India renamed Mughal Garden to Amrit Udyan, BJP hails end of 'Slave Mentality'

[Champ_Pal]

From what I know, Mughals did adopt local customs, or at least the ones which were worth adopting. They weren't going to adopt widow burning obviously, but not everything will have been bad, I am sure they learned from the locals same as the locals will have learned from them.

The famous Widow burning jab. It was never wide spread and limited to sporadic cases unless they were attacked by Foreigners and forced into slavery.

Anyways, Mughals spoke Farsi, wore Persian attire and ate Turkish/Arabic cuisine for the most part. Their Indian cooks did fusion of Indian and Turkish/Persian cuisine in their kitchens. They married either Rajput women or imported their wives from Persia and Arabia. They lived in their plush palaces never stepping out of it.

Mughals remained foreigners who were occupying the land by force. No wonder the locals were always plotting against them and even sided with British to dethrone the Mongolic Mughals.

 

[uppercut]

Where did I say 600 AD India has nothing? And YOU used the term pitiful, not me.

to which you agreed in post#46 above. If you want to describe it differently please do that and we can discuss on that.

Why don't you explain why Hinduism failed to deliver anything in 600 AD India, let alone pre 1947, or pre-Islam, that lead India to be conquered not just by Islam, but by the Portuguese and British too?

The fact India was 'colonized' and 'infiltrated' for over a 1000 years, is the very reason why the incumbent RSS Hindutva government are spreading their wings, because Hinduism has NEVER governed or benefited India, until now.

who was ruling Indian before 700AD then ?

 

[Technics 1210]

to which you agreed in post#46 above. If you want to describe it differently please do that and we can discuss on that.

Exactly, so why do you need an elaboration?

who was ruling Indian before 700AD then ?

Hinduism if we are to believe RSS, but as I mentioned earlier, I am more inclined to believe 700 AD India was in a state of cultural (and ideological) chaos. After all, 5000 years of Hinduism in India but really Islam and the Brits had more to show for it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Fort St George Chennai. Another magnificent building bearing the name of Britain's Abrahamic forefathers. Will the Hindutvas dare to claim it and give it a new Hindu identity? I think they better think twice and find something Islamic which they can target instead.

 

[bala977]

Bloody embarrassing… too many people jobless I think. I cannot understand the political calculus behind this - the one vote bank which the ruling party needs to sway is the youth vote bank and these type of things will just drive them away …

 

[MenInG]

View attachment 118504


Fort St George Chennai. Another magnificent building bearing the name of Britain's Abrahamic forefathers. Will the Hindutvas dare to claim it and give it a new Hindu identity? I think they better think twice and find something Islamic which they can target instead.

And that in a nutshell is the issue here.

The targeted renaming of anything Muslim is the worrying part.

 

[ElRaja]

Bloody embarrassing… too many people jobless I think. I cannot understand the political calculus behind this - the one vote bank which the ruling party needs to sway is the youth vote bank and these type of things will just drive them away …

bjp dont need to sway any vote bank, they have a lock on their target demographic.

 

[Champ_Pal]

View attachment 118504


Fort St George Chennai. Another magnificent building bearing the name of Britain's Abrahamic forefathers. Will the Hindutvas dare to claim it and give it a new Hindu identity? I think they better think twice and find something Islamic which they can target instead.

Indians already are facing the backlash from Pakistanis over the name changing of some of the cities. No point in angering Srilankan and Indian Christians over naming Fort St.George to something like "Kila Vihar" or something.

 

[uppercut]

Exactly, so why do you need an elaboration?

I thought you were not in complete agreement .... which is ok . If so please describe the state of India prior to the arrival of Islam in your own words.

Hinduism if we are to believe RSS, but as I mentioned earlier, I am more inclined to believe 700 AD India was in a state of cultural (and ideological) chaos. After all, 5000 years of Hinduism in India but really Islam and the Brits had more to show for it.

I dont want the RSS version. Lets stick to your opinion. So to summarize ... according to you 5000 yrs of Hinduism had accomplished very little in any sphere of life ( economic,education,science,etc ) ... and it all changed after 700AD. Is that the gist of your take on this topic ? If not please describe in your own words.

 

[cricketjoshila]

And that in a nutshell is the issue here.

The targeted renaming of anything Muslim is the worrying part.

Incorrect.

Roads cities named after Brits have been changed at many places.

Whether Brits or central Asians or Afghans they were all invaders and their glorification isn't acceptable.

 

[Technics 1210]

I dont want the RSS version. Lets stick to your opinion. So to summarize ... according to you 5000 yrs of Hinduism had accomplished very little in any sphere of life ( economic,education,science,etc ) ... and it all changed after 700AD. Is that the gist of your take on this topic ? If not please describe in your own words.

Describe in my own words? You are just repeating what I have said, my words, must be the 3rd time I have explained myself. Which part are you not understanding?

You clearly disagree, lets read your opinion/non RSS version of history.

 

[uppercut]

Describe in my own words? You are just repeating what I have said, my words, must be the 3rd time I have explained myself. Which part are you not understanding?

You clearly disagree, lets read your opinion/non RSS version of history.

the part where you said this in post 72 "Where did I say 600 AD India has nothing" quoted below but since you have clarified that we can move on.

Where did I say 600 AD India has nothing? And YOU used the term pitiful, not me.

Why don't you explain why Hinduism failed to deliver anything in 600 AD India, let alone pre 1947, or pre-Islam, that lead India to be conquered not just by Islam, but by the Portuguese and British too?

The fact India was 'colonized' and 'infiltrated' for over a 1000 years, is the very reason why the incumbent RSS Hindutva government are spreading their wings, because Hinduism has NEVER governed or benefited India, until now.

As to your question about my opinion ... its not important. I am not here to change your mind but just curious to know how you form these opinions and the factual basis that went behind it. In other words I want to understand the Pakistani viewpoint on this and the rationale. So which historical books/expert opinions did you rely on to come to the conclusion that Hinduism achieved nothing until Muslims came about around 700AD ?

 

[Technics 1210]

the part where you said this in post 72 "Where did I say 600 AD India has nothing" quoted below but since you have clarified that we can move on.



As to your question about my opinion ... its not important. I am not here to change your mind but just curious to know how you form these opinions and the factual basis that went behind it. In other words I want to understand the Pakistani viewpoint on this and the rationale. So which historical books/expert opinions did you rely on to come to the conclusion that Hinduism achieved nothing until Muslims came about around 700AD ?

Well it is true, I never said 700 AD India had nothing, they had something but it was of little significance, that is until Islam and the British! Do you understand now?

What is the most popular tourist attraction in India? Taj Mahal - the defining image of India at the global scale - check out those ‘Incredible India’ adverts, there’s more pictures of Mughal built attractions than those built by Hindus.

Forget the Pakistani rational, it is a global rational that India in all its 5000 years existence was never the richest nation at any point, nor the largest economy at any point and for all its 5000 years, the largest export/influence was Yoga.

India under Hinduism achieved naff all in 5000 or so years, civilisations a tenth of India’s age have achieved more and continue to influence the world today.

India is nothing without the day Islam arrived, and the day the British left. In fact even today, India is nothing without foreign investment.

You can go rewrite history, and sell the RSS version, but no one is buying.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

The famous Widow burning jab. It was never wide spread and limited to sporadic cases unless they were attacked by Foreigners and forced into slavery.

.

Lmao now ppl gonna justify satti.

 

[Hitman]

Lmao now ppl gonna justify satti.

It was called jauhar, not sati. Both were different.

 

[uppercut]

Well it is true, I never said 700 AD India had nothing, they had something but it was of little significance, that is until Islam and the British! Do you understand now?

What is the most popular tourist attraction in India? Taj Mahal - the defining image of India at the global scale - check out those ‘Incredible India’ adverts, there’s more pictures of Mughal built attractions than those built by Hindus.

Forget the Pakistani rational, it is a global rational that India in all its 5000 years existence was never the richest nation at any point, nor the largest economy at any point and for all its 5000 years, the largest export/influence was Yoga.

India under Hinduism achieved naff all in 5000 or so years, civilisations a tenth of India’s age have achieved more and continue to influence the world today

India is nothing without the day Islam arrived, and the day the British left. In fact even today, India is nothing without foreign investment..

You can go rewrite history, and sell the RSS version, but no one is buying.

Can you point to any credible sources that you are using to base this upon ?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Lmao now ppl gonna justify satti.

Sati is pathetic. But to claim as though every other woman was getting burned on husband’s funeral pyre is a joke. It was never wide spread.

I never defend sati. It was a pathetic ritual and rightfully relegated to history.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Sati is pathetic. But to claim as though every other woman was getting burned on husband’s funeral pyre is a joke. It was never wide spread.

I never defend sati. It was a pathetic ritual and rightfully relegated to history.

Sati was optional. Not mandatory. Anyone who has read Ramayana knows that Lord Ram's mother and step mothers didn't do sati.

 

[kumjsr]

Indians may claim Mughals are hated because they were invaders, but that doesn't provide complete picture.

Main reason Indians hate Mughals is because Mughals are seen as rulers who attacked Hinduism and posed maximum threat to the religion.

Same goes for other invaders who not only attacked states, but also looted temples, destroyed religious sites and forced people to convert.

If just invasion by outsiders was the reason, then there are many who aren't hated same way. Similarly wars and territory change, loss of life was common among Indian states also.

It was risk to the religion which is biggest fear. Indian subcontinent is only place where Hinduism is followed widely and there is no other place for them.

Hindus were in majority in parts of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, BD and Nepal.

Then they shrunk to parts of Pakistan, India, BD and Nepal.

After that they were further reduced to India and Nepal.

Along with area, % of population also shrunk as people were forced to convert.

Not only population and area shrunk, many of their holy sites were taken away and destroyed. There was constant attack on the faith.

If anyone wants to get the answer, just ask yourself - what has been biggest threat to Hinduism in last 1000 years.

You can point out 100s of positives and contribution of invaders, but people won't appreciate it over the constant attack on people, places and symbol of faith.

Others may not think that Hinduism is worth preserving, so they may celebrate acts of invaders, but Hindus mostly won't feel the same.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Indians may claim Mughals are hated because they were invaders, but that doesn't provide complete picture.

Main reason Indians hate Mughals is because Mughals are seen as rulers who attacked Hinduism and posed maximum threat to the religion.

Same goes for other invaders who not only attacked states, but also looted temples, destroyed religious sites and forced people to convert.

If just invasion by outsiders was the reason, then there are many who aren't hated same way. Similarly wars and territory change, loss of life was common among Indian states also.

It was risk to the religion which is biggest fear. Indian subcontinent is only place where Hinduism is followed widely and there is no other place for them.

Hindus were in majority in parts of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, BD and Nepal.

Then they shrunk to parts of Pakistan, India, BD and Nepal.

After that they were further reduced to India and Nepal.

Along with area, % of population also shrunk as people were forced to convert.

Not only population and area shrunk, many of their holy sites were taken away and destroyed. There was constant attack on the faith.

If anyone wants to get the answer, just ask yourself - what has been biggest threat to Hinduism in last 1000 years.

You can point out 100s of positives and contribution of invaders, but people won't appreciate it over the constant attack on people, places and symbol of faith.

Others may not think that Hinduism is worth preserving, so they may celebrate acts of invaders, but Hindus mostly won't feel the same.

You are talking like advent of Mughal empire was in the 2ist century, not 200 plus years ago. Back then how civilised were Hindus themselves? Women were considered inferior, wives were expected to burn themselves on husband's funeral pyres, and we haven't even touched on the caste system which deprives citizens even to this day based on their social heritage.

I think if you are going to make simplistic and loaded charges that Hindus were forced to convert, despite there clearly being many Hindus even in Aurangzeb's armies - the most fundamentalist Islamic ruler by most accounts - then expect to be challenged on your own whitewhased version of Hindu history.

 

[kumjsr]

You are talking like advent of Mughal empire was in the 2ist century, not 200 plus years ago. Back then how civilised were Hindus themselves? Women were considered inferior, wives were expected to burn themselves on husband's funeral pyres, and we haven't even touched on the caste system which deprives citizens even to this day based on their social heritage.

I think if you are going to make simplistic and loaded charges that Hindus were forced to convert, despite there clearly being many Hindus even in Aurangzeb's armies - the most fundamentalist Islamic ruler by most accounts - then expect to be challenged on your own whitewhased version of Hindu history.

1. Are you denying that Hindus were forced to convert?
2. Are you denying that symbols of Hinduism were attacked?
3. Are you denying that temples were looted and destroyed?

Did you even read the post? It already mentions that states used to wage wars and kill people. Difference with Mughals invaders was attack on faith - Hinduism.

Do you deny that Mughals didn't target Hinduism?

Now mentioning that Hindus were were themselves uncivilized, you're backing up the statement I made in last part - supporters of Mughals like you think that since Hinduism was inferior faith, it wasn't worth preserving and attacks on faith should be ignored.

Anyway I am not arguing right or wrong here. I am merely stating why Indians (mostly Hindus) hate Mughals. Not just because they were invaders, but mainly because they are seen as rulers who attacked Hinduism.

Can you answer this question - what do you think has been biggest threat to Hinduism historically?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

1. Are you denying that Hindus were forced to convert?
2. Are you denying that symbols of Hinduism were attacked?
3. Are you denying that temples were looted and destroyed?

Did you even read the post? It already mentions that states used to wage wars and kill people. Difference with Mughals invaders was attack on faith - Hinduism.

Do you deny that Mughals didn't target Hinduism?

Now mentioning that Hindus were were themselves uncivilized, you're backing up the statement I made in last part - supporters of Mughals like you think that since Hinduism was inferior faith, it wasn't worth preserving and attacks on faith should be ignored.

Anyway I am not arguing right or wrong here. I am merely stating why Indians (mostly Hindus) hate Mughals. Not just because they were invaders, but mainly because they are seen as rulers who attacked Hinduism.

Can you answer this question - what do you think has been biggest threat to Hinduism historically?

I don't need to deny anything, everything is on record. If you are asking what I think the biggest threat to Hinduism has been historically, there would be many different answers depending on time and context, including Hindus themselves. If you are asking me what I think Hindutvas would like to present as the biggest threat following historic revisionism, then I would say you may like to project it as Islam, as that suits the current mood of Islamophobia worldwide. Quite smart to make that move in the current climate, I would imagine it would have been communism back in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Technics 1210]

The biggest threat to Hinduism, is Hinduism itself.

There is a thread on converting to Hinduism and it was very clear that there is no clear single definition of how Hinduism is define resulting in mass mixed defintions and contradictory believes.

This very decentralised model leads to divisions and dilutions in society which is precisely why India failed to make a mark on the world scale for nearly 5000 years - a fusion of confusion - lack of indentiy and consistency. This is why Islam and the British fared well in India, because the two respresented core unified beliefs. And lets not even go into the caste system.

So what better way to unite a disjointed decentralised religious people? Unite them with hate - thus why RSS is rewriting Islamic history in a nation that owes its existence to Islam - unification through religious hate in a country that still is seeking an identity.

 

[JaDed]

View attachment 118504


Fort St George Chennai. Another magnificent building bearing the name of Britain's Abrahamic forefathers. Will the Hindutvas dare to claim it and give it a new Hindu identity? I think they better think twice and find something Islamic which they can target instead.

How many seats do BJP have in that state from which you just posted the picture from?

 

[kumjsr]

I don't need to deny anything, everything is on record. If you are asking what I think the biggest threat to Hinduism has been historically, there would be many different answers depending on time and context, including Hindus themselves. If you are asking me what I think Hindutvas would like to present as the biggest threat following historic revisionism, then I would say you may like to project it as Islam, as that suits the current mood of Islamophobia worldwide. Quite smart to make that move in the current climate, I would imagine it would have been communism back in the 80's and 90's.

What is your answer with different time and context?

 

[JaDed]

bjp dont need to sway any vote bank, they have a lock on their target demographic.

They won’t win with only their votebank and that’s obvious due to their issues in Bihar , Maha and South, Bengal.
Their vote bank is only certain in Gujarat,Majority parts of UP, MP and Karnataka.

 

[JaDed]

The timing of this coincides with Adani and China report , BJP with its usual crap.

 

[kumjsr]

The biggest threat to Hinduism, is Hinduism itself.

There is a thread on converting to Hinduism and it was very clear that there is no clear single definition of how Hinduism is define resulting in mass mixed defintions and contradictory believes.

This very decentralised model leads to divisions and dilutions in society which is precisely why India failed to make a mark on the world scale for nearly 5000 years - a fusion of confusion - lack of indentiy and consistency. This is why Islam and the British fared well in India, because the two respresented core unified beliefs. And lets not even go into the caste system.

So what better way to unite a disjointed decentralised religious people? Unite them with hate - thus why RSS is rewriting Islamic history in a nation that owes its existence to Islam - unification through religious hate in a country that still is seeking an identity.

This is true to some extent.

There was certainly a consistency around how symbols of Hinduism were attacked consistently.

Was it you who talking about Mughals bringing economic advances in India?

Can you tell everyone how did great Mughal emperors fell short of money to obtain land to build mosques in India? What was the compulsion behind destruction of temples to build mosques like Gyanvapi mosque?

I could have understood if core unified belief would have construction of mosque anywhere in India.

What I don't understand what kind of core unified belief led to destruction of one of holy site of Hindus to build temple over there.

Maybe attack on other faith maybe superior, stronger and reason to celebrate for you. Hindus are weak in that sense for sure.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What is your answer with different time and context?

Which time or context are you wishing to discuss?

 

[kumjsr]

Which time or context are you wishing to discuss?

Take last 1000 years. Feel free to slice it your own way.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Take last 1000 years. Feel free to slice it your own way.

Various things happened of benefit and deficit for Hindu community in the last 1000 years.

 

[kumjsr]

Various things happened of benefit and deficit for Hindu community in the last 1000 years.

Question was about biggest threat, not everything.

 

[the Great Khan]

I love the RSS version of history..reads like good historical fiction.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Question was about biggest threat, not everything.

That was one of the questions among about 20 others. If that's the question you want answered then we can focus on just that one if you are ok with it.

 

[sweep_shot]

Well it is true, I never said 700 AD India had nothing, they had something but it was of little significance, that is until Islam and the British! Do you understand now?

What is the most popular tourist attraction in India? Taj Mahal - the defining image of India at the global scale - check out those ‘Incredible India’ adverts, there’s more pictures of Mughal built attractions than those built by Hindus.

Forget the Pakistani rational, it is a global rational that India in all its 5000 years existence was never the richest nation at any point, nor the largest economy at any point and for all its 5000 years, the largest export/influence was Yoga.

India under Hinduism achieved naff all in 5000 or so years, civilisations a tenth of India’s age have achieved more and continue to influence the world today.

India is nothing without the day Islam arrived, and the day the British left. In fact even today, India is nothing without foreign investment.

You can go rewrite history, and sell the RSS version, but no one is buying.

This is a good point.

I actually think Indian history is quite boring/insignificant apart from Mughals and British. Those two chapters primarily define Indian history.

So, when BJP goons try to remove Mughal history, they are erasing their own significant history.

 

[JaDed]

This is a good point.

I actually think Indian history is quite boring/insignificant apart from Mughals and British. Those two chapters primarily define Indian history.

So, when BJP goons try to remove Mughal history, they are erasing their own significant history.

What was so interesting about British history in India?

 

[sweep_shot]

What was so interesting about British history in India?

It was action-packed. Fun to read.

 

[SalimBhai]

This is a good point.

I actually think Indian history is quite boring/insignificant apart from Mughals and British. Those two chapters primarily define Indian history.

So, when BJP goons try to remove Mughal history, they are erasing their own significant history.

If you remove Hindu , Buddhist history from bangladesh or Pakistan , you are removing your own history also. Correct ??

 

[JaDed]

It was action-packed. Fun to read.

Hard to argue with that logic.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

What was so interesting about British history in India?

Bottom line, if it wasn't for British India would be worse than subsaharan Africa

 

[JaDed]

Bottom line, if it wasn't for British India would be worse than subsaharan Africa

What makes you think that?

 

[SalimBhai]

Bottom line, if it wasn't for British India would be worse than subsaharan Africa

And Pakistan? Or just india?

 

[SalimBhai]

What makes you think that?

My numbers might be just a bit off. But I think before the British arrived india had 27 percent share of the world economy . When British left india had 3 percent share .

 

[Technics 1210]

Was it you who talking about Mughals bringing economic advances in India?

No, all I said was that Islam and the British put modern day India on the map. Subtract the last 1300 years of Indianhistory, and there is nothing much to show for India's 5000 year existence.

Even Egyptian history - which is also about 5000 years old - stands the test of time and interest today with its structures and language - hieroglyphs, but I do not see archeologists queuing up to dig up old sites in India trying to decipher Sanskrit or find the Rosetta stone, or baffled at how the equivalent of pyramids were built which remains a hotly debated topic even today.

India's pre Islamic/British history is bland, and if it wasn't for the influence of Islam in India, the British wouldn't even have bothered to invade and rule India for 300 years.

 

[uppercut]

Can you list Any credible historians and their works that agree with this view ?

This is a good point.

I actually think Indian history is quite boring/insignificant apart from Mughals and British. Those two chapters primarily define Indian history.

So, when BJP goons try to remove Mughal history, they are erasing their own significant history.

No, all I said was that Islam and the British put modern day India on the map. Subtract the last 1300 years of Indianhistory, and there is nothing much to show for India's 5000 year existence.

Even Egyptian history - which is also about 5000 years old - stands the test of time and interest today with its structures and language - hieroglyphs, but I do not see archeologists queuing up to dig up old sites in India trying to decipher Sanskrit or find the Rosetta stone, or baffled at how the equivalent of pyramids were built which remains a hotly debated topic even today.

India's pre Islamic/British history is bland, and if it wasn't for the influence of Islam in India, the British wouldn't even have bothered to invade and rule India for 300 years.

 

[Technics 1210]

Can you list Any credible historians and their works that agree with this view ?

Can you tell us why you disagree? Cite your reasons and evidence.

It's a 2 way street, even though you do not want to convince us of the contrary.

 

[Buffet]

My numbers might be just a bit off. But I think before the British arrived india had 27 percent share of the world economy . When British left india had 3 percent share .

It was around 25% each for China and India few hundred years back.

Based on trajectory, I think India/China will have the same share in 100 years.

 

[Buffet]

Too many history illiterates in this thread. They should be asking for refund from their schools.

 

[uppercut]

Can you tell us why you disagree? Cite your reasons and evidence.

It's a 2 way street, even though you do not want to convince us of the contrary.

Actually for me its quite fascinating to find out how people form their opinions on complicated topics such as history, politics, religion etc.. especially since there is a ton of resources available at your fingertips. I am not trying to second guess you.

But here is a simple reason why I dont entirely agree with you.... it is a well known fact that the amount of loot carried out of India is mind boggling, which tells me that at the very least India was a very wealthy country which is why it attracted a lot of attention. Such prosperity cannot happen without the local civilization being at a certain level. Not saying they were flawless or grandiose.

 

[Technics 1210]

Actually for me its quite fascinating to find out how people form their opinions on complicated topics such as history, politics, religion etc.. especially since there is a ton of resources available at your fingertips. I am not trying to second guess you.

But here is a simple reason why I dont entirely agree with you.... it is a well known fact that the amount of loot carried out of India is mind boggling, which tells me that at the very least India was a very wealthy country which is why it attracted a lot of attention. Such prosperity cannot happen without the local civilization being at a certain level. Not saying they were flawless or grandiose.

Where did this loot/value come from in the first place? Moreover, what did 700 AD Indians do with said wealth - assuming said wealth existed before the arrival of Islam in India? Now we can assume said wealth existed before 700 AD - but what was the benefit for India and its Hindu dominate people at the time? I do not see any relics of pre 700 AD signifying wealth. Please show me.

This is the point, the arrival of Islam in India bestowed wealth upon India, and yes the British looted it, and in between India carved out an identity, but more so, carved its land.

 

[Technics 1210]

Bottom line : Hindus claim the 'Islamic Invaders' forced religious conversions, but if Hinduism was the dominate religion for 3500 years prior to the 'Islamic Invaders' then it begs the question, how did the dominate Hindus of India at the time fail to prevent forced conversions when Hindus outnumbered the invaders by a country mile?

You'd think the Hindu majority may have learned its lesson with 'Islamic Invaders', but then the British turn up with 30000 troops and again, invade and rule India for 300 years. So again, why couldn't the Hindu majority defeat 30000 troops despite outnumbering the British AND Muslims by a country mile?

Reminds me of an old saying - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

What makes you think that?

Because the British built the infrastructure that India still uses today not to mention the upperclass enclaves in Mumbai.

And same applies for Pakistan which is worse than India anyway.

There wouldn't have been Imran Khan, for one. Because Aitchison College was a British institution and overall, other than the disastrous handling of partition, which ultimately defined their paths, British left more positives than negative.

 

[uppercut]

Where did this loot/value come from in the first place? Moreover, what did 700 AD Indians do with said wealth - assuming said wealth existed before the arrival of Islam in India? Now we can assume said wealth existed before 700 AD - but what was the benefit for India and its Hindu dominate people at the time? I do not see any relics of pre 700 AD signifying wealth. Please show me.

Most of it was destroyed. I personally do not think that architecture alone is a sign of advancement. Education levels and science are the most important metrics. Therefore the saddest event in the last 1000+ yrs is the burning down of the Nalanda university. That event set us back by few centuries.

But if you insist on architectural Marvels - There are plenty of them that survive in South India. Massive temples carved out of single blocks of stone, a stone chariot , musical instruments carved from stone (I have personally seen them at Hampi) a levitating pillar, massive Gomateshwara statue on top of a hill to name a few.

Another way is to lookup UNESCO Heritage sites in current day India pretty sure there are a few.

This is the point, the arrival of Islam in India bestowed wealth upon India, and yes the British looted it, and in between India carved out an identity, but more so, carved its land.

Lets look at it in a different way ... Did Muslims take all the trouble to conquer in order to emancipate a poor country with no resources or any wealth ?

Bottom line : Hindus claim the 'Islamic Invaders' forced religious conversions, but if Hinduism was the dominate religion for 3500 years prior to the 'Islamic Invaders' then it begs the question, how did the dominate Hindus of India at the time fail to prevent forced conversions when Hindus outnumbered the invaders by a country mile?

because it wasnt a united nation like it is now. It was ruled by 100s of princely states each on their own.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Most of it was destroyed. I personally do not think that architecture alone is a sign of advancement. Education levels and science are the most important metrics. Therefore the saddest event in the last 1000+ yrs is the burning down of the Nalanda university. That event set us back by few centuries.

But if you insist on architectural Marvels - There are plenty of them that survive in South India. Massive temples carved out of single blocks of stone, a stone chariot , musical instruments carved from stone (I have personally seen them at Hampi) a levitating pillar, massive Gomateshwara statue on top of a hill to name a few.

Another way is to lookup UNESCO Heritage sites in current day India pretty sure there are a few.




Lets look at it in a different way ... Did Muslims take all the trouble to conquer in order to emancipate a poor country with no resources or any wealth ?





because it wasnt a united nation like it is now. It was ruled by 100s of princely states each on their own.

The Mauryans The Guptas The Cholas The Vardhans The Palas The Rashtrakutas all were poor people. Heck the Sindhu Saraswati civilization didnt exist.

People need to read what the greeks or chinese wrote about India and its civilization.

Invasion by the Arabs and Central Asian looting tyrants was the start a very dark period for India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because the British built the infrastructure that India still uses today not to mention the upperclass enclaves in Mumbai.

And same applies for Pakistan which is worse than India anyway.

There wouldn't have been Imran Khan, for one. Because Aitchison College was a British institution and overall, other than the disastrous handling of partition, which ultimately defined their paths, British left more positives than negative.

British looted approximately 45 trillion from India.

They made the infrastructure because they needed it to live here and never thought they would have to leave the place.

The British sucked out the resources of the land. Killed millions directly or indirectly.

The way they display their loot at various museums is shameful.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Great move!! But a lot more needs to be done to erase the name of the invaders.

 

[the Great Khan]

Bottom line, if it wasn't for British India would be worse than subsaharan Africa

Nonsense..before the British arrived the Indian sub continent contributed made up 27% of the worlds economy. When they left it was 3%. They also created the faultlines we struggle with today.

Like it or lump it but the mughals were Indian..they enriched and created a new culture. Its simply undeniable. So did everyone else. But the British came to suck it dry..end of..

 

[the Great Khan]

Great move!! But a lot more needs to be done to erase the name of the invaders.

Start with the name India..

 

[the Great Khan]

British looted approximately 45 trillion from India.

They made the infrastructure because they needed it to live here and never thought they would have to leave the place.

The British sucked out the resources of the land. Killed millions directly or indirectly.

The way they display their loot at various museums is shameful.

You'll be surprised to hear one of the biggest collection is in clives families castle..the nerve..I will be going one day and I will post pics.

 

[uppercut]

The Mauryans The Guptas The Cholas The Vardhans The Palas The Rashtrakutas all were poor people. Heck the Sindhu Saraswati civilization didnt exist.

People need to read what the greeks or chinese wrote about India and its civilization.

Invasion by the Arabs and Central Asian looting tyrants was the start a very dark period for India.

there are always many aspects of a story ... lets wait for [MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION] to list the sources for his version.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You'll be surprised to hear one of the biggest collection is in clives families castle..the nerve..I will be going one day and I will post pics.

Not surprised. There is a reason he was called

Naboob.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

British looted approximately 45 trillion from India.

They made the infrastructure because they needed it to live here and never thought they would have to leave the place.

The British sucked out the resources of the land. Killed millions directly or indirectly.

The way they display their loot at various museums is shameful.

And this is why I keep bringing it back to Britain. While your Hindutvas are triumphantly declaring renaming Mughal monuments as an end to slave mentality, you know fine well that you won't dare raise your heads in front of the Brits, we who built our wealth on the downtrodden Indians during the days of the British Raj. It is indeed shameful, especially when the Afghans even to this day refused to bow to the Brits, not only speaking open defiance, but fighting them physically to maintain their sovereignty.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Mughal Gardens were not built by Mughals. It was by British who named it Mughal Gardens for the garden resembled the style of Persian gardens.

 

[cricketjoshila]

And this is why I keep bringing it back to Britain. While your Hindutvas are triumphantly declaring renaming Mughal monuments as an end to slave mentality, you know fine well that you won't dare raise your heads in front of the Brits, we who built our wealth on the downtrodden Indians during the days of the British Raj. It is indeed shameful, especially when the Afghans even to this day refused to bow to the Brits, not only speaking open defiance, but fighting them physically to maintain their sovereignty.

Most British named addressees in India has been changed. City names, Streets etc all changed.

 

[Local.Dada]

we who built our wealth on the downtrodden Indians during the days of the British Raj..

Interesting. I thought British Raj consisted of white European men with Christian names.

So ja bhai. Kuch bhi bolke topic ko kheecho mat. Let it go

 

[Technics 1210]

there are always many aspects of a story ... lets wait for [MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION] to list the sources for his version.

I am waiting for you to discredit my version, all I have read from you is - no but yes but - where is your evidence supporting the claim wealth and the associated history predating 700 AD was erased, let alone existed?

You cannot just make up stuff even though you claim to be fascinated.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Mughal Gardens were not built by Mughals. It was by British who named it Mughal Gardens for the garden resembled the style of Persian gardens.

They were right to name it Mughal Gardens, at least they acknowledged where the inspiration came from. Unlike current day Hindus, they appreciated Mughal architecture even as usurpers, this is something today's Hindus should also learn in my opinion. No point in cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Most British named addressees in India has been changed. City names, Streets etc all changed.

Can you explain why the British Barracks at the Red Fort in Old Dehli haven't been removed since many observers have acknowledged they ruin the symetry of the Mughal architecture of the surrounding areas? Do the locals still pay homage to the British Raj perhaps? Has it become a shrine for the devout?

 

[uppercut]

I am waiting for you to discredit my version, all I have read from you is - no but yes but - where is your evidence supporting the claim wealth and the associated history predating 700 AD was erased, let alone existed?

In any serious debate on History when someone claims some thing to be true the onus is on that person to prove that assertion to be true. You cannot say that you are right until proven otherwise by others ( and you expect them to come up with evidence !! ). Sorry but no serious debate works in that manner. So therefore you are the one claiming that little or no wealth existed in India prior to Muslim arrival around 700AD. Now lets see the evidence to back that up. Once you provide that evidence we can then debate based on that.


But any how as I said before using simple logical deductions ... if we take your version at face value that there was no/little wealth to be had in India before 700AD it implies that the Muslim invaders took all of that trouble to simply set free the oppressed and introduce them to the goodness from the Islamic world that the Hindus were missing out on. If this is true then I suppose the works of Ghori's and Ghazni's need to be re-defined from the current description of being looters/destroyers/tyrants ... right ?

 

[Technics 1210]

In any serious debate on History when someone claims some thing to be true the onus is on that person to prove that assertion to be true. You cannot say that you are right until proven otherwise by others ( and you expect them to come up with evidence !! ). Sorry but no serious debate works in that manner. So therefore you are the one claiming that little or no wealth existed in India prior to Muslim arrival around 700AD. Now lets see the evidence to back that up. Once you provide that evidence we can then debate based on that.


But any how as I said before using simple logical deductions ... if we take your version at face value that there was no/little wealth to be had in India before 700AD it implies that the Muslim invaders took all of that trouble to simply set free the oppressed and introduce them to the goodness from the Islamic world that the Hindus were missing out on. If this is true then I suppose the works of Ghori's and Ghazni's need to be re-defined from the current description of being looters/destroyers/tyrants ... right ?

So you have no evidence supporting your story.

There is ample evidence supporting my version, just start with the wealth graph of India posted by your fellow Indian in this very thread. It coincides with the fact Islam brought wealth to India, and India's wealth peaked at the height of the Mughal empire until the British looted India dry.

And yes compared to the wealth Islam bestowed on India, there was very little wealth prior to 700AD.

Now unless you have evidence to the contrary then you are not offering anything other than whitewashing of Indian history for obvious reasons.

Facts do not care about feelings.

 

[uppercut]

So you have no evidence supporting your story.

I do but the onus lies on you to produce evidence to backup your version first as you were the one that claimed India to be a poor country untill the Muslims enriched it. Once I see your evidence I will respond accordingly.

There is ample evidence supporting my version, just start with the wealth graph of India posted by your fellow Indian in this very thread. It coincides with the fact Islam brought wealth to India, and India's wealth peaked at the height of the Mughal empire until the British looted India dry.

If there is ample evidence why were you shy of producing it ? Feel free to explain why it took multiple requests before you produced any evidence to backup your claims.

And yes compared to the wealth Islam bestowed on India, there was very little wealth prior to 700AD.

Feel free to list all evidences of wealth supposedly bestowed on India by Muslims starting with Bin Qasim. For instance What amounts of Gold was brought in ? Does it occur to you that the graph you are using posted in post#127 as evidence does not differentiate between local wealth and wealth bestowed as you claim ? moreover it starts from 1AD at which point Indias share of world GDP stood at roughly 32% ? So at this point it appears that your own evidence is agreeing with me unless you want to claim that Islamic civilization started back in 1AD ?

Now unless you have evidence to the contrary then you are not offering anything other than whitewashing of Indian history for obvious reasons.

Facts do not care about feelings.

easy there tiger ... does it occur to you that you are yet to produce a single shred of credible evidence to backup your claim of wealth bestowed by Muslims on India ?

 

[Technics 1210]

Fascinating, still no evidence disputing the fact Islam bestowed wealth upon India, and the British nicked it.

Islam and the British put India on the map, cos the majority Hindus prior to 700AD rolled out the red carpet for its invaders.

 

[SalimBhai]

Fascinating, still no evidence disputing the fact Islam bestowed wealth upon India, and the British nicked it.

Islam and the British put India on the map, cos the majority Hindus prior to 700AD rolled out the red carpet for its invaders.

Dude if Islam was such a big factor in indias success what happened to Pakistan They are all Muslims. Why could the Muslims not replicate what they did india while being in minority . They have/had a majority in Pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Can you explain why the British Barracks at the Red Fort in Old Dehli haven't been removed since many observers have acknowledged they ruin the symetry of the Mughal architecture of the surrounding areas? Do the locals still pay homage to the British Raj perhaps? Has it become a shrine for the devout?

Who acknowledged?

The barracks were used as barracks till 2002 and now house a museum.

Not everyone country in the subcontinent has to bow before the gora sahib for bailouts.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Interesting. I thought British Raj consisted of white European men with Christian names.

So ja bhai. Kuch bhi bolke topic ko kheecho mat. Let it go

Its quite amusing that a Brit Pakistani is trying to claim credit of British imperalists.

 

[uppercut]

Fascinating, still no evidence disputing the fact Islam bestowed wealth upon India, and the British nicked it.

I see that you have conveniently dodged my previous post where your own evidence is used against you ? Not surprising though.

Islam and the British put India on the map, cos the majority Hindus prior to 700AD rolled out the red carpet for its invaders.

Got any other new evidence ? So far the graph you are using is telling us that India accounted for 32% of Worlds GDP circa 1AD. Tag me once you find something new and I will respond accordingly.

 

[Technics 1210]

I see that you have conveniently dodged my previous post

No, I ignored it. You went from 700 AD to 1 AD now. Though nice try by claiming Islam started in 1 AD,
because it didn't, your claim is right up there with email was invented by India 1000s of years ago.

You ramble on about evidence but have yet to produce any of your own. What you waiting for? 3000 AD?

Continue doging the fact modern day India owes its existence to Islam and the British with your made up claims.

And its Bombay, not Mumbai; no need to tag the haters.

 

[uppercut]

No, I ignored it. You went from 700 AD to 1 AD now. Though nice try by claiming Islam started in 1 AD

Read my post#151 a few times till it finally sinks in ... here let me help you ... pay close attention to the operative words bolded here to help expedite the process

"So at this point it appears that your own evidence is agreeing with me unless you want to claim that Islamic civilization started back in 1AD ?"

and don't forget the question mark at the end.

 

[SalimBhai]

Dude if Islam was such a big factor in indias success what happened to Pakistan They are all Muslims. Why could the Muslims not replicate what they did india while being in minority . They have/had a majority in Pakistan.

No answer???

 

[Technics 1210]

As the Mughal empire was expanding, turning India into an economic powerhouse, the East India Trading company was created in 1600 in England.

What a coincidence, or should I say conspiracy?