Was the Afghan colonisation of the subcontinent better than British rule?

[Pakistanian]

A lot of people forget the local colonial rulers prior to the Europeans started colonizing other lands. The most often forgotten is the Afghan colonization of the subcontinent. Was it better or worse than British rule in the subcontinent? I've heard some Afghan historians say that the Afghan conquest of India was a favor for South Asian Muslims, what do you guys think? More native historians talk about the looting and oppression in Kashmir and Punjab, what is the actual truth about Afghan colonial rule? This is a really intriguing chapter of the subcontinents history.

 

[King-Misbah]

As accord to Hassan Nisar; Afghans use to loot what is Pakistan/India. Since both countries are stronger then the Afghans now; Afghanistan is struggling.

 

[MRSN]

As accord to Hassan Nisar; Afghans use to loot what is Pakistan/India. Since both countries are stronger then the Afghans now; Afghanistan is struggling.

May be but I believe bigger reason is American,Saudis funding and training extremists in the 70s when there was much progressive govt. in Afghanistan. That period left Afghans in the dark ages and they could never develop as a society according to modern needs.

 

[Jin Chacha]

To be fair there is some controversy whether most empires that 'colonized' the sub-continent can strictly be called Afghan. India has been under Turkic/Central Asian rule much longer than Afghan rule who were more interested in raiding than colonizing. With the exception of the Ghoris, the Dheli Sultanate rulers like Khilji's and Tughlaqs, are described variously as Turkik/Central Asian and only sometimes as Afghan. Same goes for the Mughals who although later ruled Kabul were of Uzbeg/Turkic stock. The only ethnic Afghans I can think of are Mahmud of Ghazni and Ahmad Shah Abdali but they did not rule India in the form of an organized empire and there rule was restricted to northern India/Pakistan with occasional raids into the Indian mainlainds.

 

[Slog]

They were central Asian not afghan

 

[Pakistanian]

They were central Asian not afghan

Durranis were Afghans and remembered in Punjabi and Kashmiri history as being very oppresive, there are poems about his barbarity.

 

[Pakistanian]

To be fair there is some controversy whether most empires that 'colonized' the sub-continent can strictly be called Afghan. India has been under Turkic/Central Asian rule much longer than Afghan rule who were more interested in raiding than colonizing. With the exception of the Ghoris, the Dheli Sultanate rulers like Khilji's and Tughlaqs, are described variously as Turkik/Central Asian and only sometimes as Afghan. Same goes for the Mughals who although later ruled Kabul were of Uzbeg/Turkic stock. The only ethnic Afghans I can think of are Mahmud of Ghazni and Ahmad Shah Abdali but they did not rule India in the form of an organized empire and there rule was restricted to northern India/Pakistan with occasional raids into the Indian mainlainds.

I'm specifically talking about the Durrani empire which wasn't one of the most barbaric.

 

[Pakistanian]

May be but I believe bigger reason is American,Saudis funding and training extremists in the 70s when there was much progressive govt. in Afghanistan. That period left Afghans in the dark ages and they could never develop as a society according to modern needs.

No, Afghanistan being landlocked and no longer being a colonial power/being able to pillage the indus plains has led to it's current state. This is why the Afghan govt doesn't recognize the border and wants to expand to have access to the Arabian sea and that's the whole reason behind the civil wars and fundamentalism.

 

[Varun]

Well, the Mughals became Indians over time, and contributed to food, architecture and land reforms. The British were just leeches. So yeah.

 

[Pakistanian]

Well, the Mughals became Indians over time, and contributed to food, architecture and land reforms. The British were just leeches. So yeah.

They weren't Afghan. This is thread is about Afghans, namely the Durranis.

 

[Akki malhotra]

Well, the Mughals became Indians over time, and contributed to food, architecture and land reforms. The British were just leeches. So yeah.

Well had ww2 not happened, british too would have stayed and become Indian.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Well, the Mughals became Indians over time, and contributed to food, architecture and land reforms. The British were just leeches. So yeah.

quite the opposite. it was the british who brought culture, order and scientific thought. the mughals brought only one positive thing, they made the western borders safe till they were in power.

 

[Jin Chacha]

I'm specifically talking about the Durrani empire which wasn't one of the most barbaric.

As I had mentioned Ahmad Shah Abdali/Durrani barely ruled over India proper. As the map you posted shows the empire was limited to the outer boundaries of Northern India and what is now Pakistan. It is also hard to compare it with British colonisation because it barely lasted fifty years which like a blip on the radar when it comes to history. Also in my opinion it is important to define what the term colonisation implies. The British were colonisers because they exploited the resources of India and sent the wealth back to British coffers. The Mughals or the Turkic empires on the other hand were nor colonisers in the strict sense because they practically settled in India and ran the government from Indian power centres. It was not as if they were sending Indian resources back to the central asian steppes from which they originated. Afghans like Ahmad Shah in my opinion can be better classified as raiders than colonizers. The looted and sacked Indian cities and took the wealth back to Afghanistan but there was no sustained economic exploitation via trade as happened with the British. When it comes to whether Afghan 'colonisation' was better than British colonisation, it is a matter of perspective. It is important to note that by the time of the Durrani empire, Britain was already a global power that had gone through the scientific revolution and was on the cusp of the industrial revolution. Thus while its exploitation of India depended on more sophisticated economic policies, it was also in a position to offer something back in terms of European science, law, and administration. The Afghans were still a tribal society and had they expanded further into India weren't in a position to offer much. Similarly, when it comes to bigotry they considered themselves as racially superior to the Indians as the British if not more. All in all I doubt if the Afghan rule would have been better than the British in any way.

PS: If you are interested, an excellent book about the Durrani empire, its role in India and the great game is Return of a King by William Dalrymple.

 

[amax]

LOL Afghans of past just mean Pashtuns and if not for Durrani Empire , there would have been no Pakistan.

 

[topspin]

quite the opposite. it was the british who brought culture, order and scientific thought. the mughals brought only one positive thing, they made the western borders safe till they were in power.

The British actually pillaged everything India had but I guess the love affair with the colonial masters still remains with certain individuals not just in India but also outside it in other parts of SE Asia.

 

[KB]

quite the opposite. it was the british who brought culture, order and scientific thought.

The colonialists certainly justified their rule in these terms but the conflicting imperatives were also apparent. The experience of the Punjab brings the tensions out clearly. On one hand the British attempted to legitimise their rule on grounds that they were a modernising force bringing material progress to the ‘backwaters’ of the subcontinent. The large-scale infrastructure projects - such as the vast irrigation network that they built in western Punjab - were held up as examples of not only Britain’s superior technological and scientific competence but of their commitment to the greater public good.

Yet, on the other hand the colonialists also justified their rule in terms of bringing order and stability and ultimately protecting the role of custom. In this vision the language of kinship and lineage and the idiom of tribe were ever present. So whilst the colonists promoted individual property rights they at the same time went to great lengths to protect customary laws of inheritance. They did much to preserve the existing social structures and indeed justified their authority on these grounds. Settlement on the extensive land available following the construction of the canal colonies were guided by considerations of ‘birarderi’ in avoiding as far as possible mixed settlements of ‘castes’. Landlords were a given honours, nominated to darbars and local boards and were directly involved in administration by being appointed honorary magistrates and zaildars. The Punjab Alienation of Land Act in 1900, which forbade non-agriculturalists from acquiring land in the countryside, demonstrated how far the rulers were prepared to go to protect agricultural interests and the prevailing social order.

The tensions between the rhetoric of transformation and stability can be seen in the Canal Colonisation Act of 1912. Originally the peasant grantees of land in the canal colonies were state tenants. The state as a result could regulate succession and therefore avoid subdivision of land as well as control absenteeism. Resented by the peasants, eventually the state - in the Act of 1912 - granted the peasants of the canal colonies with proprietary rights and the right to enforce customary laws of inheritance. For Imran Ali, “such concessions were detrimental to the prospects of economic development; and by relinquishing its ownership over land, the state forfeited its role as an agent of innovation.”

Although claiming to rule in the name of modernity, the erstwhile colonial rulers often ended up bolstering 'tradition'.