i understand, just like the postive side of a rape is that it would result to birth of a child, right ?I am not disputing that the conquest (and rule) was destructive to Indian culture, particularly its heart of dharma. What I am saying is that there are positive sides as well.
kindly state them if there is any, according to what i know they simply percecuted hindus, destroyed temples and looted their property, is that the socioeconomic upliftment you are talking about?The Mughals looted during the conquest, but at times made important contributions to the upliftment of the socioeconomic situation thereafter.
but with less shed of blood.The British were far more rapacious when it came to exploiting resources and removing them from India.
to my understanding the progress is mainly due to hardwork.Still, India is exceptionally blessed with natural resources. Progress is being made. One day not too far from now the world will look to India as a model of development.
the same justification can be applied to every criminal, that is to blame the environment in which they were brought up. Aurangazed is his death bed felt sorry for what he did against hindus, so auranagzed was a nice guy? Yes he is, so is bin laden, hitler etc. Hitlers childhood life was a very painful one.Is it really necessary to be sarcastic? I am (somewhat) familiar with the history of Akbar. Need I remind you that Ashoka, one of the few who truly deserved the title of Great, also was a conqueror in his youth?
Consider Akbar's environment and lineage (ie, his mad, bloodthirsty grandfather), and consider his own behavior. He was truly an exceptional man.
Bookmarks