Why did India never get mass-converted to Islam by the Delhi Sultanate/Mughal Empire?
And why didn't the British/Portuguese spread Christianity more in India like they did with their other colonies?
because the hold by the sultanates and the ME,was tenuous and shaky.
The brits found it out the hard way in 1857
>>452986
To add to this, The delhi sultanate did go on conversion sprees when they were able to consolidate their power for a long period of time.
tughlaq tried converting his subjects.
But more often than not they were on a war footing trying to conquer more land, especially the then rich rajput princes because of the overland trade routes they held.
These campaigns resulted in general truces and ocassional win for the sultanate, mostly under allauddin khilji. Dynastic instability also plagued the sultanates.
The nawabs of bengal were often in open rebellion against the sultanate, and didn't have a policy of aggressive conversion, but the imposition of jizya changed the religious map of bengal.
The mughals initially barely had a toehold in india under babur and humayun, and were briefly expelled by sher shah suri, AKA the guy who started the grand trunk road.
The mughals under akbar consolidated their power primarily via a policy of religious tolerance.
Aurangzeb shit the bed and killed the empire slowly.
>>452963
The stench from the mass pooing in the streets kept them away
>>452963
When they tried a whole warrior cult started to stop them.
Yes, Sikhism essentially began as an anti-Muslim resistance group.
Portugal Never had the power to do much but extort trade. Britain was to busy making fat stacks of cash to care.
>>452963
the delhi sultanates were constantly at war with other indian kingdom. as for the mughals there was this guy who tried but he died before heconverted india
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb
>>452963
Because they were never close to even controlling all of India. They had a bunch of rebellious vassal sultanates in East India that they were more focused on annexing than the Hindu maharajas to the South.
>>453038
>The mughals initially barely had a toehold in india under babur and humayun, and were briefly expelled by sher shah suri, AKA the guy who started the grand trunk road.
The Grand Trunk Road already existed under the Mauryas. Suri expanded it
DESIGNATED
Because Muslim rulers in India prefered to keep Hindus around so they had someone to loot regularly.
>>452963
>And why didn't the British/Portuguese spread Christianity more in India like they did with their other colonies?
>British spread Christianity
u wot
The jizya
>>455001
SHITTING
>>456128
STREETS
>>453264
And auranzeb was the last relevant mughal emperor,after it was shit
ALL THAT SWEET JIZYA
POO
>>453100
Wisdom of dubs always speak the truth
>>458169
IN
The East India Company forbid attempts to convert the population. It was easier to keep the peace and control the regional princes that way. Things went to shit in India when the missionary's managed to get Parliament to allow them to go there.
>>458538
LOO
>>452963
"India" is huge. its literally a subcontinent. The fact that the populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and huge numbers of people in modern India and Sri Lanka are Muslim suggest that there was quite a bit of conversion.
That being said, for the most part, most rulers didn't want to force conversion as 1.) Jizya tax(for those that implemented it) was profitable 2.) holding on to such massive populations was difficult if you pissed them off, and at times they had Hindu vassals who would likely revolt
The British did spread Christianity, but for some reason it seems that converting folk religions of Africa and the pacific is much easier than converting heavily established religions like Islam and Hinduism.
IIRC there are some parts of India with large Christian populations., such as Goa
