Mughals were neither about art nor science nor they were tolerant. Post partition and independence India had 5 education ministers who were hardcore Islamist and sympathizer of Pakistan. They have created this aura around Mughal tolerance.
That sounds like a political opinion that has an axe to grind.
Do you think these omissions from Indians History books are happen-stances:
- Dutch came to India before English but they were crushed by Vijay Nagar Empire.[1]
- Ahoms ruled the North-East part of India for 600 years and Mughals never succeed in defeating them. [2]
- Marathas were ruling the India when British invaded yet history books show Mughals as last rulers of India.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marthanda_Varma#Battle_of_Cola...
Kolkata even has remnants of a ditch (now filled up and made into roads) that was dug to protect Bengal from the Marthas. In Bengali, the Maratha raiders and sackers were called Borgis and were bit of a terror. Borgis feature often in Bengali folk songs. The British helped fund much of the ditch digging, for obvious reasons.
But this is a far cry from modern India being a victim of hardcore Islamists. That's quite ridiculous. Sorry to call that rightwing wishful thinking and propaganda out.
[1] A Self-Study Course on Political Islam
Far from it. This is from 1987.
> is unique to Islamic invasions
Far from it. Mongols, Christians, Huns ... I will run out of space if i have to keep mentioning all the ones that I know of.
I think what you are talking about reflects poor history curriculum and teaching rather than conspiracy. Might it be a projection of a collective low self esteem felt by a class of people who got left behind economically and culturally
Debate on Maratha history is still going on[1] other chapters of history is yet to be opened and taught.
> Far from it. Mongols, Christians, Huns ... I will run out of space if i have to keep mentioning all the ones that I know of.
Mongols were pretty inclusive and tolerant towards religion until they converted to Islam[2]
Hunas never succedded in invading India. I am not sure which history you have read. Last hun Mihirakula was defeated by Yashodharman and he too was a Shavite.[3]
Christians represent same Abrahmic idea so yes they were also brutal towards other religions but not to same level.[4]
> Might it be a projection of a collective low self esteem felt by a class of people who got left behind economically and culturally
Are you sure I am culturally "left behind"?
[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Maratha-histor...
[2] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history7.htm
[3] Rajtargini by Kalhana
[4] A Self-Study Course on Political Islam
Was not commenting you or Indian history (hence Huns and Mongols, the latter were warded off by the Delhi Sultanate, which Indian right wingers find hard to acknowledge) but the phenomena of rise of right wing pathos in the world. Most of the time it has arisen it has from a sense of being left behind, or 'stabbed in the back' narrative.
In the Indian context I have seen right wing sympathies among those who feel uncool, among low self esteem men (the gender bias is quite surprising). This is not the only birthing factor, but from anecdotal evidence from my own surroundings, it matched many examples.
> Carrying out general massacre, destroying places of worship
>
You mean Mongols did not do general massacre with and without destruction of places of worship prior to turning to Islam. If you believe so, that would be quite an unique belief.
Based on my understanding Mongols didn't kill people for their religious beliefs. They killed entire cities if the resisted which is very different from killing population to attain title of Gazi by killing infidels.
I would be happy to learn more if you have other resources.
With massacre at that scale what difference does it make to those killed whether they were killed for religion or something else. Mongols killed those who did not accept Mongol rule.