- Jan 15, 2016
It appears like you are disagreeing over something but I am not able to make out which specific fact you are trying to refute?@Sakal Gharelu Ustad
That is too much conspiracy and exaggeration, everything done by British !!
Many Indians(90% Hindus 10% Muz+Sikh etc) studied in convents for higher studies they went to Europe,obviously some intellectuals thought 'Why not we start a University here in India?'.
Actually 1916 was too late then muzzies started AMU as a reactionary (This may be brit ploy generally very few muzzies were degree holders in old or now).
2.1857 revolt was mostly about 'cow' (our sickulars teach pig fat was used but muzzies don't need a reasons to hate kafir british/Hindu any political leader scream 'Islam khatremy hai' JIHAD they start their arson,loot&rape.
Not all blames are unwarranted. If the accused has actually committed the crime then the blame is totally legitimate. Is it not a known fact that the concept of AMU as an exclusively muslim entity was set up in ~1918? the building of AMU already existed from 1877 as a Christian university known as Anglo-Oriental college. It is this deliberate act of transforming an existing Anglo Saxon university into a muslim university in 1918 immediately after BHU was set up in 1917 which adds to the credence of the claims that the British had nefarious plans.
As to the 1857 revolt, you are only concentrating on the trigger. Rebellions are complicated things that are a manifestation of a long term fostering of indignation and the corresponding outbursts are a little more nuanced than the trigger that sets them off. The trigger that leads to a rebellion is just the tip of the iceberg. It's very childish to dismiss an entire revolution against the British by claiming that it was 'because of a cow'. Had it not been for the cow, we would have found another excuse but the rebellion would have still happened.
@OneGrimPilgrim "once the enemy would've gone, the friendship would've gone."
But the enemy never went. They left behind their puppet to continue the British policies on their behalf. I don't know why Indians shy away from owning up to this obvious truth. Just look at the current news, all the democratically elected leaders that the west has installed in Iraq and Afghanistan are puppets, everyone knows it. It's just that it wont be mentioned in their respective text books. When the coming generations of Afghans read their nation's history, they wouldn't know the fact that Ashraf Ghani was actually a puppet. It's the same with Nehru. Whenever a superpower vacates a former colony, it always installs a puppet government. In fact the cultivation of such a leadership is a top most priority for any waning colonial power. The Congress was cultivated by the British in a way, to make sure that the government that succeeds them wont resort to vehement anti-British foreign policies and educational policies. It was their way of retaining power despite relinquishing physical presence. But people like @saty refuse to give credit to British treachery and exclusively pin all the blame on Hindus. The current secularism nurtured over the years by the Congress is actually just a polished form of British 'divide and rule' policy.
What saty is saying is akin to "The British might have stabbed you but that's not important; How dare you bleed?"
Is it possible for anyone to set up a university with an independent agenda in a country under colonial rule without the blessings of the colonial power? They allowed Hindus to set up institutions to use it as an excuse to provoke muslims to take counter-measures. This is also symptomatic of how they endorsed the formation of a largely Hindu Congress to provoke the muslims to start a separate muslim league. The puppets who caused the partition might be muslims but the सूत्रधार who was stage-managing it was the British crown.