some fools compare british rule with others. Muslims also rules india, surely they put special taxes and indulged in conversions. But they were in india, they integrated into india, they did not loot every corner of india and take to afgan, or Arabia.muslim kings in sense were just like any other rulers. but british looted india of every corner took the money and resources sent to uk in ships, they looted human resourses to, do you know many indian solders of british empire were killed in 1st and 2nd world wars, the wars in which india had no stake. If you say current status of india is due to british education and railways they left in In india, it is as atrocious as saying the industrial revolution is due to mathematics and india had major contribution in field of mathematics, u know still the numericals we use are called "Indo arabic numericals" not roman numericals. This is not to fan religious hatred, but attributing any malady in society just to caste system in hinduism and any prosperity to Missionary school system is SIN. Truth should be told.
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Sathish N on Jan 01, 2008 03:30 PM Permalink
Muslim rule may be better than british or british might be better than muslim. That is immaterial. We do not need an outsider. We should take care of ourself. Having an outsider is a security treat to the country. Why will an outsider want to do good of us. Let him go do good for his/her own country.
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Balaji on Jan 01, 2008 03:30 PM Permalink
17 times gajini looted somnath temple. aurangzep looted wealth like these so many events happened. still that fire only swallowing this country. Their sin only still probagated in Indian. How many bomb blasts how many killings becasue whom. is it because british. Keep your hand in the chest and ask your self this question before concluding somebody as fool
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Hind on Jan 01, 2008 03:36 PM Permalink
Now you talk sense. then why did u bring first greatness of Christian Missionary school. Then why did you talk abourt muslims, in irrelevent topic. All agressors were bad, even if they left missionary schools. Now why should you talk about muslims, bomb blasts. I doubt your intensions and psycological facilities
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Balaji on Jan 01, 2008 03:40 PM Permalink
See I want to inform you that British were crusadors. first, they saved you from muslim rulers and provided education,medical facility,electricity,water dams,railways and equal opportunity in education. So go through this order and understand my view. OKAY
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Hind on Jan 01, 2008 03:47 PM Permalink
Again u glorify a aggressor, we had to talk about sonia ghandhi and her ill ness, u started glorifying education and christian missionaries. Is saving from pan and throwing into fire is saving??? Equal oppertunities for education for women did exist early also, check who wrote kadamba ramayana, molla ramayana as piece of litrature and from what strata of socity they came from. Do u want to indicate a foriegn born insufficiently educated Sonia manio is better solution for india???? just because she shares good relations with missionaries????
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Sathish N on Jan 01, 2008 04:08 PM Permalink
You also forgot about 1) division britishers created 2) forcing Hindu to eat beef 2) forcing muslims to bite pork skin.
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Hind on Jan 01, 2008 04:22 PM Permalink
yeah mr balaji, they also aboloished, thinking facilities os some indians like u. who only read indian history from british eyes. raja ram mohan roy worked hard for abolishing sati. he was a proud and great indian, he only worked with rulers to accomplish good. and sati was not prevelent across india and hindus. eswar chandra vidyasagar was another great reformer. the went out saw how british were keeping india in dark, by divide and rule, tried to do in their way benifit to socity. they would have done the same had the ruler been indian or british, its shame onu to attribute the work of great indians to british
RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Balaji on Jan 01, 2008 04:07 PM Permalink
and also devadasi system. In which young female children made to become god's servant. but the main purpose is to serve flush needs of upper castes
RE:RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Sathish N on Jan 01, 2008 04:11 PM Permalink
Britishers are good in glorifying themselves. They went around the globe and plundered everything they could lay their hands on. They killed the natives, yet called themselves "gentleman". They keep repeating the same words and some natives start believing that.
RE:RE:Difference in rule of muslims and british
by Balaji on Jan 01, 2008 04:28 PM Permalink
OK baba. I appreciate for nurturing history in my mind. But castism rooted through anchestral custom. How caste hindus did not permit temple entry to lower caste people?. How caste hindus preached wrongly that education is meant for upper caste people and lower caste people and their kids have to work under them as slaves. How much sufferings ambedkar met during those periods. Which all made me to have a conclusion that british are better than caste hindus and hinduism. Let us all convert to buddhism and preach mankind to society. Budham saranam katchami
