Friday, January 30, 2009

Who looted India more? — The Muslims or the British

Posted by jagoindia on January 29, 2009
at Islamic Terrorism in India

Loot was the first objective of every Muslim invader, not conversion. This is sanctioned by Islam. It says : "Eat what you have taken as booty. It is lawful and good." (The Spoils 65) ( As against this , the Isha Upanishad says: "Enjoy what God has given the. Covet not that which belongs to another. ")

The legitimisation of plunder by Islam was what made the Islamic advent in the world so gory.

Who looted India more?
By M.S.N. Menon, The Organiser, Sep 11, 2005

The British, say the ignorant Hindus. And they are not a few in this country. The talk is always of colonial exploitation. Of Jalianwala massacre.

It is also said that the British transferred huge amounts to Britain and that they tried to maximise revenue collections in India.

What are the facts? Prof. Dharma Kumar of the Delhi School of Economics refutes the charges. He writes: “This is very far from the truth and may indeed be more true of the Mughal rulers, if one takes the texts of the period and the work of the Aligarh school of historians seriously.”

And he goes on to quote the first volume of the Cambridge Economic History of India, which says that “a tiny ruling group consisting of the Mughal Emperor and 8,000 or so nobles (of a total population of 100 million ) actually collected over half to one-third of the GNP as revenue.” According to the US economist Raymond Goldsmith, the income appropriated by the top group in Mughal India was the highest known to man. The only exceptions were the Egyptian and Mesopotamian theocracies.

True, the British tried to collect as much as they could, but they were a people used to low taxation. In fact, in the first budget speech after the 1857 Mutiny, it was said that Hindu taxation law was generous to the rulers. Prof. Kumar says that the British might have collected 7 per cent of Gross National Product (GNP) in 1872-73 as revenue. During the World War II, the revenue collection was by no means high, he says. Thus during the World War II, it was not more than 12 per cent. Tax revenue fluctuated between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of the national income between 1900 to 1947.

In the last year of British rule, land revenue constituted. less than one-tenth of the total tax revenue. The land revenue probably did not exceed 5 percent of gross agricultural output in the 20th century for the country as a whole. This is in contrast to the Mughal period, when land tax was the highest. In fact, Britain was reluctant to impose high land tax after the rise of nationalism.

Prof. Dharma Kumar writes: “Indian historians are too often obsessed with the exploitative nature of colonialism and generations of students have learnt from them. It is true the British exploited, but they were also building a new modern India.”

As against this, after imposing their rule over India for over seven centuries, the Muslim rulers remained as foreign dynasties and refused to identify themselves with India. In these seven centuries, they did not build one great school or hospital. All they did was to build palaces and gardens for their enjoyment, tombs to perpetuate their memory and forts for their security. In fact, India continued to be a Dar-ul-Harb for the Muslim rulers, whereas India was the jewel of the British crown.

In the long period of the Muslim advent, the Muslim invaders and rulers did not spare one Hindu or Buddhist temple or Vihara. Everything was looted for gold and precious stones. The destruction was complete in the north. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb alone is estimated to five, if not six, digits, according to his own court chroniclers. There was nothing left for the British to loot in India. In any case, they never indulged in looting the temples.

India was the richest country in the world till the advent of Islam. All the great diamonds belonged to India. India knew mining and processing of diamonds. The Mughals had two underground rooms of a capacity of 150,000 cu. ft., each packed with precious metals, diamonds and stones.

Mohd. bin Qasim robbed Sind of 630 million dirhams in the 11th century. Mahmud Ghazni raided India 17 times to loot temples and palaces. The sultanates sent looting expeditions to the south. On the invasion of Ghazni, Nehru writes: “From Thaneswar he took away, it is said, 200,000 captives (for sale) and vast wealth. But it was at Somnath that he got the most, for this was one of the great temples and the offerings of centuries had accumulated there.“

The Muslim armies had plans to loot the rich cathedrals of Europe, but they were routed by the French. Similar ambitions to loot China were frustrated by the Mongols who devastated the Muslim empire and destroyed the Caliphate.

Loot was the first objective of every Muslim invader, not conversion. This is sanctioned by Islam. It says : “Eat what you have taken as booty. It is lawful and good.” (The Spoils 65) ( As against this , the Isha Upanishad says: “Enjoy what God has given the. Covet not that which belongs to another. “)

The legitimisation of plunder by Islam was what made the Islamic advent in the world so gory.

But our Indian “comrades” are ever ready to distort history. Prof. Prabhat Patnaik of JNU for example writes: “Every act of the British… was meant to serve rapacious colonial interests. ” No sensible thinker can pen such nonsense. Was the creation of the Asiatic Society also a “rapacious colonial” enterprise? More men of eminence are on record in British history, who opposed colonialism.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

“Muslims . . . will conquer all South Asia!

“Muslims under the leadership of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat ud-Dawa will conquer all South Asia! Nobody can stop us from fighting India!”

from Jihad Watch

Saber-rattling from jihadists in Pakistan. "Pakistan’s Crackdown on Militants Leaves Imams Preaching Jihad," by James Rupert for Bloomberg, January 28:

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- A dozen Pakistani policemen stood watch last week outside a Lahore mosque known to be a stronghold of the Lashkar-e-Taiba guerrilla group -- while the imam inside preached jihad to thousands of worshippers.

Read the whole thing at

Friday, January 16, 2009

Why the West must (as must India) preserve and immerse itself in its roots, its classics

. . . without them, we are rootless, floating in a meaningless world. This return to our roots, something to keep us from drifting aimlessly, shows us from whence we came and points the way to where we have to go.

This is not in imitation of the musulman, who for every action to be taken, looks back to his koran, with nothing left to learn from before this was compiled, nothing exist for him before the the 7th Century C.E.

Our purpose here is to save our Civilization, before it is destroyed by the musulmans, and everything prior to their Mohammed is obliterated, all our antiquities gone, forever. . . .

Continue Reading at . . .

also see In this time of "Peace at any Price", Why Study War...

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Cherchez Le Pakistan - Look for it in Pakistan

I know what you did last summer
from The Belmont Club

In the novel Murder on the Orient Express, detective Hercule Poirot concludes that since the death of a man on the fabled train could not have been caused by a single suspect, yet involved all of them, that all the suspects were probably in league. If Poirot really existed, what would he make of Indian Prime Minister Mamohan Singh’s accusation that Pakistan “must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan”?

A dossier handed to Pakistan’s high commission in Delhi included interceptions of telephone calls made between the ten Mumbai gunmen and their alleged handlers in Pakistan during the attacks. “The commanders in Pakistan are following events on television and are issuing real-time instructions; telling the gunmen to target certain nationalities and religions; to maximise casualties; not to touch Muslims. This is hands-on direction,” a senior Indian government official told The Times.

The commands included the order to execute six foreign Jews held at Nariman House, an orthodox Jewish outreach centre, during the Mumbai atrocities, which claimed more than 170 lives in all.

Poirot might have wondered why the accusation was not accompanied by the traditional ultimatum. Maybe that’s because — and here’s the tricky part — the information is really intended, not to support a declaration of war which is so yesterday, but to pressure the Pakistani government to act against itself. “Key parts” of the dossier came from the FBI and Pakistan, according to the news reports, already knows it is behind the attack. The Times Online continues:

Read More

(24) Comments

Here is one COMMENT to the foregoing article - randomly selected:

10. Anton:

One must hope that the Indians are not afraid to covertly go after the source of the problem. They have the proximity to, and knowledge of, their lunatic neighbor to do so effectively if they choose. If they send several dozen terrorists and their friends to Allah (or reincarnation) maybe the Paki “Good Guys” will do a little house-cleaning of their own.

I think one of the biggest problems is that there is a large amount of support for the terrorists in the Pakistani population and any half-hearted measures against AQ or their sub-groups will look weak while a powerful move may provoke a civil war. This stems from the fact that Pakistan is not a real country, just a bunch of ethnic groups that did not wish to be ruled by India. A sort of Palestine writ large, not a nation based on a set of common values and ideas or even ethnicity, but based on a set of common hatreds.

I cannot suggest that this will end well, even if both the US and India play their cards carefully and well. There are too many people involved that are looking for this to end up as a conflagration, and they seem to care little as to who is consumed.
Jan 6, 2009 - 9:29 am

Pak mullahs issue fatwa for Jehad if India attacks!

Thursday, January 1, 2009

The War against Islamic Murderers in Afghanistan

[excerpt from Peter Hitchens' "Like Haig on the Somme, we’ll bleed to death in Afghanistan" - one Brit's view]

We must pull our troops out of Afghanistan. It is no good waiting for the Americans to lift us off this hook.

They will leave, too, in the end, but they do not know it yet.

It takes quite a nerve for us to claim we are fighting terror and promoting civilisation in Afghanistan, when we have been beaten hollow by the IRA in Ulster, when we cannot prevent deaths like that of ‘Baby P’, and our own poorer zones are lawless wastelands of disorder and violence, guns and knives, long abandoned by authority.

In fact it is this arrogant fantasy that we have some sort of right, as a ‘civilised’ country, to visit our non-existent wisdom and our devalued ‘democracy’ on Afghanistan that infuriates me most of all about this futile adventure.

Brave young men, the best of their generation, die or are maimed for life because our politicians do not even have the small courage to admit that they were wrong.

The Government never knew why it was sending them there in the first place. Opium poppies? We grow them legally in Oxfordshire. Freeing women from the burka? It’s still worn. Fighting the Taliban? We could do that for 50 years and still lose, as anyone who knows anything about Afghanistan could have warned from the start.

It’s weeks since Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said that the idea of defeating the Taliban was ‘neither feasible nor supportable’, America’s spooks recently conceded that our operations there were in a downward spiral, and our Ambassador to Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, has been revealed in a leaked document to believe that our mission is doomed.

Yet we just carry on, like Earl Haig on the Somme, spending other people’s lives like so much paper.

Afghanistan’s government is a corrupt, powerless joke, not least because it is founded on the barrels of foreign guns.

It does not even control its own capital. The Taliban are quietly re-establishing themselves in a cleverly modified form, avoiding some of their old unpopular policies.

There is no point in waiting for a new American President to save us from our own folly.

Barack Obama – like all Left-wing US Presidents – will need to prove how ‘tough’ he is quite early on, and also hopes to win over many of the neo-Cons who backed the ‘war on terror’.

And Mr Obama’s most likely way of showing off will be to step up the futile Afghan conflict, since it is still – absurdly – popular and widely believed to have a defined purpose. Probably he will make more and more raids into Pakistan, a country already stumbling around in wounded circles.