kingdom of Mysore survive?

And on a personal note, one side of my family owns land on the Tamil Nadu-Karnataka border that was granted to them by Tipu for being Ayurveda practitioners. There has been a convenient twisting of the truth I agree. Like it's often said that he built temples for Hindus. But the reality is at least one of them was for his astrologer. But why should you expect a Muslim king to build a temple. Would you expect a Hindu king to build a mosque for some of his subjects. Why should that be some sort of standard?

And finally coming back to what I started off about the Marathas before going off into a rant The Marathas joined with the British to try and defeat Tipu Sultan. Would you consider them anti-Indian as a result?

The only reality is that all kings looked out for themselves and did their best to maximize their areas of control. In doing that, plenty got butchered.

Where the victim and the perpetrator's religions are different, that's where the propaganda begins.

 

[Zaz]

Hindus should be happy that they had a son of the soil like king aurangzaib He united all the princely states and the kindom flouished under him

Not many people could do what he did so succesfully Hats off to him Hes gone down in history as the most successful indian mughal

 

[JaDed]

Hindus should be happy that they had a son of the soil like king aurangzaib He united all the princely states and the kindom flouished under him

Not many people could do what he did so succesfully Hats off to him Hes gone down in history as the most successful indian mughal

Hmm let me get this straight,So Hindus and Muslims should be proud of British for uniting the entire India(including Tamil Nadu) and building railways connecting the country, “educating” Indians like Mr. Jinnah, Mr . Gandhi..

 

[JaDed]

That is not true. lot of the people in the west who actually do yoga have no idea about origins of yoga. The hippies are into spiritualism but they form a small portion

For better or worse the most iconic thing know about India abroad is the taj mahal

Maybe in UK not in Texas atleast.. its all yoga yoga yoga.
Irrespective Street cricketers post is a much better reply.

Also the original comment was on “structures” if that was the case UP etc would had had more tourists than Tamil Nadu.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Hmm let me get this straight,So Hindus and Muslims should be proud of British for uniting the entire India(including Tamil Nadu) and building railways connecting the country, “educating” Indians like Mr. Jinnah, Mr . Gandhi..

British weren't sons of the soil.

Aurangzeb was born and buried in the land he ruled. Like almost 5 generations of ancestors before him.

 

[Napa]

Hindus should be happy that they had a son of the soil like king aurangzaib He united all the princely states and the kindom flouished under him

Not many people could do what he did so succesfully Hats off to him Hes gone down in history as the most successful indian mughal

Aurangzeb was hardly anyone to be proud of. He started the Deccan War in which 3 million died. His war was also a failure, with the Maratha Army reaching Delhi 12 years after his death in 1707.

Akbar built the Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb destroyed it.

 

[Napa]

Typical condescending response from our resident knowitall.

I will make it more obvious. Excluding the 2 mathematicians who maybe into origins of zero, majority would answer Taj Mahal as the most iconic thing about India.

All heads of state visiting India will have their photo taken in front of Taj Mahal.
I think KingKhanWC already answered it much better.

You are mistaking culture for a building.

Culture is how people live their lives. For example, an important aspect of India’s culture is that it is a democracy.

It wouldn’t have made any difference to my life growing up in India if the Taj Mahal was n Lahore. It would have made a huge difference if India wasn’t a democracy.

 

[Zaz]

Aurangzeb was hardly anyone to be proud of. He started the Deccan War in which 3 million died. His war was also a failure, with the Maratha Army reaching Delhi 12 years after his death in 1707.

Akbar built the Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb destroyed it.

How did he destroy it Hardly his fault his successors were inept

And in terms of wars and death thats a by product of being a succesfull ruler throughout the ages
You cant have one without the other

Form all accounts aurangzaib was brave, intelligent and beliigerent

 

[JaDed]

British weren't sons of the soil.

Aurangzeb was born and buried in the land he ruled. Like almost 5 generations of ancestors before him.

So Bin Qasim , Babur are not sons of Soil..