For Pobre Marthas of our world

minuteman wrote: I don't quite agree with whisper about the British bashing. The British occupied India. What about Muslims?? What did they do?? Did they also not do the same thing?? I feel that it is a political matter and no one can be blamed for doing what they did.  We should look to the good things of the British too. Indians were the subjects of the Mughals before the British arrived. When the British came, the Indians became the subjects of the British.

The above was my reply only to whisper (and a reply to candid). Now I take up the post from sign*Reader with my remarks in Pink. That is necessary because I do not want to reply to the full post.

Let me add my two cents on bro Sasha's behalf!
Thanks for the 2 cents.

Your comments are like comparing apples with oranges! It may be true.

The Mughals from emperors Akbar on were natural  Indians- born of Indian women on Indian soil. India was their homeland. They never made their capital in Ferghana Valley or Kabul.

As migration of people is a natural phenomena, the Dravidian people of course may have a right to complain being the original Indians that Aryans subjugated God knows when and started the awful tradition!

Whereas you couldn't say the directors of East India Company or the viceroys of queens or kings of Briton were natural born Indians! Their job was to bleed India as much as possible and ASAP.  True.

Their home was London or any shires some where there. True

You could not find anything common between these two situations.

Whereas the emperor Akbar was so lax in his religion that the Hindus had more sway in his court than the Muslims and ended up creating his own religion to please the Hindus! That may not have any value. I may tell you that the British never used up the Indian ladies...

Almost all of the Mughals violated the Islamic prohibition of marrying a polytheist woman. Do you see the liberality of their living amongst Indians? Are you now worrting for liberality??
Do you know the Mughals shipped any of the land revenues, the jewels, gold and diamonds and the like to Kabul or Ferghana Valley?

Even though they did not do that but they did fill up their own coffers..

Now if you can't see the difference between the citizen of a independent nation vs an indentured slave in a colony I can't help you there! What is independence?? with weakness?? What use??

  The Indians became exactly that a number in the East India plantations just like American Southern states just for board and lodging  and harsh punishment for any infraction to boot! Not true. Absolutely false. Mor Proof later... about your misunderstanding.

Probably you might like  to visit  some of the old plantation sites and see the slaves living conditions and to be chained at night like the animals I do not see any Indians being chained any where in India by the British. Are you not now going out of your limits?? You have used the word slave for the Indians wrongly. I feel that you do not understand the meaning of the word slave.  I will explain... Please try to be reasonable.

I have seen those places and believe you me it wasn't a pretty site at all. They could be a little lenient in the Indian plantations but not much! You cannot compare. Try to remember the POW's in Japan during WWII. That may give some example of your black people working in the States. But not so in India.

I had a colleague long time ago whose dad was a  plantation foreman in British Indian days and the stories of sexual abuse of the women he used to tell was mind boggling and disgusting.

 May have happened. But there is no widespread news of such things. Don't trust your friend's words. And no need to take me to any plantation because I agree with you on that point about black people in USA. So there is no need. But such bad things are not known about the British Raaj in India.

BTW what is your location I mean country so I might locate some close by for you to look if possible!
Thanks for asking. May I ask you whether you have heard the word "Subject" or you have only heard the word "Slave"?? You know that slaves do not have any property. They even do not have their own name. They do not have any time for themselves. But such was not the case with the Indian subjects of the British empire. Would you kindly correspond??

I am not in favor of the British rule of the sub-continent. But it is fact of history and it was the natural consequence of the inherent weakness of the Indian Rulers (Muhammad Shah Rangeela etc). You also must have heard about the survival of the fittest. I do not find any fault with the British during their rule of India. They even gave full liberty to all faiths in the country to preach and practice freely.

 It seems to have been a part of the divine plan of Allah about the British reaching as far as Kabul in those days.  I may write more if necessary. Now, it is you turn please.