Why were Indian empires so weak post 1000 AD?

[Adil_94]

The west already invaded and drew up todays middle east, lebanon,jordan,syria,iraq, isreal are all european constructs.

wherever muslim invaders went they built nation states and married with the locals, the european never married the locals, they came, looted and went back, with the exception of north america, where the indigenous were almost exterminated.

Am not justifying west at all. West has messed up so much of the world. But they have also revolutionised science and technology in the last 200-300 years. The industrial revolution went hand in hand with imperialism and scientific revolution. Middle East was in a period of terminal decline before the rise of the western imperialism. It regreased to a dogmatic society focused on literalism. Moving away from the science that made it the worlds most dominant civilisation. An agrarian society way behind the Wests Industrial revolution. A lot of the early invaders of India were just criminals plundering and lootung their gold. Yes Mughals did develop Indias culture a lot. But likes of Babar didnt.do big Islamic mission of Dawah but used Islam as political tool for expansion and wealth. I find ir very hard to justify invasion of otjer countries as civilising missions etc. Thats what europeans did in Africa north america and majority of people condemn that terminology.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Adil_94]

Well, it was certainly justified when Assad was killing millions of Syrians or how a democratically elected government in Egypt was removed from power or in the case of Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinian people.

I am not in favour of Israel Assad. Im.just saying neo cons in west use similar language to what you have used. I.e civilising bringing these savages into the modern enlightened world. Pathetic paternalistic attitude. Thats what language Bush and right wing nuts use to justify slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were bringing enlightened democracy. When their intentions were land oil wealth. Same for many central asian hordes while being muslim still had elements of pre islamic mongol culture. who wanted land and power. They werent the peaceful Sufis and saints who converted people.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Lurker_Ind]

They wouldnt have been burnt alive if they had tried to preach their religion peacefully...if that was the case then budhism ,sikhism,jaininsm would not have born from hindustan...and there is not any law that converting from hindus results to only death unlike invaders religion and we are glad to we resist to invaders forced religion and thankfull to our generation that we didnt enter darkness like what you said in starting....

I am thankful for Muslim invaders for teaching me how to be civiilized.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Hopefully the advanced Western civilization can takeover the middle east and teach them about democracy. If they do not listen, may be a few bombs will help. After that Americans and Brits can settle down and breed with some local women and become rulers of Arabia.

I am sure Bilal will agree with my above post.

 

[Adil_94]

You need to read a book. There was no knife to the throat, your ignorance is appalling.

Likes of Babar were alcoholics were they really spreading Islam. Or were they just power hungry warlords using Islam as a unifying political tool to conquer the Hindu populatuon. I object to the language of civilising and bringing from darkness into light.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Bilal7]

I am not in favour of Israel Assad. Im.just saying neo cons in west use similar language to what you have used. I.e civilising bringing these savages into the modern enlightened world. Pathetic paternalistic attitude. Thats what language Bush and right wing nuts use to justify slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were bringing enlightened democracy. When their intentions were land oil wealth. Same for many central asian hordes while being muslim still had elements of pre islamic mongol culture. who wanted land and power. They werent the peaceful Sufis and saints who converted people.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

The Muslim liberators stayed and built an empire. The American came into Iraq, using WMD's as an excuse, and then bailed, doing nothing for the people whatsoever. The Americans have used Black-ops to sabotage democracy in the Arab world and have opposed rulers that were not willing to be their chamcha's. The Muslims brought the glorious religion of Islam with them and freed people from the caste system, sati and other practices with which the locals of India benefited.

It was actually in the interest of the Muslim rulers to keep the local population from converting and just pay the Jizya tax but that didn't stop them from holding public debates about religion or having missionaries go around and give the call of Islam.

Not a very good comparison, even without considering that Islam is better than any other religion, ideology or way of life out there, at least for me.

 

[Adil_94]

Choosing to become Muslims doesn't depend on whether they fought wars or not. The Hindus were defeated by 17 year old, Mohammad Bin Qasim, whereas the Syrians, Iraqis, etc had to deal with the greatest general who ever lived, Khalid Bin Walid (RA). The Persian and Romans were obviously a lot stronger than the Hindus so it is foolish to say that the latter gave more resistance.

The Mughals ruled over India for how many years? For all this supposed, 'death over conversion' talk, the Hindus were all too happy to be under Islamic rule for hundreds of years.

You are living in a delusional world if you think that the Hindu kings did not touch civilians but the Muslims did. In Islam it is forbidden to even burn trees and kill animals, unless absolutely necessary so forget about harming innocent women, children, elderly or religious leaders. The Muslims were the liberators, where exactly were all these women and "public" that the Hindu kings spared? This was all happening in India, not Saudi Arabia.

Some of the Hindu kings were good rules definitely, just like some of the Muslim ones were terrible but in general, the Muslim rulers were far better. You're just twisting history here.

Persian and Romans has been weakend considerably by long standing Persian Byzantine wars. The great Islamic armies capitalised on that weakness to great effect.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Bilal7]

Likes of Babar were alcoholics were they really spreading Islam. Or were they just power hungry warlords using Islam as a unifying political tool to conquer the Hindu populatuon. I object to the language of civilising and bringing from darkness into light.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

And Aurangzeb? I have already said that a few were terrible leaders, not just in India but in other parts of the world too, but in general, their influence over the Indian subcontinent has been wholly positive.

 

[Cracket]

I am thankful for Muslim invaders for teaching me how to be civiilized.

This right here, is a golden statement lol.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

The Muslim liberators stayed and built an empire. The American came into Iraq, using WMD's as an excuse, and then bailed, doing nothing for the people whatsoever. The Americans have used Black-ops to sabotage democracy in the Arab world and have opposed rulers that were not willing to be their chamcha's. The Muslims brought the glorious religion of Islam with them and freed people from the caste system, sati and other practices with which the locals of India benefited.

It was actually in the interest of the Muslim rulers to keep the local population from converting and just pay the Jizya tax but that didn't stop them from holding public debates about religion or having missionaries go around and give the call of Islam.

Not a very good comparison, even without considering that Islam is better than any other religion, ideology or way of life out there, at least for me.

How noble of those Muslim invaders.

See my above post. Americans and Brits should invade Arabia by force, bring them the glorious democracy and settle down there, marry Arab women and rule the entire Arabia. In the mean time, they can also bring in a few peaceful missionaries to convert the struggling locals to Christianity all this while contributing to the local economy.

Done Deal Bilal?

 

[Bilal7]

Persian and Romans has been weakend considerably by long standing Persian Byzantine wars. The great Islamic armies capitalised on that weakness to great effect.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

"Weakened" is a relative term, they were still the military super-powers of the world and outnumbered the Muslims in every single major battle. They totally under-estimated the change that Islam had caused in the hearts of these lowly Arabs.

Now that you've brought this up, surely you've read about the incident where one of the Sahaba handed back all the Jizya tax that he had collected from a community because his troops could not hold that place any longer? You've also heard about how the local population had wanted to be ruled by them and not the Persians/Romans (I forget the details)?

 

[Adil_94]

And Aurangzeb? I have already said that a few were terrible leaders, not just in India but in other parts of the world too, but in general, their influence over the Indian subcontinent has been wholly positive.

Akbar was probably the greatest Mughal emperor. Aurangzebs time had a lot of political instability. Due to his religious fanaticism. His relationships with Sikh soured considerably due to his religious persecution of them and other minorities. After Babar a lot of Mughals worked within the indigenous culture yes Islam was propagated but not in that type of way. There were open theological discussions especially in Akbars reign. This helped keep a status quo. Absolutism never achives much apart from alienating large parts of the populace. Death of Guru Gobind Singh actions of Wazir Khan against his sons reflect badly on Aurangzebs administration.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Bilal7]

How noble of those Muslim invaders.

See my above post. Americans and Brits should invade Arabia by force, bring them the glorious democracy and settle down there, marry Arab women and rule the entire Arabia. In the mean time, they can also bring in a few peaceful missionaries to convert the struggling locals to Christianity all this while contributing to the local economy.

Done Deal Bilal?

Not really because Arabia already has a better ideology than their own and the West cannot really "invade" Arabia. Anyhow, you're lagging behind, the time for wars and conquests is over.

 

[enkidu_]

Well [MENTION=136193]Adil_94[/MENTION] in fact you touch upon the central point of that thread : identity. When American go to Iraq, Iraqis are already, so to speak, Iraqis and/or Muslim and so on. They have a national identity, before that we talked in terms of "pre national" identities (more tribal, ...), and imperial conquests were there since the Iron Age : it was a matter of "choosing the better conquering authority" with no identity bias. When the Arab armies entered Egypt, they met hosts of local Christians complaining about foreign Romans with their heavy taxation, and when they met local Jews in Iberia, they also met potential allies in their war on the foreign Visigoths. There was no national identity : Arabs were not "invading Egypt" (or Iran, or...). It's the same for Babur, Ghaznavi and co : why did modern Pakistanis convert to Islam despite having to deal with these western marauders ? Because they didn't make the equation Islam = invasion, and the invaders themselves were no more foreign to a Punjabi than a Persian or a Bihari would be.

So you're right, we shouldn't talk in terms of "bringing Islam" (even if on a persona level you can say conversion to Islam is a spiritual upgrading) and all that, as it's used by both ends of the ideological spectrum (Hindtuvadis/Islamists) to justify their own petty agenda, and when it comes to "civilization", I think it differs from ruler-to-ruler case I guess : Mahmud Ghaznavi is still remembered as one of the greatest patrons of Persian literature/art (he sponsored the likes of Firdowsi - national poet of Greater Iran -, al Biuni - who wrote the first objective book on India -...), so I guess he was indeed "civilized", though I don't know for Babur, who, in his memoirs, found the peoples of the subcontinent ugly looking, lacking morals and character as much as beauty and with no fruit or even horse to offer, all of that compared to Persia (now you can't deny Persians are better looking.)

 

[Adil_94]

"Weakened" is a relative term, they were still the military super-powers of the world and outnumbered the Muslims in every single major battle. They totally under-estimated the change that Islam had caused in the hearts of these lowly Arabs.

Now that you've brought this up, surely you've read about the incident where one of the Sahaba handed back all the Jizya tax that he had collected from a community because his troops could not hold that place any longer? You've also heard about how the local population had wanted to be ruled by them and not the Persians/Romans (I forget the details)?

You cant compare likes of Hazrat Umar and sahabas they were just men who fought ethically. Is Even likes of Salahuddin look at mercy compassion he showed to crusaders. But the central asian hordes who converted to Islam are completely different in character and stature to them. Their actions mimicked their mongol ancestors rather tham likes of Hazrat Umar. Islam was the most revolutionary ideology back then. Nowadays im not so sure.

"Weakened" is a relative term, they were still the military super-powers of the world and outnumbered the Muslims in every single major battle. They totally under-estimated the change that Islam had caused in the hearts of these lowly Arabs.

Now that you've brought this up, surely you've read about the incident where one of the Sahaba handed back all the Jizya tax that he had collected from a community because his troops could not hold that place any longer? You've also heard about how the local population had wanted to be ruled by them and not the Persians/Romans (I forget the details)?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Bilal7]

Akbar was probably the greatest Mughal emperor. Aurangzebs time had a lot of political instability. Due to his religious fanaticism. His relationships with Sikh soured considerably due to his religious persecution of them and other minorities. After Babar a lot of Mughals worked within the indigenous culture yes Islam was propagated but not in that type of way. There were open theological discussions especially in Akbars reign. This helped keep a status quo. Absolutism never achives much apart from alienating large parts of the populace. Death of Guru Gobind Singh actions of Wazir Khan against his sons reflect badly on Aurangzebs administration.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

You can't really rank them like this. Babar was the first to start all of this, Akbar helped stabilize Mughal power and Aurangzeb brought the empire to it's peak.

The so called "persecution" was mainly due to Aurangzeb re-introducing the Jizya tax that Akbar had abolished. The Hindus and Sikhs probably felt oppressed by this tax but it was more than justified when you consider that the non-Muslims were not forced to take part in battles or that they did not pay Zakat, that was obligatory on every capable Muslim.

What "type of way" are you talking about? Open debates, missionary activities and no real persecution of other religions is a pretty decent way to propagate Islam.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Not really because Arabia already has a better ideology than their own and the West cannot really "invade" Arabia. Anyhow, you're lagging behind, the time for wars and conquests is over.

So since there was no facebook, twitter and 24/7 news outlets back then, it was okay I guess.

Bhai, its never too late to improve and learn from the civilized western society. Adapt their ways.

 

[Bilal7]

You cant compare likes of Hazrat Umar and sahabas they were just men who fought ethically. Is Even likes of Salahuddin look at mercy compassion he showed to crusaders. But the central asian hordes who converted to Islam are completely different in character and stature to them. Their actions mimicked their mongol ancestors rather tham likes of Hazrat Umar. Islam was the most revolutionary ideology back then. Nowadays im not so sure.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Of course not, you can;t really compare the Sahaba to the Mughals, Ottomans, etc but their basic rules, regulations and laws were the same, even if the former group followed said laws precisely and the latter two didn't. I don't agree that Islam is not the most revolutionary ideology today, it has just been hijacked by a few nut-cases and has received bad press as a result.

As for the Muslim armies, they were certainly not perfect and mistakes were made but in general, their legacy has been positive and they were better than the rulers they replaced. This is my opinion and it is based on extensive reading and research so if you still have issues with it, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

^ To add to my above post, you said Arabia already has a better ideology. But according to whom? Muslims?

When a westerner goes to Arabia, all they see is backwardness, people stuck in religious dogma, oppressed women etc. I say its about time for Democracy there where genders are treated equally and progressive scientific thought is nurtured instead of religious fanaticism.

 

[Bilal7]

So since there was no facebook, twitter and 24/7 news outlets back then, it was okay I guess.

Bhai, its never too late to improve and learn from the civilized western society. Adapt their ways.

Well yes, when the ruling powers did not allow for the peaceful expansion of Islam in their lands and continued to subjugate millions of people, that ruling power had to be removed by force. And here we are.

 

[Bilal7]

^ To add to my above post, you said Arabia already has a better ideology. But according to whom? Muslims?

When a westerner goes to Arabia, all they see is backwardness, people stuck in religious dogma, oppressed women etc. I say its about time for Democracy there where genders are treated equally and progressive scientific thought is nurtured instead of religious fanaticism.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, with most of the new converts being Muslims. Wake up.

Did you miss the part about America intentionally sabotaging democratically elected parties in the Middle-East?

 

[street cricketer]

The Muslim liberators stayed and built an empire. The American came into Iraq, using WMD's as an excuse, and then bailed, doing nothing for the people whatsoever. The Americans have used Black-ops to sabotage democracy in the Arab world and have opposed rulers that were not willing to be their chamcha's. The Muslims brought the glorious religion of Islam with them and freed people from the caste system, sati and other practices with which the locals of India benefited.

It was actually in the interest of the Muslim rulers to keep the local population from converting and just pay the Jizya tax but that didn't stop them from holding public debates about religion or having missionaries go around and give the call of Islam.

Not a very good comparison, even without considering that Islam is better than any other religion, ideology or way of life out there, at least for me.

You are viewing the Islamic invasion from subjective bias here. Islamic invaders did not arrive to India to civilize the natives, nor was the Indian subcontinent pre Islamic invasion under civilized. The ancient India pre Islamic invasion was a highly developed civilization with huge wealth and natural resources. The arts and literature in the subcontinent reached its zenith with the earliest literary works dating back almost to 1500BC. But yes, caste system was prevalent, which I won't deny. The invaders like Ghazni and Ghori raided ancient India primarily for its wealth. Yes, there were instances where people converted out of their own decision, but most were due to defeats at the hands of Islamic invaders and the policy then was the subjects to convert to the religion of the ruler. Nobody can deny that there were no forced conversions because it is afterall one of the duties of Abrahamic religions to propagate their religion and convert the local populace. Yes, the Mughal rule brought about the blending of the Persian culture with the Indian culture and there are numerous architectural designs throughout India which stand as a testimony to the fact and is beautiful in its own way. But to say that the Islamic invaders invaded ancient India to civilize the native population is stretching a bit too much. Muslims will be happy for the conquests as it brought Islam to the subcontinent, but not everyone will feel so, otherwise a majority of the Indian population would have already converted to Islam during the long and peaceful rule of the Mughals.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, with most of the new converts being Muslims. Wake up.

Did you miss the part about America intentionally sabotaging democratically elected parties in the Middle-East?

There is no 2 way traffic with Islam. Once you enter, there is no way out. Punishment is well known.

Democratic parties like Saddam's party, Afghan Taliban and Assad?

 

[Bilal7]

There is no 2 way traffic with Islam. Once you enter, there is no way out. Punishment is well known.

Democratic parties like Saddam's party, Afghan Taliban and Assad?

Punishment in The United States of America? In Canada? In secular India? Don't kid yourself.

Do you know what democracy means? How were Assad or the Taliban democratically elected?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

You are viewing the Islamic invasion from subjective bias here. Islamic invaders did not arrive to India to civilize the natives, nor was the Indian subcontinent pre Islamic invasion under civilized. The ancient India pre Islamic invasion was a highly developed civilization with huge wealth and natural resources. The arts and literature in the subcontinent reached its zenith with the earliest literary works dating back almost to 1500BC. But yes, caste system was prevalent, which I won't deny. The invaders like Ghazni and Ghori raided ancient India primarily for its wealth. Yes, there were instances where people converted out of their own decision, but most were due to defeats at the hands of Islamic invaders and the policy then was the subjects to convert to the religion of the ruler. Nobody can deny that there were no forced conversions because it is afterall one of the duties of Abrahamic religions to propagate their religion and convert the local populace. Yes, the Mughal rule brought about the blending of the Persian culture with the Indian culture and there are numerous architectural designs throughout India which stand as a testimony to the fact and is beautiful in its own way. But to say that the Islamic invaders invaded ancient India to civilize the native population is stretching a bit too much. Muslims will be happy for the conquests as it brought Islam to the subcontinent, but not everyone will feel so, otherwise a majority of the Indian population would have already converted to Islam during the long and peaceful rule of the Mughals.

The real oppressed people of India did not become Muslims. It was the Ruling elite, Landlords and Priests became Muslims. Dalits remained with Hinduism. Some awesome liberation there.

May be when Islam arrived, Elites of India became disgusted with the riches they had and also for the atrocities they did to Dalits and embraced Islam.

Most Dalits in India are now converting to Islam to escape caste system.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Punishment in The United States of America? In Canada? In secular India? Don't kid yourself.

Do you know what democracy means? How were Assad or the Taliban democratically elected?

When did I say punishment in USA or Canada? Please read again.

Please enlighten me which people elected parties have USA destabilized?

 

[Bilal7]

You are viewing the Islamic invasion from subjective bias here. Islamic invaders did not arrive to India to civilize the natives, nor was the Indian subcontinent pre Islamic invasion under civilized. The ancient India pre Islamic invasion was a highly developed civilization with huge wealth and natural resources. The arts and literature in the subcontinent reached its zenith with the earliest literary works dating back almost to 1500BC. But yes, caste system was prevalent, which I won't deny. The invaders like Ghazni and Ghori raided ancient India primarily for its wealth. Yes, there were instances where people converted out of their own decision, but most were due to defeats at the hands of Islamic invaders and the policy then was the subjects to convert to the religion of the ruler. Nobody can deny that there were no forced conversions because it is afterall one of the duties of Abrahamic religions to propagate their religion and convert the local populace. Yes, the Mughal rule brought about the blending of the Persian culture with the Indian culture and there are numerous architectural designs throughout India which stand as a testimony to the fact and is beautiful in its own way. But to say that the Islamic invaders invaded ancient India to civilize the native population is stretching a bit too much. Muslims will be happy for the conquests as it brought Islam to the subcontinent, but not everyone will feel so, otherwise a majority of the Indian population would have already converted to Islam during the long and peaceful rule of the Mughals.

You have your own biases. They didn't have to convert, they could have chosen to pay the Jizya but they didn't. The fact that the entire subcontinent is not Muslim is proof of the fact that forced conversion was not the primary method. Of course, there were exceptions.

The main aim was spreading Islam, wealth came second.

 

[street cricketer]

I'm not biased towards or against any religion. I'm agnostic

 

[speed]

I'm not biased towards or against any religion. I'm agnostic

But you can still be a Hindu, or logical Hindu agnostic.

 

[Adil_94]

You can't really rank them like this. Babar was the first to start all of this, Akbar helped stabilize Mughal power and Aurangzeb brought the empire to it's peak.

The so called "persecution" was mainly due to Aurangzeb re-introducing the Jizya tax that Akbar had abolished. The Hindus and Sikhs probably felt oppressed by this tax but it was more than justified when you consider that the non-Muslims were not forced to take part in battles or that they did not pay Zakat, that was obligatory on every capable Muslim.

What "type of way" are you talking about? Open debates, missionary activities and no real persecution of other religions is a pretty decent way to propagate Islam.

Aurangzeb did expand it to its peak. But this actually led to its long term decline.. as he had overextended his empire and his rule was just maligned by continuos warfare amd excessive expenditure that in effect bankrupted the empire. His execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh was what drove Sikhs to militiancy. And the jizya tax enraged the Hindu Jats and cause them to rebel. The marathas too. In a pluralistic society like India Aurangzebs approach was foolish IMO. And yes debate discussion is best way to propagate or spread a religion. That spirit needs to be rekindled

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[street cricketer]

The real oppressed people of India did not become Muslims. It was the Ruling elite, Landlords and Priests became Muslims. Dalits remained with Hinduism. Some awesome liberation there.

May be when Islam arrived, Elites of India became disgusted with the riches they had and also for the atrocities they did to Dalits and embraced Islam.

Most Dalits in India are now converting to Islam to escape caste system.

The elites mostly converted to secure high positions in the Mughal courts without endangering their life.

 

[street cricketer]

But you can still be a Hindu, or logical Hindu agnostic.

I neither believe in prayer, nor in reward and punishment concept of religion. So I think that strikes me out of Hinduism as well.

 

[Bilal7]

I'm not biased towards or against any religion. I'm agnostic

Of course you are, it is clearly visible in your posts.

When did I say punishment in USA or Canada? Please read again.

Please enlighten me which people elected parties have USA destabilized?

Read what? I said that Islam is the fastest growing religion, with the majority of converts being women and you implied that people are scared to leave Islam because they'll die. So please tell me if apostates are being killed in North America because I sure haven't seen anything of the sort in my time here.

 

[Bilal7]

Aurangzeb did expand it to its peak. But this actually led to its long term decline.. as he had overextended his empire and his rule was just maligned by continuos warfare amd excessive expenditure that in effect bankrupted the empire. His execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh was what drove Sikhs to militiancy. And the jizya tax enraged the Hindu Jats and cause them to rebel. The marathas too. In a pluralistic society like India Aurangzebs approach was foolish IMO. And yes debate discussion is best way to propagate or spread a religion. That spirit needs to be rekindled

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Actually, it was the likes of Shah Jahan and Jahangir who spent excessively and almost bankrupted the empire. The rulers came after Aurangzeb were incapable of holding such a vast empire, I agree. His approach was not foolish, it was practical. The non-Muslims needed to pay a tax because they were mostly exempt from fighting.

 

[Bilal7]

Anyways, all that has to be said on this topic has been said. We are moving away from the topic which is about why the Indian Kings were so weak.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Anyways, all that has to be said on this topic has been said. We are moving away from the topic which is about why the Indian Kings were so weak.

Veggies are the reason. If you they ate beef

 

[Legbreak]

How would South Asia have been today if it were never ruled or invaded by any foreigners?

Would it be one big country or smaller countries like Europe?

 

[Raw deal]

Choosing to become Muslims doesn't depend on whether they fought wars or not. The Hindus were defeated by 17 year old, Mohammad Bin Qasim, whereas the Syrians, Iraqis, etc had to deal with the greatest general who ever lived, Khalid Bin Walid (RA). The Persian and Romans were obviously a lot stronger than the Hindus so it is foolish to say that the latter gave more resistance.

The Mughals ruled over India for how many years? For all this supposed, 'death over conversion' talk, the Hindus were all too happy to be under Islamic rule for hundreds of years.

You are living in a delusional world if you think that the Hindu kings did not touch civilians but the Muslims did. In Islam it is forbidden to even burn trees and kill animals, unless absolutely necessary so forget about harming innocent women, children, elderly or religious leaders. The Muslims were the liberators, where exactly were all these women and "public" that the Hindu kings spared? This was all happening in India, not Saudi Arabia.

Some of the Hindu kings were good rules definitely, just like some of the Muslim ones were terrible but in general, the Muslim rulers were far better. You're just twisting history here.

I'm not twisting story,dude. Its a fact that Islamic invasions have been barbaric, targeted public, looted them. Few of them left after stealing, but few of them stayed behind.
Shivaji as a sixteen year old started rebelling, Alexander as a 20 year old started conquering the world. That's not the point. Iran, Iraq, Egypt were so easily converted to Islam 100% , but Hinduism didn't. I can talk about my Rajput ancestors who chose death instead of converting, few of the rajput clans converted like we see in Pakistan, people have this " rana" sur name. You can make it all nice, sugarcoat it by saying that they converted because they saw something amazing in Islam and they converted.LOL. But the truth these people were just scared of dying, hence converted once they were defeated in a war.
There are hundreds of references on internet how these people were converted to Islam.. !!.. Hundreds of temples were razed to ground by mughals and they built a mosque on top of it. Babri masjid in Ayodhya is just a tip of the ice berg. There are hundreds of mosques like that.

 

[adit_sh]

I'm not twisting story,dude. Its a fact that Islamic invasions have been barbaric, targeted public, looted them. Few of them left after stealing, but few of them stayed behind.
Shivaji as a sixteen year old started rebelling, Alexander as a 20 year old started conquering the world. That's not the point. Iran, Iraq, Egypt were so easily converted to Islam 100% , but Hinduism didn't. I can talk about my Rajput ancestors who chose death instead of converting, few of the rajput clans converted like we see in Pakistan, people have this " rana" sur name. You can make it all nice, sugarcoat it by saying that they converted because they saw something amazing in Islam and they converted.LOL. But the truth these people were just scared of dying, hence converted once they were defeated in a war.
There are hundreds of references on internet how these people were converted to Islam.. !!.. Hundreds of temples were razed to ground by mughals and they built a mosque on top of it. Babri masjid in Ayodhya is just a tip of the ice berg. There are hundreds of mosques like that.

Absolutely. Just to add, the way Nalanda university was destroyed, Library was burnt and Budhism was massacred !!! Not sure if you visited ancient Vijayanagara kingdom in North Karnataka like Hampi etc....Destroyed by the invaders. 300 years history of development and progress was dusted. Many more instances like this. Like you said zorrastrians in Iran was completely converted to Islam in 50 years, same is the case with Egypt and other countries. I would give credit to Indian resistance and values system that we are still existing to about 80%. Like Maharana Pratap, he never won a war but he preferred to die and lived in jungles for years than bow to Akbar. Having said that I am not sure if all Muslim invaders are barbarians but would definitely say that most of them were and they all came to rob the "golden bird" tag

 

[Adil_94]

How would South Asia have been today if it were never ruled or invaded by any foreigners?

Would it be one big country or smaller countries like Europe?

Smaller countries. South Asia is a land of many ethnic and linguistic nations. Greatest gift Britain ever gave to South Asia was nationalism allowing the emergence of India as a nation state. And eventually become a superpower.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[enkidu_]

I'm not twisting story,dude. Its a fact that Islamic invasions have been barbaric, targeted public, looted them. Few of them left after stealing, but few of them stayed behind.
Shivaji as a sixteen year old started rebelling, Alexander as a 20 year old started conquering the world. That's not the point. Iran, Iraq, Egypt were so easily converted to Islam 100% , but Hinduism didn't. I can talk about my Rajput ancestors who chose death instead of converting, few of the rajput clans converted like we see in Pakistan, people have this " rana" sur name. You can make it all nice, sugarcoat it by saying that they converted because they saw something amazing in Islam and they converted.LOL. But the truth these people were just scared of dying, hence converted once they were defeated in a war.
There are hundreds of references on internet how these people were converted to Islam.. !!.. Hundreds of temples were razed to ground by mughals and they built a mosque on top of it. Babri masjid in Ayodhya is just a tip of the ice berg. There are hundreds of mosques like that.

You're again reading history through Hindutvadi lenses like others do through Islamist lenses. It's not that all who "remained" Hindus are heroes who have preserved their culture, it's a lazy generalization. When some Hindu Rajputs of Rajasthan were offering their daughters away to the Mughals in order to conclude marital/political alliances, a Muslim Rajput from Punjab, still a folk hero amongst Sikhs, Dula Bhatti, was fighting the greatest of the Mughals, Akbar, launching such an high level insurgency that the emperor had to temporarily shift his capital in Lahore. I'll again refer to Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus saga" to have an idea of the resistance faced by locals of Pakistan against foreign invaders, despite belonging to the same religion.

Rajputs, Jats, ... are tribes and castes of foreign extraction who have been promoted as Kshatriyas by Brahmins. If they found something "amazing" in Hinduism, why not in Buddhism or Islam later on ? Why would Jats remain shudras in the varna system when Islam (or Sikhism) could give them space to breathe ? In reality they never were genuine Hindus. It wasn't perceived as a religion, a bit like neo Hindus who can be atheists and still call themselves Hindus.

Absolutely. Just to add, the way Nalanda university was destroyed, Library was burnt and Budhism was massacred !!! Not sure if you visited ancient Vijayanagara kingdom in North Karnataka like Hampi etc....Destroyed by the invaders. 300 years history of development and progress was dusted. Many more instances like this. Like you said zorrastrians in Iran was completely converted to Islam in 50 years, same is the case with Egypt and other countries. I would give credit to Indian resistance and values system that we are still existing to about 80%. Like Maharana Pratap, he never won a war but he preferred to die and lived in jungles for years than bow to Akbar. Having said that I am not sure if all Muslim invaders are barbarians but would definitely say that most of them were and they all came to rob the "golden bird" tag

Nalanda university wasn't destroyed by Muslim invaders, I'll tag you in one of my old thread. Buddhism was already in decline centuries before Muslim invaders appeared (which is linked to the erosion of Nalanda as educational institution), see Kosambi's work on the subject.

Zoroastrianism was still alive in Iran until the end of the 19th century, the city of Yazd was known for it, while the Khorassan region (parts of Iran/Afghanistan/Tajikistan) was Zoroastrian-majority until the 9th century. Egypt was Christian majority for centuries after Islamic conquests too, and Greater Syria was Christian majority until the crusades. All of these are well documented. The conversions were complex and gradual.

 

[Raw deal]

You're again reading history through Hindutvadi lenses like others do through Islamist lenses. It's not that all who "remained" Hindus are heroes who have preserved their culture, it's a lazy generalization. When some Hindu Rajputs of Rajasthan were offering their daughters away to the Mughals in order to conclude marital/political alliances, a Muslim Rajput from Punjab, still a folk hero amongst Sikhs, Dula Bhatti, was fighting the greatest of the Mughals, Akbar, launching such an high level insurgency that the emperor had to temporarily shift his capital in Lahore. I'll again refer to Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus saga" to have an idea of the resistance faced by locals of Pakistan against foreign invaders, despite belonging to the same religion.

Rajputs, Jats, ... are tribes and castes of foreign extraction who have been promoted as Kshatriyas by Brahmins. If they found something "amazing" in Hinduism, why not in Buddhism or Islam later on ? Why would Jats remain shudras in the varna system when Islam (or Sikhism) could give them space to breathe ? In reality they never were genuine Hindus. It wasn't perceived as a religion, a bit like neo Hindus who can be atheists and still call themselves Hindus.
.

I'm not reading through Hindutva glass or any rubbish because I myself know my rajput clan history. When they lost the War with the mughals, they were given two choices. Either to convert or die. From tipu sultan who converted plenty of Nairs and goorgis, they did converted people by force.

If the transmission from Hinduism to Islam was so easy, why they had to raze many temples to the ground? Why impose special tax for Hindus? I know Hindus weren't united as such, but many of them refused to convert. Just google " goorgis" and see their fight against tipu sultan and see how many chose to die instead of converting.

Jats remained a dominant force. You are talking as if there are no rajput Sikhs... ) and only jats. jats, gujjars, rajput fought against Islamic forces. Yes, they weren't united,agreed but they knew what the Islamic forces wanted to do..

 

[Abhilash93]

Even the 1857 War of Independence against the British was mostly driven by Muslims (though to be fair by that point they had been in India long enough to be considered natives.). But the average native Hindu didnt coalesce themselves into a single identity. Maybe caste and ethnicities are given greater precedence even in scripture?

Where did you read that about the 1857 rebellion ?



A young sepoy, Mangal Pandey fired at his superiors in the Army & that was the ignition point of the Sepoy Mutiny.


The rumour that the gun cartridges (that needed to be bitten off) were made from cow & pig fat only added to the rising discontent. Bahadur Shah was persuaded or almost coerced by the rebellious sepoys from Meerut (they had killed British officers, captured Delhi & marched into Red Fort) to lend support. Though he was a pensioner of the British & a king only in name, they needed to have a national leader/emperor to give legitimacy to their cause.



Nana Saheb at Kanpur, Begum Hazrat Mahal at Lucknow, Rani Lakshmibai at Jhansi, Khan Bahadur at Bareilly, Kunwar Singh and Tatya Tope were the major leaders under whom the Sepoys fought. A British general said as a tribute to Rani Lakshmibai that she was the only man among the rebels.





Though Madras Presidency (or South India at large) & certain elite sections of Bengal etc did not participate, people from all religions in the North, West & Central India actively supported the struggle. The ordinary Hindus & Muslims feared that the British were destroying their religion through social legislation. Civil rebellion was particularly widespread in North West Province & Audh.

 

[hussain.r97]

No disrespect intended but I am glad the pagan empires were weak and the light of Islam entered the subcontinent, Alhamdulillah.

Having said that, the wife of Akbar belonged to a very powerful non-Muslim group, didn't she?

The light of Islam? Do you know how Islam came to the subcontinent. The people of the subcontinent did not see the light of Islam, they saw the barbaric, bloody sword of 'Islam'.

I don't understand why conquerors are praised for the spread of Islam when Islam teaches us not to spread by the sword, and instead tolerate other religions, and peacefully show other people the right path.

 

[adit_sh]

You're again reading history through Hindutvadi lenses like others do through Islamist lenses. It's not that all who "remained" Hindus are heroes who have preserved their culture, it's a lazy generalization. When some Hindu Rajputs of Rajasthan were offering their daughters away to the Mughals in order to conclude marital/political alliances, a Muslim Rajput from Punjab, still a folk hero amongst Sikhs, Dula Bhatti, was fighting the greatest of the Mughals, Akbar, launching such an high level insurgency that the emperor had to temporarily shift his capital in Lahore. I'll again refer to Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus saga" to have an idea of the resistance faced by locals of Pakistan against foreign invaders, despite belonging to the same religion.

Rajputs, Jats, ... are tribes and castes of foreign extraction who have been promoted as Kshatriyas by Brahmins. If they found something "amazing" in Hinduism, why not in Buddhism or Islam later on ? Why would Jats remain shudras in the varna system when Islam (or Sikhism) could give them space to breathe ? In reality they never were genuine Hindus. It wasn't perceived as a religion, a bit like neo Hindus who can be atheists and still call themselves Hindus.



Nalanda university wasn't destroyed by Muslim invaders, I'll tag you in one of my old thread. Buddhism was already in decline centuries before Muslim invaders appeared (which is linked to the erosion of Nalanda as educational institution), see Kosambi's work on the subject.

Zoroastrianism was still alive in Iran until the end of the 19th century, the city of Yazd was known for it, while the Khorassan region (parts of Iran/Afghanistan/Tajikistan) was Zoroastrian-majority until the 9th century. Egypt was Christian majority for centuries after Islamic conquests too, and Greater Syria was Christian majority until the crusades. All of these are well documented. The conversions were complex and gradual.

It is quite possible but based on my learnings from history that was the case.
I am not too sure if there is any authentic site but let me know if you know any authentic site to verify.
Although I agree Budhism was on decline but the vast knowledge in the forms of various books have been literally burnt.

Yes so the entry of Islam ended many religions in Iran and some part of central asia and it is difficult to believe that was not forceful. The Vijayanagar kingdom in NK is a tourist place now and the locals still tells a lot of story on the barbarians.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

It is quite possible but based on my learnings from history that was the case.
I am not too sure if there is any authentic site but let me know if you know any authentic site to verify.
Although I agree Budhism was on decline but the vast knowledge in the forms of various books have been literally burnt.

Yes so the entry of Islam ended many religions in Iran and some part of central asia and it is difficult to believe that was not forceful. The Vijayanagar kingdom in NK is a tourist place now and the locals still tells a lot of story on the barbarians.

This.

If the great Persian empire cannot withstand the highly motivated Arab Muslim armies, how can smaller Hindu kingdoms stand up against those people?

Persians empire had to deal with only Arabs. Indian kingdoms had to deal with Arabs + Central Asians + Persians. All of these converts to Islam launched against the infidels of India and modern day Pak.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Critics say India was never united which is true. It was never one country.

But what binded a Malayalee with a Kashmiri or a Bengali with Marathi or a Sindhi with a Gujrati is the Hindu religion and customs.
The way they celebrated the festivals or the way they dressed may be different. But they prayed to the same God(s). Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna are the most common deities with various names celebrated in all these cultures.

Even though Subcontinent was divided into hundreds of smaller kingdoms with various languages, they were all binded by a common string Hinduism.

When British colonized subcontinent, there is a reason why they called the entire subcontinent as India. They saw the common religion, cultural overlapping and called the entire land as India.

We might see the difference between a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi and North Indian/ South Indian. To British, we are all the same. So they clubbed all similar people and called it India.

Saying that we were never a united entity and hence we are different is merely a way of justifying partition.

 

[street cricketer]

Persians empire had to deal with only Arabs. Indian kingdoms had to deal with Arabs + Central Asians + Persians. All of these converts to Islam launched against the infidels of India and modern day Pak.

Somehow this last para sends a chill down the spine when we realise that we are the only remaining infidels.
#Ghazwa-e-Hind

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This.

If the great Persian empire cannot withstand the highly motivated Arab Muslim armies, how can smaller Hindu kingdoms stand up against those people?

Persians empire had to deal with only Arabs. Indian kingdoms had to deal with Arabs + Central Asians + Persians. All of these converts to Islam launched against the infidels of India and modern day Pak.

What did the infidels of India society look like at the time of the invasions? We know that there was satee at the time where widows would burn on their husbands funeral pyre because Mughals tried to put an end to it. Was caste based system leading to a higher standard of life before the onset of the Islamic invasion?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

What did the infidels of India society look like at the time of the invasions? We know that there was satee at the time where widows would burn on their husbands funeral pyre because Mughals tried to put an end to it. Was caste based system leading to a higher standard of life before the onset of the Islamic invasion?

What has Satee and Caste System and standard of living got to do with the Muslim Armies from Persia/Arabia/Central Asia?

Satee was practiced only by Kshatriya women and it was not mandatory.

Caste system was bad. It may have served its purpose initially, but the Brahmin clergy exploited it. Hence Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/Brahma Samaj/Arya Samaj were born challenging the existing rules and religion. They still exist and are doing well.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What has Satee and Caste System and standard of living got to do with the Muslim Armies from Persia/Arabia/Central Asia?

Satee was practiced only by Kshatriya women and it was not mandatory.

Caste system was bad. It may have served its purpose initially, but the Brahmin clergy exploited it. Hence Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/Brahma Samaj/Arya Samaj were born challenging the existing rules and religion. They still exist and are doing well.

What an ignorant statement. Suttee was practiced by all castes.

 

[hussain123]

Some indians here are hiding their inabilities to save themselves from foreign invaders behind some cloak of india was ruled by various kingdoms.what is your excuse for 150 years of servitude under few lakh britshers when even handful afghans were giving them a whopping with their stone aged weapons.hinduism is no identity at all.infact, afghanistanhad been a bhuddist land before, that doesn't mean it shared any socalled sprtitual or a cultural link with someone in south india.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

What an ignorant statement. Suttee was practiced by all castes.

Can you show me an example where a Brahman woman did it?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Can you show me an example where a Brahman woman did it?

Why only one example? Suttee in bengal was practiced mostly by brahmins. You can do some online search on it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What has Satee and Caste System and standard of living got to do with the Muslim Armies from Persia/Arabia/Central Asia?

Satee was practiced only by Kshatriya women and it was not mandatory.

Caste system was bad. It may have served its purpose initially, but the Brahmin clergy exploited it. Hence Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/Brahma Samaj/Arya Samaj were born challenging the existing rules and religion. They still exist and are doing well.

I am just trying to establish how bad an impact Islamic invasion had on India. Did these armies bring down a great civilisation or even perhaps bring some improvement for the good infidels of India? Genuine question.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Some indians here are hiding their inabilities to save themselves from foreign invaders behind some cloak of india was ruled by various kingdoms.what is your excuse for 150 years of servitude under few lakh britshers when even handful afghans were giving them a whopping with their stone aged weapons.hinduism is no identity at all.infact, afghanistanhad been a bhuddist land before, that doesn't mean it shared any socalled sprtitual or a cultural link with someone in south india.

British had Guns and Tanks. Indians were fighting with swords and sticks.

What do you mean by the excuse of small kingdoms? When Raja Dahir was being attacked by Arabs, did any of the Hindu Eastern neighbors help him? When Afghan warlords were attacking Indian kingdoms, it was easy for them to run over splintered groups. Indians were also fighting with the so called stone age weapons like swords.

Afghans do share some cultural similarities with Indians until Islam came there. India also had cultural similarities with Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand until Islam took over the 1st 2 countries I mentioned.
Cambodia still has lakhs of Hindus and Thailand is Buddhist even today.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

I am just trying to establish how bad an impact Islamic invasion had on India. Did these armies bring down a great civilisation or even perhaps bring some improvement for the good infidels of India? Genuine question.

They did not come to India to civilize Indians. Even if Indians were barbaric or more civilized, Islam was hell bent on converting everyone.

Even Zoroastrians and the mighty Persian empire were crushed and obliterated by Arab Muslim armies.

I am not against Islam coming to India. Every culture has its own advantages and drawbacks. Its when the cultures mix, the bad portions of the culture can be weeded out and the good ones should be adopted.

Indians should be thankful to Islam if it abolished Sati. Caste system still exists. So Central Asian emperors like Babur, Akbar did not do jack to eliminate it. They just used the division in the society to strengthen their base.

Hinduism has its drawbacks and I am glad that it reformed a little bit when it comes to Sati. Caste system is something that will be hard to get rid of. It is not just some random group of people that decided that you will be preist or warrior or Worker. It has tribal origins.

Now let me ask you this. Will you agree that Islam has some drawbacks and needs reform too? Do you believe that Democracy is better than Sharia? Don't you think Democracy provides equal rights or better rights for women than Islam?

 

[enkidu_]

It is quite possible but based on my learnings from history that was the case.
I am not too sure if there is any authentic site but let me know if you know any authentic site to verify.
Although I agree Budhism was on decline but the vast knowledge in the forms of various books have been literally burnt.

Yes so the entry of Islam ended many religions in Iran and some part of central asia and it is difficult to believe that was not forceful. The Vijayanagar kingdom in NK is a tourist place now and the locals still tells a lot of story on the barbarians.

Islam "ended" these religions because these religions weren't appealing to peoples anymore. Read about how the clerics of Zoroastrianism abused of power during the Sassanid period. There are dozen of books on the subject, I'd advise you Sir Thomas Arnold's "Preaching of Islam", he shows that in any part of the world, Islam gained followers peacefully and because of specific local conditions, and you shouldn't equate preaching of Islam with Arab political power either : Arabs dominated Syria for long (Umayyad were there) but until crusades it was still Christian majority, while not a single Arab soldier even put his feet in the Malay archipelago and it has, today, the largest absolute concentration of Muslims in the whole world.

In fact, as yourself a question : how many Yazeedis have been converted by ISIS ? Few 100s ? Do you seriously think that these forced converts will pass on Islam as a religion to the next generations ? Now, compare them to the millions of Persians, Berbers, Afghans, ... all "proud" and "warlike" populations, fanatically Muslims since 1000 years.

As you're on Persia more specifically, scholar Reza-Shah Kazemi quotes a Christian chronicler from Khorassan (THE region which has produced the most scholars/artists in ANY civilization), and that's how he goes :

One telling document cited in his work sheds light on the nature of the mass conversion of one group, the Christians of the Persian province of Khurasan, and may be taken as indicative of the conditions under which Christians, and non-Muslims in general, converted to Islam. This is the letter of the Nestorian Patriarch, Isho-yabh III to Simeon, Metropolitan of Rev-Ardashir, Primate of Persia:

Alas, alas! Out of so many thousands who bore the name of Christians, not even one single victim was consecrated unto God by the shedding of his blood for the true faith.... [The Arabs] attack not the Christian faith, but on the contrary, they favour our religion, do honour to our priests and the saints of our Lord and confer benefits on churches and monasteries. Why then have your people of Merv abandoned their faith for the sake of these Arabs?

http://www.truejihad.com/uploads/jihad-ed2.pdf

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Islam "ended" these religions because these religions weren't appealing to peoples anymore. Read about how the clerics of Zoroastrianism abused of power during the Sassanid period. There are dozen of books on the subject, I'd advise you Sir Thomas Arnold's "Preaching of Islam", he shows that in any part of the world, Islam gained followers peacefully and because of specific local conditions, and you shouldn't equate preaching of Islam with Arab political power either : Arabs dominated Syria for long (Umayyad were there) but until crusades it was still Christian majority, while not a single Arab soldier even put his feet in the Malay archipelago and it has, today, the largest absolute concentration of Muslims in the whole world.

In fact, as yourself a question : how many Yazeedis have been converted by ISIS ? Few 100s ? Do you seriously think that these forced converts will pass on Islam as a religion to the next generations ? Now, compare them to the millions of Persians, Berbers, Afghans, ... all "proud" and "warlike" populations, fanatically Muslims since 1000 years.

As you're on Persia more specifically, scholar Reza-Shah Kazemi quotes a Christian chronicler from Khorassan (THE region which has produced the most scholars/artists in ANY civilization), and that's how he goes :



http://www.truejihad.com/uploads/jihad-ed2.pdf

Weak argument _enkidu.

Let the Yezidis who converted to Islam be under ISIS rule for 2 or 3 generations and see them become completely Islamic. They will not pass on Islam to the future generations unless there is a strict higher order enforcing Islam.
Just have 2 or 3 generations of converted Yezidis under strict Islamic rule and they will all forget their ancestors roots and will become totally Muslim. In those days there were on TV and Internet to create awareness among converts.

Indonesians were all Hindus and Buddhists until Islam came. When Indonesians converted to Hinduism and Buddhism, they were not converted by sword. They follow what their king does. If their king was a Hindu, they follow Hinduism. If he becomes a Buddhist, the people followed Buddhism. When the king accepted Islam, they became Muslim.

Even the South Americans were brutalized by Spanish and converted to Christianity. Everyone knows there what happened to their ancestors. But still they follow Christianity. Its because that is the only culture they knew for the last 3 centuries.

 

[niishaa]

[MENTION=139084]Lurker_Ind[/MENTION] was sati practised in south india or even North east like manipur etc.. I remember only rajasthan and bengal when it comes to sati.

 

[Raw deal]

Some indians here are hiding their inabilities to save themselves from foreign invaders behind some cloak of india was ruled by various kingdoms.what is your excuse for 150 years of servitude under few lakh britshers when even handful afghans were giving them a whopping with their stone aged weapons.hinduism is no identity at all.infact, afghanistanhad been a bhuddist land before, that doesn't mean it shared any socalled sprtitual or a cultural link with someone in south india.

Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu maharaja and Dogras. What's your excuse?

 

[Raw deal]

Why only one example? Suttee in bengal was practiced mostly by brahmins. You can do some online search on it.

it was practiced mostly in West Bengal and Rajasthan. Don't lie.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Why only one example? Suttee in bengal was practiced mostly by brahmins. You can do some online search on it.

I have never heard Sati in South India. Not in any caste in South India. I have lived in Andhra and Tamilnadu and never saw Brahmin women killing themselves when their husband dies. It is unheard of. All they do is, wear white clothes and meditate. May be they did some centuries ago. I don't know. All I know is, there is no compulsion in it.

 

[adit_sh]

it was practiced mostly in West Bengal and Rajasthan. Don't lie.

Even then, whatever Happens in India, why the islamic army had to invade just to correct the caste systems in Hindus. I mean every culture and civilization goes through its own evolution and so would have been hindus. for ex Budhism was said to be spin off from Hinduism removing some -ive points. just because some kings were weak doesnt give license to to just go on a murder spree trying to convert forcefully.

 

[enkidu_]

Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu maharaja and Dogras. What's your excuse?

You should perhaps precise that Kashmir was offered to them on plate by the British (and certainly not as the result of virile fights) when the Hindu Dogras helped the white invaders in bringing the end of Sikh Punjabi rule. That's called the treaty of Amritsar of 1846 and, till today, for a Sikh Punjabi, "Dogra" is synonymous with "backbiting traitor".

But peoples of the region kept offering resistance to this new foreign rule, and the Kashmir Martyrs' Day is not about India, but about the Dogra maharajas, in fact, even if in popular Kashmiri subconsciousness both are now confounded, for guessable reasons (same degree of atrocities showcased). It happened in 1931, and a decade later, peoples of Poonch would revolt against the Hindu ruler and free what we today call "Azad Kashmir" (contrarily to popular myth, it wasn't liberated by "Pashtun tribal mercenaries of Pakistan Army").

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Even then, whatever Happens in India, why the islamic army had to invade just to correct the caste systems in Hindus. I mean every culture and civilization goes through its own evolution and so would have been hindus. for ex Budhism was said to be spin off from Hinduism removing some -ive points. just because some kings were weak doesnt give license to to just go on a murder spree trying to convert forcefully.

This is like what America does which Muslims totally hate.

Americans see some society as backwards and oppressive. So what do they do? They use force and negotiations and try to bring democracy.

I guess Arabs saw all the infidels as backward cultures. So what do they do? They use force and brought Islam.

 

[hussain123]

Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu maharaja and Dogras. What's your excuse?

Simply bcoz they were at arm distance proximity to us, and kashmris were not known for their martial skills and their armies were good enough to control the population under their rule.the only time kashmris resisted and mind you it was a non violent movement under aheikh abdullah and within a decade the hari singh govt were in tatters.now compare that to britishers who ruled over a population of uoto 40 crores over a huge mass of landaand the only way for britishers to reach here and rule was through sea.so taking all this into account, 150 years acceptance of servitude is unacceptable.

 

[Raw deal]

You should perhaps precise that Kashmir was offered to them on plate by the British (and certainly not as the result of virile fights) when the Hindu Dogras helped the white invaders in bringing the end of Sikh Punjabi rule. That's called the treaty of Amritsar of 1846 and, till today, for a Sikh Punjabi, "Dogra" is synonymous with "backbiting traitor".

But peoples of the region kept offering resistance to this new foreign rule, and the Kashmir Martyrs' Day is not about India, but about the Dogra maharajas, in fact, even if in popular Kashmiri subconsciousness both are now confounded, for guessable reasons (same degree of atrocities showcased). It happened in 1931, and a decade later, peoples of Poonch would revolt against the Hindu ruler and free what we today call "Azad Kashmir" (contrarily to popular myth, it wasn't liberated by "Pashtun tribal mercenaries of Pakistan Army").

even then, Sikhs ruled Kashmir. What's the excuse for it ? Sikhs weren't Muslims. You are talking as if British white people took the battle field and claimed victory. It was our own people who fought under British flag and defeated various kingdoms.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Simply bcoz they were at arm distance proximity to us, and kashmris were not known for their martial skills and their armies were good enough to control the population under their rule.the only time kashmris resisted and mind you it was a non violent movement under aheikh abdullah and within a decade the hari singh govt were in tatters.now compare that to britishers who ruled over a population of uoto 40 crores over a huge mass of landaand the only way for britishers to reach here and rule was through sea.so taking all this into account, 150 years acceptance of servitude is unacceptable.

British ruled nearly half of the world. Don't just single out India.

British were superior in terms of strategy, Army, Ammunition, weapons.

You need smarts to win war. Just brute force without proper strategy is useless. Also, British did not invade India. They came for business, studied the demographics and then slowly pitted one kingdom against the other and slowly expanded their empire.

 

[Raw deal]

Simply bcoz they were at arm distance proximity to us, and kashmris were not known for their martial skills and their armies were good enough to control the population under their rule.the only time kashmris resisted and mind you it was a non violent movement under aheikh abdullah and within a decade the hari singh govt were in tatters.now compare that to britishers who ruled over a population of uoto 40 crores over a huge mass of landaand the only way for britishers to reach here and rule was through sea.so taking all this into account, 150 years acceptance of servitude is unacceptable.

well , British empire includes Pakistan as well. So, yeah. They ruled undivided India with our own people fighting under British flag.

 

[enkidu_]

even then, Sikhs ruled Kashmir. What's the excuse for it ? Sikhs weren't Muslims. You are talking as if British white people took the battle field and claimed victory. It was our own people who fought under British flag and defeated various kingdoms.

Thanks to the treacherous Hindu Gulab Singh, Sikhs controlled Kashmir for barely three decades, succeeding to centuries of Muslim rule.

Also British used to recruit what they'd call (rightfully or not) "martial" populations, and many were from modern Pakistan. That's WWII numbers (I guess somehow the same for previous decades) :

On the eve of World War II almost 34,000 Punjabi Muslims were in the army (29 per cent) and during World War-II over 380,000 joined (about 14% of the total). No other class came close to these figures: Sikhs: 116,000, Gurkhas: 109,000, Muslims of other classes from UP, Deccan, Madras, Bengal, NWFP, etc 274,000, were recruited during 1939-1945. Muslims as a whole constituted a quarter of the Indian Army as of 1947....

Almost 70 per cent of the wartime recruitment was from what became Pakistan.

http://defencejournal.com/sept99/martial-races.htm

^so we basically get back on topic, that of the identity : peoples of Indus (Pakistan) accepted Islam and helped "foreign invaders", from Central Asians up to British, because they didn't feel connection with Gangetic India.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

well , British empire includes Pakistan as well. So, yeah. They ruled undivided India with our own people fighting under British flag.

Indian society is more acceptable of foreigners as long as the native castes can keep up their professions.

British were clever. They must have employed all Kshatriya caste people into high ranking generals in their army. They let Baniyas do business. Other Castes as sepoys under army generals. People got paid, they were able to feed their families and they were happy. They don't care who is ruling them.
Indians are meek people.

 

[hussain123]

British had Guns and Tanks. Indians were fighting with swords and sticks.

What do you mean by the excuse of small kingdoms? When Raja Dahir was being attacked by Arabs, did any of the Hindu Eastern neighbors help him? When Afghan warlords were attacking Indian kingdoms, it was easy for them to run over splintered groups. Indians were also fighting with the so called stone age weapons like swords.

Afghans do share some cultural similarities with Indians until Islam came there. India also had cultural similarities with Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand until Islam took over the 1st 2 countries I mentioned.
Cambodia still has lakhs of Hindus and Thailand is Buddhist even today.

Swords were the weapons of last resort,and sticks really??the weaponry of the some indian kingdoms like marathas or rajputs etc were of comparable nature to European weapons, and these are not ultra sophisticated weaponry system which is in place. If nations which had 40 times lesser population and far lesser weaponry could defend themselves against britishers, what is your excuse? I think it is pretty straightforward. Isn't it??
I will give you another analogy on why sharing same religion doesnt mean they share any cultural or any othet superficial bondage. What does a Christian living in south Africa share with a Christian in iceland??

 

[hussain123]

Swords were the weapons of last resort,and sticks really??the weaponry of the some indian kingdoms like marathas or rajputs etc were of comparable nature to European weapons, and these are not ultra sophisticated weaponry system which is in place. If nations which had 40 times lesser population and far lesser weaponry could defend themselves against britishers, what is your excuse? I think it is pretty straightforward. Isn't it??
I will give you another analogy on why sharing same religion doesnt mean they share any cultural or any othet superficial bondage. What does a Christian living in south Africa share with a Christian in iceland??

* which is in place now in most military establishments

 

[enkidu_]

Look [MENTION=138059]Raw deal[/MENTION] [MENTION=139084]Lurker_Ind[/MENTION] [MENTION=137989]hussain123[/MENTION] :

The Punjabi Musselman [Muslim] was regarded as the backbone of the old Indian army, and constituted about a third of the British Indian army. Known for their reliability, they were steady men who could be depended on to carry out any task at hand.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/muslim-soldiers-first-world-war

30% alone were Punjabi Muslims only, "backbone" of their army. Imagine other ethnic groups of Pakistan, namely Pakhtoons and Baloch. I guess in India you only had Sikhs, Gurkhas and Rajasthani Rajputs, but not too many Marathis, Tamils, Bengalis or Biharis I reckon. But modern Pakistanis were over-represented, the proof that they wanted to distance themselves from mainland/Gangetic India. Even a pro Indian like Tarek Fateh laments at the fact that Punjabi Mussalmans were used to bully Gangetic Indians during the 1857 sepoy mutiny.

Pakistanis have resisted against foreign invaders and shielded Gangetic India, but not for the sake of protecting it, just when it went against its own interests. When these foreign invaders became interesting and permitted Pakistanis to earn dividends (economic, administrative, ...) they let them off go berserk on Uttar Pradesh, symbolic seat of Hindu imaginary, taking Indra-prastha as their capital, better known as Dehli before or New Delhi today.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Swords were the weapons of last resort,and sticks really??the weaponry of the some indian kingdoms like marathas or rajputs etc were of comparable nature to European weapons, and these are not ultra sophisticated weaponry system which is in place. If nations which had 40 times lesser population and far lesser weaponry could defend themselves against britishers, what is your excuse? I think it is pretty straightforward. Isn't it??
I will give you another analogy on why sharing same religion doesnt mean they share any cultural or any othet superficial bondage. What does a Christian living in south Africa share with a Christian in iceland??

Again. Bad logic my friend.

Christian living in Africa and Iceland. They are continents apart. They have no trade.

Hindus living in India and Afghanistan or Buddhists living in India and Afghanistan are lot closer and historically there was trade and sharing of ideas

British had weapons like Guns and Tanks. They were called Phirangis for a reason. Those Guns and Tanks were superior than Swords and Horse/Camel/Elephant infantries.

One British soldier could take down dozens of Indian soldiers without even breaking sweat. He just had to pull the trigger.

Its not always the strength in numbers that dictate the result of a war. Its about how modern the weapons are and how well executed the plans are that decide between winning and losing.

 

[Raw deal]

Thanks to the treacherous Hindu Gulab Singh, Sikhs controlled Kashmir for barely three decades, succeeding to centuries of Muslim rule.

Also British used to recruit what they'd call (rightfully or not) "martial" populations, and many were from modern Pakistan. That's WWII numbers (I guess somehow the same for previous decades) :



http://defencejournal.com/sept99/martial-races.htm

^so we basically get back on topic, that of the identity : peoples of Indus (Pakistan) accepted Islam and helped "foreign invaders", from Central Asians up to British, because they didn't feel connection with Gangetic India.

well, Sikhs controlled Kashmir for just 3 decades because they were beaten by British like it happened in all undivided India. Otherwise Sikhs would have controlled Kashmir for a long time.

Regarding the Muslim army recruits are concerned, show me some other source. This is written by some Muslim army officer. Show me some other source which says the same thing.

 

[hussain123]

British ruled nearly half of the world. Don't just single out India.

British were superior in terms of strategy, Army, Ammunition, weapons.

You need smarts to win war. Just brute force without proper strategy is useless. Also, British did not invade India. They came for business, studied the demographics and then slowly pitted one kingdom against the other and slowly expanded their empire.

Divide and rule I guess.but the treacherous nature of kingdoms reflects on india's own incapabilities.

 

[Raw deal]

Look [MENTION=138059]Raw deal[/MENTION] [MENTION=139084]Lurker_Ind[/MENTION] [MENTION=137989]hussain123[/MENTION] :



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/muslim-soldiers-first-world-war

30% alone were Punjabi Muslims only, "backbone" of their army. Imagine other ethnic groups of Pakistan, namely Pakhtoons and Baloch. I guess in India you only had Sikhs, Gurkhas and Rajasthani Rajputs, but not too many Marathis, Tamils, Bengalis or Biharis I reckon. But modern Pakistanis were over-represented, the proof that they wanted to distance themselves from mainland/Gangetic India. Even a pro Indian like Tarek Fateh laments at the fact that Punjabi Mussalmans were used to bully Gangetic Indians during the 1857 sepoy mutiny.

Pakistanis have resisted against foreign invaders and shielded Gangetic India, but not for the sake of protecting it, just when it went against its own interests. When these foreign invaders became interesting and permitted Pakistanis to earn dividends (economic, administrative, ...) they let them off go berserk on Uttar Pradesh, symbolic seat of Hindu imaginary, taking Indra-prastha as their capital, better known as Dehli before or New Delhi today.

again you are quoting something which was written by a Muslim dude and its written under Islam, religious topic. Come on dude. Lol. Show me some other sources which was not written by a Muslim.

Rest of the things you wrote are your ignorance since Marathas weren't recruited because they fought British fiercely.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Divide and rule I guess.but the treacherous nature of kingdoms reflects on india's own incapabilities.

Even Muslim kings and emperors had to deal with so many back stabbing Muslim kings and emperors.

Correct me if I am wrong. Didn't Mohammed Bin Kasim get murdered by his own men after he conquered Sindh?
Tipu Sultan had to deal with treacherous Muslim minister. Mughals were in constant battles with Pathans.

Forget the middle age history, look at Arab countries now. Everyone is pulling the others knickers down. Conspiring against each other.

This is called politics and power. India had so many kingdoms and each one conspiring against their neighbors and it was easy for any invader to take advantage of it.

Finally Indians are under one belt and it is not easy for any foreign power to over take us. Lets suppose a few thousand militia men like ISIS tries to attack India now. We know what the result will be. But had they tried it in 6th century, they would run over India.