[khan]

I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for muslims of the sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.

If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become the dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. i think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's british raj?

the British Raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership in the late 1800s and later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that we have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

if i was an indian muslim, i would prefer to live under the white man's british raj instead of living in a hindu-dominated country like india

[Jamroll]

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. The British effectively enslaved our forefathers, and left their chamcheh in charge as the subcontinent "elite", so even now their legacy lives on.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by khan

I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for muslims of the sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.

If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas in western india and sikhs in punjab would have become the dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. i think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's british raj?

the British Raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership in the late 1800s and later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that we have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

if i was an indian muslim, i would prefer to live under the white man's british raj instead of living in a hindu-dominated country like india

Most empires such as the Roman Empire and the British Empire produce periods of progress and stability, not sure about the Ottoman Empire

[Variable]

Originally Posted by roberto

Most empires such as the Roman Empire and the British Empire produce periods of progress and stability, not sure about the Ottoman Empire

The Ottomans definitely did.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. The British effectively enslaved our forefathers, and left their chamcheh in charge as the subcontinent "elite", so even now their legacy lives on.

What enslavement? They built universities and railroads.

The Mughals had ignored the advice of their predecessors and had settled and marrying the native hindus. In doing so they lost the very valour that had made the masters of those heathen lands. The infighting and lack of action had meant sikhs and rajput hindus had take over most of the empire in India, and parts of it in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Politically, is Kashmir better off or is Pakistan?

The British came to the rescue of Islam in South Asia.

[Rambo]

i agree with this thread. though i dont like the british empire for many reasons. if you look at history sikhs and hindus had combined forces and were slaughtering muslims before the british came around the early 1800's. sikhs had conqured much of pakistan, including NWFP area, kashmir etc... and they were killing muslim civilians every where they went, it was when british came they defeated the sikh empire in the eastern front and finally because of the that muslim pashtun forces were able to push the sikhs back to punjab. There are reports when sikhs entered peshawar they almost killed everyone they saw.