Make Way For Mughalistan

When Rupert Murdoch is referred to as a “news mogul”, the person employing the term probably doesn’t realize that the word “mogul” is derived from the name of the Islamic conquerors of India.

“Moghul” or “Mughal” comes from a Persian word meaning “Mongol”. It was the Persians’ description of the Central Asian conquerors of Persia, whose hordes were the descendants of Genghis Khan and Tamerlaine. The Moghuls overran Persia, adopted Islam, became Persianized, and invaded the Indian subcontinent to slaughter the infidels there in the name of Allah.

The Moghul invasion of India began early in the 16th century and advanced steadily across the subcontinent until the British arrived in the early 18th century and put a stop to the expansion. The British did not object to Islam per se — and they were shrewd at encouraging the Hindus and Muslims against each other to facilitate their own rule — but the spread of Islam in India by warfare was halted by the British presence until they left in 1947.

The successful Moghul invasion of India was the second attempt to conquer the subcontinent for Islam. The first one was undertaken by the Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate in the early 8th century. After a quarter of a century of warfare and destruction, the Arab invaders were driven back to the west of the Indus River. In later centuries the hosts of Mohammed made sporadic attempts to conquer the Hindus, but enjoyed no lasting success until the Moghul invasion eight hundred years later. Had it not been for the arrival of the British, the whole of the Indian subcontinent would likely have been Islamized, with Hinduism eradicated within Islamic territory, just as Buddhism had been before it.

The Hindu genocide at the hands of Islam lasted more than a thousand years, and continues in a reduced fashion to this day. It is the largest genocide in recorded history, with many millions of Hindus — possibly over a hundred million — slaughtered by the Muslim invaders, and countless millions more enslaved or forcibly converted to Islam. The sheer wanton destruction wielded by the Islamic conquest staggers the mind — the opulent flower of Hindu civilization was simply wiped out, with idols broken and burned, temples razed, and untold quantities of exquisite artifacts destroyed or melted down for their precious metals. Although it guttered, the flame of Hindu learning was never fully extinguished, but only after the arrival of the Pax Britannica did Hindu scholars regain the ability to realize their intellectual potential.

Such is the legacy of Islam in India. Like al-Andalus, the Moghul Empire is said to have enjoyed a “golden age”, when ethnic and religious harmony reigned. The 17th century is characterized as a period when art and architecture flowered under the Moghuls, but, as in Spain, Islamic culture in India was really just a derivative afterglow drawing on the remnants of what went before, a dim reflection of the lambent Hindu splendor that had preceded it.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

A movement has recently emerged in India to restore the northern portion of the Mughal Empire in the form of an entity known as “Mughalistan” (or “Mughalstan”, depending on who is spelling it).

When India gained its independence from Britain in 1947, it was partitioned into two states, an Islamic one and a multi-religious one that was predominantly Hindu. The largest concentrations of Muslims were in East Bengal and what is now Pakistan, in Baluchistan and portions of Sindh, Kashmir, and the Punjab. These two regions, separated by a wide stretch of Hindu India, became East and West Pakistan respectively. In the early 1970s a civil war erupted between the two, resulting in the formation of Bangladesh out of what had been East Pakistan.

Before the partition of India, Indian Muslims had pushed for a corridor across northern India that would connect the two halves of the new Islamic state. However, the Muslim population in those regions was not considered sufficient to warrant its inclusion, and the corridor never materialized.

Now, more than sixty years later, the idea of an Islamic corridor has returned. In the intervening decades the Muslim portion of India, as everywhere else, has increased relative to the non-Muslim population. Devout Muslims in the subcontinent have refloated the idea of a corridor connecting Pakistan and Bangladesh. It would include heavily Muslim regions in Northern India, southern Nepal, and coastal Burma. The proposed name for resulting Islamic superstate would be “Mughalistan”, echoing the glory of the Moghul Empire before the arrival of the British.

The Mughalistan movement has a long-term goal that includes much more of India than just a northern corridor. Thanks to their fecund demographics, Muslims are now a much larger proportion of the population across swathes of central India, including the Hyderabad region where the recent terror attacks took place.

As Terresa Monroe-Hamilton writes in The Noisy Room:

An Islamic Coup in India — Mughalistan

Yesterday, I received word of some horrible bombings by Islamic militants in India. 13 were killed and 70 were injured. Not a peep of this on the news. Islam is cutting a bloody swath across the planet and the media is giving us shiny things to chase after as distractions. So much for Peace be Upon Him and all that. Jihadists are murdering innocent Hindus and no one seems to care.

Then, even more comes to light as 4 are killed in Bangladesh in a violent ‘Bloggers Riot‘…

And while the world turns a blind eye to the bloody massacres in India, the Mughalistan Project takes shape. It is the Islamic Pakistan-Bangladesh plan to split India. The plan is being billed as Mughalistan — An undivided Islamic nation in the Indian Subcontinent. Pakistan and Bangladesh would be connected through a land corridor running across the Indo-Gangetic plain, the heartland of India.

In 1947, India was partitioned into two countries based on religion — India for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. Pakistan had two parts to it — West and East. West is now Pakistan, East is now Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 occurred and a declaration of independence was made. Muslims wanted a corridor between the two countries in 1947 to unite the country and now want it again to ensure that Bangladesh becomes Islamic. For a full explanation of this Project, read here.

Islam has totally infiltrated India. India has 29 member states and 7 union territories. Kashmir now has a population that is 97% Muslim. This has happened by highly aggressive conversions, marriages and brutal violence. Muslims now own around 100 districts in India and what they don’t own, they are now trying to take by converting owners to Islam, by using violence to drive the Hindus out or by outright theft.

In West Bengal, out of their 19 districts, 5 are now Muslim and the takeover is growing rapidly. Islam composes 40% of the population there now. In Assam, out of their 21 districts, 8 are now a Muslim majority. There are thousands of no-go areas — these are areas that only Muslims may venture into and where sharia law rules. In Uttar Pradesh, the largest state in India, the Islamic population is now 25%. In Bihar, it is 20%. Kerala — 30%. And in Jammu, it is 40%. These are the most violent territories and it is spreading like wildfire. These numbers were given to me by others living in India. In the US, we are worried about Mosques and Madrassas. In India, their entire country is being invaded; converting hundreds of Hindus every day by force and the rape of Hindu women is commonplace.

According to the last census in India, the Muslim population was 13.4%. My sources tell me it is actually closer to 35%.

If Mughalistan becomes a reality (and it looks like it is well on its way to being one), it will be the largest Islamic Republic on the planet and it will take the whole of eastern, northeastern and northern India as part of its domain. Mughalistan will be an independent homeland for the Muslims of India and it will become part of the upcoming caliphate.

Read the rest at The Noisy Room.

22 thoughts on “Make Way For Mughalistan

  1. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » An Islamic Coup in India – Mughalistan

  2. Pingback: An Islamic Coup in India – Mughalistan

  3. I have worked with Hindus and Muslims in Saudi. What struck me on the whole was how gentle, kind and unassuming Hindus tended to be. The Indian muslims were the absolute opposite. Aggressive and hostile. Anecdotal but true.
    I believe that this is the problem. I wish that there was a solution but I can’t see it.

  4. “Had it not been for the arrival of the British, the whole of the Indian subcontinent would likely have been Islamized”

    This is very interesting observation. Actually i think that without European Sea Expansionism towards the New World and India, Europe would have lacked the strategic depth and the economy needed to stop the Islamic Conquest. It would have been isolated, poor, and probably conquered as well. I think that there was a book that contemplated such an alternative, non-european world , divided by Indigenous American (Indian) Civilization, Islamic Civilization, and Chinese Civilization.

    • The Mohammedian hordes were turned back entirely without reference to events outside of Europe.

      However, by ‘stepping on’ the cross trade between China and Italy — the Mohammedian merchants drove Prince Henry the Navigator forward — and southward — around the Cape of Good Hope.

      (Both Spain and Portugal were on every Muslim’s black list as a consequence of their ejections of the Moors from Iberia. So sailing all the way was their only option to get to the Far East. Neither expected that it would make them the low cost master distributors — and put the Italians (Venice & Genoa) and Mohammedians (Levant) out of business.

      • Other battles happened later, such as those at Vienna and Lepanto.
        Still i think that there is high probability that Europe would have been islamized, probably by turks, if not for the discovery of India and the New World. It would have been a poor, isolated and besieged place, thats for sure.

  5. Pingback: An Islamic Coup in India – Mughalistan | The Racist and Unoriginal Anglo-American Entertainment Industry

  6. An important reminder from the Baron. When the pattern repeats century after century, continent after continent, you have … a pattern.

    Not my area of expertise, but the little I have read on the subject indicates that Gandhi
    bears much of the blame for this situation because of his Eurabians’-like naivete about the Muslim culture/religion and his constant appeasement of them. Interestingly, just like his European heirs he too disliked and opposed even the idea of Israel.

    I don’t know any reliable history books on this subject and Gandhi is not interesting to me beyond what’s in a good encyclopedia, but the article “Gandhi’s experiment with Islam and why it failed” covers this ground consistently with what I’ve read in the past.

  7. I would disagree that, if it hadn’t been for the British, the Moguls would have totally conquered India. In fact, the Emperor Akbar was a mild ruler with eclectic tastes in religion. However, his son, Aurangzeb was a Muslim fanatic, who attempted to force Islam on his subject. The result was a major rebellion under the Maharathas. The British, of course, had come merely to trade. Now, suddenly, they saw the Mogul Empire collapsing all around them. They were forced to take up arms, first against the French in their trading concessions, and then against the Maharathas and the breakaway kingdoms threatening their concessions. The Mogul Empire has reached its use-by date, and if the British had not been swept into the chaos, India would have disintegrated into a collection of Hindu and Muslim states – which was, I might add, its normal situation.
    I might add, too, that this is why India was conquered, but not China. In neither case were the European powers initially interested in conquest and, unlike the Mogul Empire, the Chinese Empire, moribund though it was, held together.

    • That’s some pretty fuzzy ‘history.’

      1) Until British G U N S pushed the Moguls back nothing on the part of the Hindus stopped the centurys long jihad. Period, stop.

      2) India and China fell under British sway in different centuries. Do make a note of that.

      3) India became British because Britain was solving the Muslim problem without being anti-Hindu. Because of the tenents of Hinduism (fatalism) the whole matter was astonishing for its lack of bloodshed. It’s a studied contrast to the Americas: Spain, Portugal and the USA.

      4) China was utterly subborned by the British. (Some American action, too: the Delano family was in on the opium trade — hence F. Delano R. and Hyde Park.)

      5) Britain dominated the ‘European syndicate’ which really dictated trade relations for China. So much so: the Boxer Rebellion ensued. What the imperial trading powers wanted in almost every instance was to be the Master Distributor for this or that trade good.

      They only got into the grimy business of growing tea, opium, rubber, and such when the locals proved to be, effectively, incompetent.

      The big money, the easy money, was in the exclusive oceanic transport of agricultural products into Europe. Hence the term: “His ship has come in.”

      Which brings us back to China. She didn’t need Britains to grow and package tea for export — nor silk — nor much else. T H A T ‘ S the reason that no European power even contemplated setting up shop.

      In studied contrast, the Hindus of India ( and Muslms, too ) didn’t have commerce on their minds. Because of their beliefs, the British just gave up using either — as administrators.

      Instead, the British hired the Parsis (Zoroastrians) a very small minority within India, taking them from poverty to extreme wealth. Mumbai, itself, was (like Hong Kong) a hell-hole mud flat when the British showed up. Between the Parsis and the British, India started to click. The Parsis were not on jihad, and were not caste bound.

      Tata Motors is but one of the corporations owned by a Parsis family.

    • You are correct Malcolm in that there was a lot more fighting going on by Hindus against Islamic invaders. Here is more detailed history that gives a better picture

      “…..It is, therefore, a travesty of truth to say that Islam enjoyed an empire in India for six centuries. What happened really was that Islam struggled for six centuries to conquer India for good, but failed in the final round in the face of stiff and continued Hindu resistance. Hali was not at all wrong when he mourned that the invincible armada of Hijaz which had swept over so many seas and rivers met its watery grave in the Ganges. Iqbal also wrote his Shikwah in sorrowful remembrance of the same failure. In fact, there is no dearth of Muslim poets and politicians who weep over the defeat of Islam in India in the past, and who look forward to a reconquest of India in the future. Hindus have survived as a majority in their motherland not because Islam spared any effort to conquer and convert them but because Islamic brutality met more than its equal in Hindu tenacity for freedom.

      Nor is it anywhere near the truth to say that the British empire in India replaced an earlier Muslim empire. The effective political power in India had already passed into the hands of the Marathas, the Jats, and the Sikhs when the British started playing their imperialist game. The Muslim principalities in Bengal, Avadh, South India, Sindh, and the Punjab were no match for the Hindu might that had resurged. The Mughal emperor at Delhi by that time presented a pitiful picture of utter helplessness. The custodians of Islam in India were repeatedly inviting Ahmad Shah Abdali from across the border to come and rescue Islam from the abyss into which it had fallen.”

  8. I’m afraid your Indian history is a bit faulty if you think that Islam had achieved little success prior to the Mughals. Mahmud of Ghazni in the early 11th century made numerous highly destructive raids into India, but he was only interested in plunder rather than conquest. In 1192 the victory of Mohammed of Ghur over the Rajputs at Tarain opened the way for the Muslims to overrun a large part of India, forming the Delhi Sultanate which ruled until 1526 when supplanted by Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire. So in fact the Muslims ruled over most of India from about the beginning of the 13th century.


  10. Pingback: An Islamic Coup in India — Mughalistan | Creeping Sharia

  11. Pingback: Moslims pakken nu Noord-India, na moord op 100 miljoen Hindoes | | Tora Yeshua |

  12. You are all wrong. It is true that Hindus suffered horribly at the hands of Muslims.

    But you should know that it was Marathas who ended Mughal rule. There was even a time when Mughal emperor was living on pension from Marathas. He was just a emperor in name. This was how India looked in the beginning of 19 nth century.

    Unfortunately, Marathas themselves never really understood what Islam is and most of the time there were divisions in Maraths along caste lines – caste a bane of Hindus in India.

    But it was British which ended Islamic rule comprehensively esp. in the eastern parts and also ended slavery when they suppressed 1857 revolt. Even that time, Mughal emperor was for just name sake. He had no power at all. But, for their pretty gains some small Hindu kings revolted against British and they tried to put up a unified face behind Mughal emperor. He himself was surprised and sent requests to British asking what he should do. Anyway, British hanged him mercilessly and deservingly.

    The trouble is India was never a political entity in one unit. Even during the Islamic rule, even during reign of Aurangazeb, India as whole never came under Islam.

    I love Hindus and its civilization. As some one commented above, Hindus are really gentle and kind as they believe in Karma and its law of actions. I hope they realize what Islam is about, sooner the better, but the situation in east is really horrible.

      • No Buddhism has its own identity just like Jainism. they are different from Hinduism but all have Ahimsa (non violence) as the cornerstone of the respective religions. We all believe in karma and practice peace rather than just speak it.

  13. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Make Way For Mughalistan

  14. Islamic rule over most of India ended with the defeat of the Mughals in the grim 27 year war (a.k.a “The Deccan Wars”, “The war of 27 years”, “The Mughal-Maratha War”) to the Marathas, who are a Hindu power situated in Western India. Soon after, the entire Mughal empire became a large Maratha protectorate, and is more commonly called the Maratha empire. As noted already, the mughal “emperor” became a pensioner of the Marathas, with no power, and no military. This period lasted from 1707 to 1780-ish. By then, the British, who had gained a foothold in eastern India, engaged in a 30 year conflict with the Marathas, comprising, notably, the 3 Anglo-Maratha wars, but also diplomatic conflict throughout. By the end of the third Anglo-Maratha war, in 1818, the entire Maratha territories fell into British hands; however, the British were already the strongest military force in India by 1803.

    In summary:

    1526: First Mughal territorial conquest in India, but small and tenuous
    1560s: Real establishment of Mughal rule over North and West India.
    1570-1680: The Mughal period; Mughals rule over most of India

    1680-1707: The 27 year Mughal-Maratha War, defeat of the Mughals, end of Islamic rule over India

    1707-1780-ish: The Maratha period. Marathas reign over most of India. From 1757 to 1780 sees a slow but steady rise of British power as well.

    1803: End of 2nd Anglo-Maratha War, Marathas now not the most powerful military force in India, but still hold on to large territories
    1818: Defeat of Marathas in 3rd and final Anglo-Maratha war. End of Maratha period in India. Beginning of British rule over most of India.

    1857: First war of independence (almost all the major Indian leaders are from the erstwhile Maratha empire)

    1947: India gains independence.
    The British conquered India from the Marathas, not from the Muslims.

  15. Vinod has summed it up beautifully.
    I can only add that it was during Emperor Jahangir’s time (1605 – 1627) that the British really gained a foothold in India by defeating the Portuguese in the Battle of the Swally River (off Surat) 1612 and established their factory in Surat, which was the main port of the Mughals. At that time they were still dependent on the Mughal emperor’s favours.
    Then came Shah Jahan (1628 – 58). The British suffered at the hands of the Maratha king, Shivaji who had begun raiding Surat overland. Shivaji’s first raid was in 1664 and by the time of their second raid in 1670, the last great Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was in the thick of things, trying to prop up a creaky, crumbly edifice. Till then the English could not match either Mughal or Maratha might, both being solidly united forces in their own ways.
    In order to escape these raids, they moved base to Bombay which, in 1661, had fallen into their laps as a dowry gift from the Portuguese (much against the wishes of the Jesuits).
    Bombay was actually taken over only in 1668. But the EIC could only move in around 1721 and it was in 1735 that they established themselves by setting up a Marine Yard, which later became the Dockyard, that we today know as Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.
    It was only after they had set up the Yard, that they really managed to establish themselves as they then had a base to repair and build ships, that were their lifeline. The French were defeated in a carry over of their European rivalry, the Anglo French wars, by 1782 – 83. It needs to be noted that the Dockyard was essential for sustaining British power as after each engagement, the British had only to return to Bombay for repair and refitting, while the French had to go all the way to Mauritius for repair. Thus while the French were still in port, the British could turn their ships around and rule the seas.
    A word about the Parsis – it is true that the British used them as their agents, but these people were more concentrated in building up their commercial profits, as opposed to administration.
    India at that time was a jumble of warring small and big kingdoms. As pointed out by Vinod, above, Maratha power began to wane by the 1780s. The Sikhs cam a bit later and were largely confined to Northern and NW India. With Mughal power gone and Maratha power also going, their were no further large obstacles to the British. Haider Ali and his son Tipu Sultan thereafter put up a spirited resistance in the Carnatic till they too were overcome. Compared to the indigenous rulers, the Brits were by far the most powerful, backed by deep pockets, funded in no small measure by profits from their Opium trade.
    It was therefore an easy enough matter to play one ruler against the other and impose suzerainty over a state that could not resist them. I believe it had more to do with the politico – military state of affairs, rather than any Hindu feelings of fatalism.

Comments are closed.