Firstly, did you even watch the same movie as the rest of us? This movie is far more critical of Muslims than it is of Hindus. It shows the Hindus as being generally nice people, whereas the Muslims are shown as being power-hungry, intolerant towards Hindus, and always fighting among each other for control over India.
Secondly, the Nazi-era German media hardly ever portrayed the Jews as "effeminate" or "subservient", but they portrayed them as the complete opposite: fanatical, power-hungry, intolerant, religious extremists, on a holy mission to conquer the world and rule over infidels/gentiles... Hardly any different to how the modern-day Western media often portrays Muslims today.
And finally, the only "revisionist, propagandistic, racist and pro-terrorist" I see here is you. I don't want to repeat what I already said in the other thread, so I'll just copy-and-paste it here:
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence at all to support the myth about 50-100 million Hindus being killed by Muslims. You'd have to abandon logic and common sense to believe this nonsense, since the entire Indian population in the year 1000 was only 75 million. If the Muslims killed that many Hindus, then there wouldn't be any Hindus left in India. But instead, India's population increased by 50% to 110 million in 1500, according to British economic historian Angus Maddison. In comparison, India's population hardly increased at all from 1 to 1000 (remaining steady at 75 million), demonstrating that India's population growth actually improved significantly around 1000-1500, and accelerated during the Mughal era, increasing by 50% to 165 million by 1700.
Secondly, there were indeed a handful of Turkic massacres during that 1000-1500 period. But there's no need to distort history and over-exaggerate the numbers for politically motivated point-scoring purposes. The death tolls of these massacres usually numbered in the thousands, not the millions, with the possible exception of Timur, the most ruthless Turkic conquerer of them all. However, Timur killed far more Muslims than he did Hindus... kind of like his Mongol ancestors.
Thirdly, everything you've said has nothing to do with the Mughal Empire. You're conflating two completely different time periods of history, and two very different cultures, together as if they were one and the same. Like Hritik/Akbar said in the movie, the Mughals were not Turks, Afghans, or Persians. The Mughals undid the injustices of previous Turkic rulers (who they fought and defeated). From Akbar to Shah Jahan, the Mughals were known for being tolerant, up until Aurangzeb ended it with his intolerance (paving the way for the British). Also, let's not forget that Mughal India had the largest economy in the world, at its height.
And finally, the Mughals were a complete far cry from the British, who looted much of India's wealth and resources, destroyed India's local economy, established a racial hierarchy, caused numerous famines (which killed more people than all the famines in the previous thousand years combined), and turned it into a third-world nation. The Mughals were one of the thousand ethnic groups who embraced and assimilated into India's diverse multi-ethnic society. The same cannot be said for the British.
"
WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"
reply
share