They remained as Indians, not colonists.
by Rana Safvi (DailyO.in)
India gained independence in 1947 after a long freedom struggle with British imperialism. Perhaps because of that, lack of historical knowledge and sense we see all conquests as colonisation.
Colonisation is described by professor Harbans Mukhia as “governance of a land and its people, now on behalf of and primarily for the economic benefits of a community of people inhabiting a far-off land”.
The Mughals came to India as conquerors but remained as Indians not colonists. They subsumed their identity as well as the group’s identity with India and became inseparable from it, says professor Mukhia, giving rise to an enduring culture and history.
In fact, Mukhia goes on to say that this issue of Mughals being foreign was never a discussion point till quite recently, so well had they integrated and assimilated into the country they had made their own.
Probably not. And here are five reasons why.
by Shoaib Danyal [Source: Scroll.in]
By Maqbool Ahmed Siraj
Much of the evidence of what Hindu nationalists claim about demolishing and desecration of temples by Muslim rulers is found in Persian sources. Now this is projected as a proof of Muslim intolerance, tyranny and despotism against Hindu subjects or the vanquished people. But it does not tell all.
Name of the Book: Temple Destruction and Muslim States in Medieval India
Author: Richard M. Eaton,
Publisher: Hope India, Gurgaon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Year: 2004 Pages: 101 Price: Rs.225 ISBN: 81-7871-027-7
Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand
Linguistic analysis of Somnatha
A famous Hindu writer writes some historical events without fear or favour.
By Pawan Khera
The BJP attempted to do in Aligarh Muslim University what it is best at doing – fanning communal trouble by culling out from History selective instances to further its polarizing cause.