islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery

Islamic Imperialism in Indiaincorporation of Punjab in 1850. The British mercenaries retained Muslim rulers as the "puppet head of state"until the Sepoy Mutiny uprisings of 1857. The direct British imperial rule was introduced in 1858.Following a long campaign for independence by Indian nationalists, the British rulers finallyrelinquished their sovereignty over India on 26 January 1947 and India became independent on August 14–15of the same year. After many centuries of foreign domination, an independent subcontinent—albeitpartitioned into two states: India and Pakistan—eventually emerged for the first time, free to determine herown future.Curiously, of the two foreign rules in India, only one—the British rule—is termed colonial andsingled out for condemnation by historians, scholars and citizens of the subcontinent and elsewhere. Aconscious and deliberate effort has been made to whitewash the no-less dark and disastrous and much longerperiod of Islamic rule. Quite oddly, the Islamic rule is mostly shown in a positive light by most of the leadingmodern historians and writers. This remains the dominant theme in modern history writing, not only inIslamic Pakistan and Bangladesh, but also in Hindu India. The people of the subcontinent, both Muslim andnon-Muslim, are constantly told stories of the 190-year British rule and how cruel and economicallyexploitative it was. But the manifestly greater brutalities, exploitation and iniquities of the Islamic invasionsand much longer period of Muslim rule are rarely, if ever, mentioned. When the Muslim rule in India isdiscussed, it is usually described as something positive, beneficial, and even as glorious. For example, Nehru,who was at the forefront of whitewashing Islamic atrocities in India, says, ‘Islam brought an element ofprogress to India.’ 427The future stability of India is increasingly threatened by rising radicalism, intolerance and militancyamongst its sizable Muslim population. The British imperialism in India, which no longer affects India’sfuture, is frequently cast as the demonic villain in Indian discourse. But factual investigation and discussionabout the deleterious impact of the Islamic rule have hitherto remained largely shrouded in a policy of silenceor denial, or a de-facto taboo subject in India. The elite historians, intellectuals and writers adamantly refuseto acknowledge the real consequence of the Islamic conquest, while vigorously delving into every negativedetail of the British rule—details, which are inconsequential to India’s future. While they are highly vocal incondemning, what they perceive as, the lasting negative impact of the British rule; they take refuge in apeculiar silence or negation about the same concerning the Islamic rule. Most surprisingly, even manyhistorians from the Hindu background with Marxist leanings have allied with their Muslim counterparts topaint a gloriously rosy picture of the Islamic rule and its legacy. This viewpoint, however, shows a wilfuldisregard for an overwhelming body of recorded evidence left behind by Muslim historians and chroniclers ofthose times.The past European colonial rules across the continents have been roundly condemned and demonizedby historians and intellectuals everywhere to the extent that most Europeans, suffering from the past colonialguilt, feel ashamed and candidly acknowledge the misdeeds of their forefathers. About how this altogethernegative view of British rule evolved in India, notes Ibn Warraq:After the first heady days of independence in 1947, Indian historians poured out "nationalist"histories that found no redeeming features in the British Empire. Later, every ill, every failure,every shortcoming of the new country in the 1960s and 1970s was ultimately traced back to theperiod of the British presence, to past British exploitation. 428But Islam’s blood-drenched expansionist invasion and rule—from the Middle East to India, to Europe, toAfrica—is ‘held up as something which Muslims can be proud of, something to be lauded and admired,’427. Nehru (1989), p. 213428. Ibn Warraq, p. 198146