# Akbar and other Mughals



## nitesh28

In this forum the name of Aurangzeb is sometimes mentioned but not of the other Mughal Rulers. Is there ant specific reason or just that Aungzeb is more popular in pakistan.

I agree in India Auranzeb is not liked much and Akbar is considered better.

I would like to know a pakistani perspective about the other Mughals and specially Akbar.

Links of articles will be appreciated.


----------



## Awesome

What's there to like/dislike about Mughals? Characters in the story book of history, thats it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Righteous_Fire

Your basic argument i.e.



nitesh28 said:


> In this forum the name of Aurangzeb is sometimes mentioned but not of the other Mughal Rulers.



*is completely false.*

*Post* references to your argument, what has convinced you that this is so?

*Why on earth would we Pakistanis favor some Mughal ruler over another*  





In hindsight, this shows the popular Indian hyped and propagandized hatred for one particular Mughal Emperor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nitesh28

My intention is clear and i have mentioned in my orignal post that in india we have a poor opinion of Aurangzeb compared to Akbar. why accuse me of something wich i have already accepted.


----------



## nitesh28

And my basic argument is I want to know more about Akbar as mentioned in history books of Pakistan? leave out the Aurangzeb part it will take the question off topic.


----------



## advaita

@nitesh28 - Quite a few people consider the history of people as the true perspective. Emperors are just a product of the population. Only time Emperors matter is when they are alive and have a +ve/-ve contribution to history of the general populace (ie. you and me)

Just my opinion that it is not very important to discuss Akbar/A.zeb

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

nitesh28 said:


> And my basic argument is I want to know more about Akbar as mentioned in history books of Pakistan? leave out the Aurangzeb part it will take the question off topic.



Well, he was avara for sure.......................!


----------



## insight-out

righteous_fire said:


> Your basic argument i.e.
> 
> 
> 
> *is completely false.*
> 
> *Post* references to your argument, what has convinced you that this is so?
> 
> *Why on earth would we Pakistanis favor some Mughal ruler over another*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In hindsight, this shows the popular Indian hyped and propagandized hatred for one particular Mughal Emperor



Come on righteous, you know we do favour some rulers over others. Akbar may be admired by Hindus but he certainly has few fans in Pakistan because of his alleged heresy. Aurangzeb on the other hand is respected because of his devoutness, strength and justice. 

Muslims and Hindus will never agree on who was good and who was bad because they do not have the same yard stick or criteria to make that judgement. So this thread is really an exercise in futility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

insight-out said:


> Come on righteous, you know we do favour some rulers over others. Akbar may be admired by Hindus but he certainly has few fans in Pakistan because of his alleged heresy. Aurangzeb on the other hand is respected because of his devoutness, strength and justice.
> 
> Muslims and Hindus will never agree on who was good and who was bad because they do not have the same yard stick or criteria to make that judgement. So this thread is really an exercise in futility.



A'Zeb was devout & all but over did a few things. Killed his own brother & jailed his father. Dara was the rightful emperor no AZ. Not very muslim like I must say!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## insight-out

atmi_chuza said:


> A'Zeb was devout & all but over did a few things. Killed his own brother & jailed his father. Dara was the rightful emperor no AZ. Not very muslim like I must say!



I am not judging his actions. He is dead now and God is the ultimate judge. But I can tell you one thing for sure. In Islam, authority over a people cannot be inherited. In fact, hereditary rule is neither prohibited nor sanctioned by Islam. If the son happens to be the best man for the job, then he should be the successor. If someone unrelated to the ruling family is the most qualified, then he should be the one to take the helm. 

Granted, our history is replete with dynastic monarchies, but this system of government does not find sanction in the shariah. In some cases the rightful successor and the best man for the job happened to be the same person. This was often the case because he was mentally prepared and had been groomed from childhood to assume that position. Unfortunately we also have plenty of examples in our history where the successor turned out to be incompetent, greedy, tyrannical, treacherous or all of the above.

Since you say it was "not very Muslim like", let me come to the point. From an Islamic perspective Aurangzeb had as much right to the throne as Dara. Because it is not about the line of succession. It is about who can do a better job.


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

In islam there is no Monarchy or Kingship so those rules do not apply! Even if you read old testament you will see that when the people demanded a king to rule over them form Allah, they were forewarned but were given a King when , as usual, they kept insisting.
Even otherwise, it was not for AZ to take it upon himself to decide to become the emperor. The mere was in which he took over is such a sin!
Would all his prayer, fasting & charity be accepted when he put his father in jail & murdered his brother who was 100&#37; harmless? I let you decide!


----------



## insight-out

I can't decide because I'm not God. I was just making the point that Dara was _not _the rightful emperor, as you had stated.


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

insight-out said:


> I can't decide because I'm not God. I was just making the point that Dara was _not _the rightful emperor, as you had stated.



Why was he not? And how could AZ take it upon himself to nominate himself?


----------



## nitesh28

what does the official history books say


----------



## Patriot

Well, in my Pakistan Studies book it is stated that the mughals were weakened due to the wars they fought for succession in which several great commanders died..they did not develop weapons, they had no naval wing etc..


----------



## Spring Onion

nitesh28 said:


> And my basic argument is I want to know more about Akbar as mentioned in history books of Pakistan? leave out the Aurangzeb part it will take the question off topic.




Well there is nothing different in histroy books about him like other mughal rulers.

i think you want to force the idea that because Akbar had created a false faith, which was in favour of Hindus so Pakistanis dislike him.


Well come on you have many other things to start a flam war.

anyway this is very much known that Indians like him for him for his favouritism towards Hindus.


----------



## EjazR

Well in CBSE textbooks Aurangzaeb isn't treated "badly" either. Its only by some state boards and the right wingers who go overboard to denounce him.
Under Aurangzeb there were maximum number of Hindu governors, even more than under Akbar. There was a cow slaughter ban in public in keeping with Hindu sentiments and so on. Ofcourse as a King he also indulged in wars, although his wars were political in nature. The Rajputs and Brahmins of present day UP and Rajasthan were his allies. While the natives of Punjab and Maharashtra grew frustrated.

I think Pakistanis as a whole don't think that Akbar was "bad" and neither do Indians as whole think Aurangzeb was "bad". However, there are right wingers/ extremists on both sides who think wrongly think the same.
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?


----------



## advaita

^ strange I thought having Hindus in higher adminstration were meant to divide the populations and society against each other knowing fully well that Indians Ideals require some exertion of mind body and spirit while most people easily crack under pressure.

About Rajputs that were allied to Mughals pls do clarify if you are talking about Mewar which took care of itself and of its tribals or of the Rajputs whose main purpose in life was to suck up to the people in power.

About right wingers hope you realise that most people desire making their living in an honest manner without getting f_ _ _ _ _ up which implicitly makes them right wingers unless of course you want to pit stupidity of Commies against the 10000+ years of minding ones own business.


----------



## EjazR

advaita said:


> ^ strange I thought having Hindus in higher adminstration were meant to divide the populations and society against each other knowing fully well that Indians Ideals require some exertion of mind body and spirit while most people easily crack under pressure.
> 
> About Rajputs that were allied to Mughals pls do clarify if you are talking about Mewar which took care of itself and of its tribals or of the Rajputs whose main purpose in life was to suck up to the people in power.
> 
> About right wingers hope you realise that most people desire making their living in an honest manner without getting f_ _ _ _ _ up which implicitly makes them right wingers unless of course you want to pit stupidity of Commies against the 10000+ years of minding ones own business.



Didn't quite get what you were saying. The MEwar tribe was the only Rajput tribe not allied with the Mughals until Rana Pratap. After his death they were loyal to the Mughals for another two centuries until their power waned. They even fought the Marathas alongside Mughals.

The last part went completely over my head. What I mean was right wingers on BOTH side try to make the history out as Hindu vs Muslim when this was hardly the case. When even under Aurangzeb there were Hindus in administration, and cow slaugter was banned in public and when under Shivaji muslim generals and soldiers (some of whom were pathans) were fighting against Aurangzeb.

Commies.......where did that come from? Although I don't like Communists much either.


----------



## Musalman

We Pakistani do not think anything about Mughals except Shalimar Bagh, Lahore Fort etc. History is not much taught in Pakistan. I know the brain washed people across the border wanted to know that how much we are brain washed in favour of Aurgenzeb and hate Akbar. Sorry mate, we do not give a crap !!!! except they left us good cusine


----------



## Comet

atmi_chuza said:


> In islam there is no Monarchy or Kingship so those rules do not apply! Even if you read old testament you will see that when the people demanded a king to rule over them form Allah, they were forewarned but were given a King when , as usual, they kept insisting.
> Even otherwise, it was not for AZ to take it upon himself to decide to become the emperor. The mere was in which he took over is such a sin!
> *Would all his prayer, fasting & charity be accepted when he put his father in jail & murdered his brother who was 100% harmless?* I let you decide!



have you ever heard of Tauba?


----------



## Comet

I personally don't like any of the Mughals..... They spent a lot on entertainment stuff and didn't actually did good for the people. 

Also due of the reason what Humayun did with our family.

I like Sher Shah Suri... His achievements GT Road and measurement of Land.


----------



## nitesh28

Jana said:


> Well there is nothing different in histroy books about him like other mughal rulers.
> 
> i think you want to force the idea that because Akbar had created a false faith, which was in favour of Hindus so Pakistanis dislike him.
> 
> 
> Well come on you have many other things to start a flam war.
> 
> anyway this is very much known that Indians like him for him for his favouritism towards Hindus.



well who cares about his faith it was niether muslim nor hindu.

well if you want to know what i think then i will say he was a perfect politician. he knew how to rule by winning wars, if that was not working then diplomacy and also by winning the ppl by doing some populist measures to please the masses.


----------



## Spring Onion

nitesh28 said:


> well who cares about his faith it was niether muslim nor hindu.
> 
> well if you want to know what i think then i will say he was a perfect politician. he knew how to rule by winning wars, if that was not working then diplomacy and also by winning the ppl by doing some populist measures to please the masses.



 yes what he created was for prolonging and strengthening his rule.


----------



## nitesh28

Jana said:


> yes what he created was for prolonging and strengthening his rule.



i t must be a rare occasion when u have agreed with me 

thanks


----------



## Spring Onion

nitesh28 said:


> i t must be a rare occasion when u have agreed with me
> 
> thanks



 well where the credit is due i do give it


----------



## advaita

EjazR said:


> Didn't quite get what you were saying. The MEwar tribe was the only Rajput tribe not allied with the Mughals until Rana Pratap. After his death they were loyal to the Mughals for another two centuries until their power waned. They even fought the Marathas alongside Mughals.
> 
> The last part went completely over my head. What I mean was right wingers on BOTH side try to make the history out as Hindu vs Muslim when this was hardly the case. When even under Aurangzeb there were Hindus in administration, and cow slaugter was banned in public and when under Shivaji muslim generals and soldiers (some of whom were pathans) were fighting against Aurangzeb.
> 
> Commies.......where did that come from? Although I don't like Communists much either.



*My Critique of your postion:*

Rana Pratap is something everybody knows. What few people know is that even Bhil tribals sided with him and against Mughals. It is said that even to this day there royal coat of arms bears the image of a Bhil tribal. At times Rana would have been wiped clean had Bhils not saved him. Now, urbanised Hindus of the time had a tiff with Mughals, but why the hell did Bhils fealt threatened.

Bro I am an Uttrakhandi, and we have a dialect (Garhwali) but no script, most of the people over there were illiterate for most of history (we even needed to be bailed out by other Shankara Mutts, for the simple reason that there was nobody to take care of Badri Vishal). Bearing this in mind, now hear this out. The worst Garhwali swear word is Ghoeri (for spitefulness) and the highest ideal that I have been reminded about and told to uphold by my mother (a marginally literate lady) is Saka/Saika (both version being used). What is the significance of these words in shruti traditional language and in the organised state of Mewar, can be guessed by anyone.

Most Rajputs just could not take on the mughals (explains the fact of rajputs being there in Pakistan) with the exception of Rana. Even the successors of Rana could do little.....

See, even if we take the idea of AZ being Raja Ram. How do the following get explained:

The presence huge forts / castles / crimanlly extravagant monuments like Taj Mahal being there only from the Muslim rule period.
The presence of such distrust that brought about the partition of India.
The general arms length that both Hindus and Muslims maintain to this day in India (Both just tolerate each other but almost never share business risk / community development / community service)

See, The negation of history is not going to work in India. It is a stupidly commie idea of denial of natural history/natural order.

Further going by your argument of presence of Hindus in the Mughal administration somehow signifying amicable relations holds no water. Going by your logic GB was also the best rule that Indians could have got since they had an even larger numbers of Indians in there administration.
About cow slaugter being banned &#8220;*in public*&#8221; (sic) under AZ. Hope you can see the catch in your own words.


*My Stand:*
See :

The undeniable fact that 130 million plus Muslims have risked it to live in India inspite of 47.
The fact that even the so called right wingers of India have never put forth the argument that, lay muslims were out to grab the dignity of lay non-muslims, in historical terms.
The fact that non-violence in Indian history (both as propounded by Gautama and MKG and the extraordinary popularity both of them enjoyed) were in the nature of affirmative action and not a poverty of options.
The fact that Indians went into erstwhile East Pakistan not just because of hindu populations but because of general Bengla populations.

All these only go to show that the basis for the Indian society can be easily provided by the traditional Indian belief systems which obviously form a part of the historical heritage of Muslims of India too. In fact my opinion is that because of the survival of such ideals even to this day, these ideals have already proved their strength quite convincingly and so these ideals should be used to provide the foundation for greater cooperative action in the Indian State not the denial of history.

See uptill 47 all of Indian history (muslim or otherwise) excluded the Shudras (agriculturists, labourers, surgeons, basically skilled workforce) from the decision making process and still the lay muslims and lay hindus almost never fought amongst themselves till 47. Now after the coming of democracy, this very illiterate, downtrodden, excluded population kicks out commies/lalu/mulayam types. The collective conscience is something you are underestimating. If allowed to work this soul of a civilization can work wonders and if denied its due will result in something that you are afraid of and don&#8217;t know how to handle.

BASICALLY INDIANS SHOULD BEAT ITS ENEMIES WITH THE BASIC MULEHEADED STUBORNESS TOWARDS OUR CONSTRUCTIVE HISTORY THAT INDIANS DISPLAY IN EVERY OTHER WALK OF LIFE.

EVEN IF WE HAVE TO DENY SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DENYING THE COMPETENCE OF SUNDRY EMPERORS ON THE FUTURE AND FATE OF INDIA.


----------



## EjazR

@advaita

I still don't understand what the main disagreement is..

Instead of seeing everything in terms of religion, I have said that it was more to do with political alliances. I think its an insult to Rajputs tribes to say that just because they couldn't fight the Mughals they meekly joined them. Similarly, there is no reason to assume that because native muslims and pathan migrants in present-day Maharashtra joined Shivaji's army just because they were afraid of him. They were political alliances and both alliances had respect for each others religion. (shivaji). Then ofcourse there were the Sufi and bhakti movements that characterized the spread of Islam and peaceful co-existence. I agree that that must people might have lived in their own community, but this is a feature of Indian society where each caste would mingle with their co-caste people. That didn't mean that just because they didn't inter-marry or inter-dine that they were hostile to each other.

Besides, Mughals were just one dynasty. There were hundreds of other kings. Tipu Sultan was another brave son of Mysore who single handedly defeated the British multiple times. He even wanted to ally with other local kings, the marathas and Nizams to oust the British but failed to do so.

As other posters have mentioned Sher Shah Suri was probably one of the best kings in recent times for his administrative and monetary policies. Infact, he names the currency rupiyah which is now used in India Pakistan, Indonesia and many other countries even today. It was later the founders of Mughals Babar e.t.c that invaded Sher Shah's kingdom to establish their rule. So Babar invaded India by fighting Muslim king. Can you see how far fetched it would to call his invasion as a Hindu-Muslim conflict? It might be interesting to check out Babar's will to his son which is preserved in a museum in Bhopal. Babar's will. Infact there are only three instaces of a muslim king invading India and fighting a Hindu king. Other than that these were either non-muslims on both sides or muslims on both sides.

Of course, there were invaders like Mahmud Ghouri that committed large scale looting and plundering, no one can be proud of that. Even Al-Buruni was critical of him in his writings calling him a barbarian. So you can't look at all muslim kings as one monolith. Just as you can not say that just because Ashoka killed hundreds of thousands of people (including women and children) in his early expansion, all Hindu kings were bad. Ghouri doesn't represent the entire period of muslim kings in India when infact he never planned to stay here. His actions were similar to the British where the main plan was to take wealth from India back to his country of origin unlike the local Muslim kings.

And most people don't know this but the first muslim king of India was actually a native of India from present day Kerela. Islam came to India from the south first right at the time of the Prophet (SAW).
Interview with a descendant of King Cheraman Perumal 

No one is calling AZ raja ram or saint but he was not a demon incarnate either. There are positive and negative aspects to everyone, that is necessary to give a holistic picture. Otherwise you can fall prey to simplistic assumption. That differentiates a person who can lead to a person who can (_sometimes wrongly_) be led.

(1) There are huge temples and palaces of Hindu kings in the north and south as well. Taj Mahal just happens to be the most famous one. It was a symbol of Hindustan contributing almost 25&#37; of world GDP and being one of the richest nations. Travelouges from French, Arab and Turkish travelers talk about this.
(2) I also suggest you understand that the partition was mainly to serve British strategic interests in Middle East and as a bulwark against the Soviets. Secondly it was a political settlement not a religious one. The vast majority of common Indians didn't have a say in it. I have more than explained these reasons on various partition related threads. You can search for them if you are interested. Alternatively, you can read the book "The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition"
(3)It has only happened now because of the use of religion in politics. Also the partition affected the NW part of India the most so that is understandable but not excusable. I have not been to uttharkhand but in the South and East of India you will not find these problems. In J&K also its not like that. 
The problem is for some people communal harmony is not in their political interests. They benefit in polarizing society after riots or agitations. But the average Indian is getting wiser and kicking out those who use communal politics. Even religious Hindus have realized this.

I had an interesting conversation with a devout Hindu friend of mine who is Lingayat from Karnataka. He told me that the mixing of politics with Islam is one of the main causes of extremism, something that only started in the 50s and 60s. This was supported by the western regimes as a bulwark against Communism. In any Muslim country in the ME and Asia where there was rise in Communism, these religious fundamentalists were covertly supported. Sometimes overtly in case of Afghanistan. Now these extremists even got bomb making and weapons training as well but were later left free to do what they please after the Soviets left. These very same people now use these techniques to wreck havoc in the name of "protecting" Islam. 
Similarly, mixing of any religion including Hinduism with politics will have the same blowback and radicalising affect on disillusioned youth. You can already see that with groups like Ram sene e.t.c. becoming moral police. More recently was the banning and arrest of the group Abhinav Bharat and other organisations in Nepal who were involved in terrorists activities. These groups main aim was to "protect" Hindus. And he said that just as the muslims have had to take responsibility and moved ahead to condemn and stop the use of Islam in terrorism and politics. So too will Hindus rise to stop use of their religion sooner or later. Terrorism has no religion whether it be done by Muslims or Hindus. I guess he is right seeing the situation in Ayodhya nowadays (=What Ayodhya Hindus think?)

To say that the "traditional belief systems" are the basis of Indian society is again preposterous. Both Maulana Azad (as well as the members of pro-India Jamiat-ulema-e-hind) and Mahatma Ghandhi were devout muslims and hindu but they represented Indian society. Similarly Ashfaqulla Khan and Ram Prasad Bismil but they represented the Indian society. Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were more atheists but they were proud Indians. What about the contribution of parsis and jews to India? I hope you understand the fallacy. All Indians have the right to follow any religion or no religion if they choose to do so. They can also be as devout and religious as they want provided they don't mix religion with politics.

Take example of America, the reason for its success are many but one primary reason is that it has not defined itself solely around a religion or ethnicity. It welcomed people from around the world the brightest minds from different religions and ethnic backgrounds. And in 200 years became one of the most powerful nation in history. 

If you have already made up your mind that some "commies" have reconstructed history and that should be changed, I can't change your opinion. I also fail to understand how illiterates like Mualayam and Lalu could have influenced history research in India. I personally feel that the people at NCERT are well versed with history and have done a good job in the recent history textbooks for CBSE schools. I suggest you read some good history books that will give the correct picture. Posing history as a Hindu-Muslim conflict is only used to further political agendas and that is understood by many just like it was used by the Colonial British. It is only a matter of time till the truth comes out. 

Overall I personally think it is useless to idolise or demonise any ruler. They should be looked at objectively to learn from their rule and appreciate the good things they did and understand any bad actions they had committed. These are all in the past and should be left as such.

What is probably needed is people should be taught what happened as political and cultural developments rather than just religious. So both Hindus and Muslims can be equally proud of say Ajanta caves as well as the Taj Mahal because it belongs to all Indians. This is what is being done and is providing a solid basis for Indian society. This is what will define the future and fate of India. As it is said Satya meva Jayate (truth alone triumphs)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Halaku Khan

EjazR said:


> Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?



The information given there seems to be inaccurate. Aurangazeb's destruction of Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath temple is well documented.

Also, the assertion that Muslims were taxed at higher rates does not seem to be credible. In fact, Aurangazeb had people protesting against Jizya trampled by elephants.

But yes, its true Hindus did hold high positions in the Mughal empire. The most powerful general was Mirza Raje Jai Singh, and Aurangazeb did not dare to openly antagonize him. 

In fact, Aurangazeb wanted to kill Shivaji at Agra, but was prevented from doing so openly only because he had to respect Jai Singh's promise to Shivaji. He then made plans to have Shivaji murdered surreptitiously, but Shivaji escaped before he could carry it out.


----------



## manishmaithani

atmi_chuza said:


> A'Zeb was devout & all but over did a few things. Killed his own brother & jailed his father. Dara was the rightful emperor no AZ. Not very muslim like I must say!



Dara was much inteligent than A'zeb


----------



## advaita

@EjazR - Sir, thanks for the great effort. And need I say I agree with every bit of what you mentioned.
The differences are nonetheless there. Pls allow me to achieve more consistency in my writings and bear me for next few sentenses.

I do admit GB misrule was perhaps amongst the worst that a group of people could have done on others. But it would not be just to take out our own (hindus and muslims) incompetence in managing our own affairs better, which IMO and considered opinion was because of the spectacular failure of both the muslim and hindus and other types of rajas to do fulfil their respective duties towards their respective spheres of territorial and demographic responsibility. The virus are always there but the healthy body fights those infection and wins, an ill body on the other hand is ill because it had failed to fight the infection. So before GB the biggest culprit were Mughals and even before that the Slave dynasties etc. because while they kept taking and enjoying taxes and kept claiming that they were Indians, still they failed to support the concept of India at vital moments in History. Now the rot does not stop here, even before the Muslim rajas there were Buddhist and Hindu Rajas who simply were not good enough. While we were 24&#37; of world economy at start of Mughals period, we were 28%+ at the end of earlier non-muslim periods down from 36%+ even earlier, and by the start of GB period we were 17% or thereabout. GB just finished off the job till around 4%. The incompetence in fact continued even after the Brits left and it is only to our debit that we brought 4% down to even further 2%. 47 was merely the political freedom from GB, 91 was the freedom from our own collective stupidity. Pls also observe the moving average growth figures, we are below chinese rising slower but rising much more sure-er.

Now I do admit it is not worth it that we discuss emperors and dynasties. My point is that if we keep handing out credit where it is not due then we will keep failing to recognise our true historical genius (of course historical for both hindus and muslims). There were a few Shudra rajas also and even though i have not read much about them but extrapolation of my understanding takes me to the conclusion that they would have been no better (just some earlier day Mayawati).

The way I see it, anything to do with exclusivity will fail under the weight of its own unrealistic expectations. These sundry rajas were exclusivist and failed to train there subjects for the eventuality of Ghories, Ghaznis etc. These western invaders happened to be Muslims during those era. Later era showed that western invaders could just as well be Christens, in fact corporates too boot. On the other hand the victims were those who happened to be Hindus and more often then not the forefathers of present day muslims of the Indian Heartland.

I dont know what the present NCERT history teaches. But at the time I used to read it, most of it was about all and sundry rajas, while what we should have been taught was (*and with reasoned arguements that are actually there and can be missed out only by blind men and commies*):

1.	That India is a land of minorities (even Brahmins, Kshtriyas, every regional identity, every linguistic identity and every religious identity are actually minorities and with same problems). Muslims of this land will have to come out and claim/seize there fair share in society instead of coming out for Palestine/sundry fatwas/few defensive patriotic marches. If a Shiv Sainik dares impute a divided loyalty on a muslim then he should not let go of the issue and treat this as a slight. Muslims would be surprised to see the bitterness against these sundry shiv sainiks amongst even the Hindu populations esp. those from UP / Bihar.

2.	That caste specialization is not going to work for the society when the enemy that you need to prepare for is not even perceptible in accepted timescale and this kind of specialization is actually only a false specialization since it is based on exclusivism.

3.	That Indians have been invaded from west time and again (himalayas made it impossible for any other way for a good part of history). That lands towards west were so depraved perhaps because they themselves were deprivied (explains the fact of Persian-Arab divide inpite of the presence of Ummah). Even Rana used to refer to his opponents as turki, he knew very well the ideology he was fighting. Amply supported by the shruti traditions of isolated communities like Uttarakhandis who consider Ghori a swear word as against the clear non-usage the term muslims to which they are actually better exposed then their history against Ghoris etc. Even the words *&#8216;Pol Khol dena&#8217;* have similar significance.

4.	That reason is not what westerners or for that matter now even the Chinese are going to take. Survival is a matter not of religion but of will.

5.	The will was not there till 47 given the existence of 550+ states with false caste specilizations. The lay populace came into power only in 47.

6.	That the fact that almost equal killings and equal refugees happened amongst both muslims and non-muslims of India, is a weakness of our society that eventually certain people even used to create two countries (which we should accept today). Juxtaposed against the fact that despite such bitter killings, a stupendous number of muslims decided to risk there lives in India then to move over. Conclusions here are self evident. So for every 1 idiot citizen of the land (Hindu or Muslim or etc.) there are 9 who are not idiots and are interested in the cooperative relations within the country because the lay population is wise enough to know, without a lefty telling him, that this cooperation is important to attain competitive ability outside India.

7.	Given that rest of the regions of the subcontinent fell towards there natural centre of gravity without any worthwhile competition, implies that the present state of democracy and sarva-jan sambhav is the true state of Indian nationhood. The roots of which are in the common Muslim & Non-Muslim traditions of Sufism and Bhakti and Sikhism which is a mix of everything.

8.	That unless we take special care of this freedom by making every citizen an all rounder in his/her social contribution (specialisation being limited only to profession) we are not likely to continue enjoying our concept of India.

Now your ideas regarding AZ or Mr. Jinnah are not proved. On the contrary pretty much all that the so called right wingers are saying have not been falsified at least not to my knowledge (I would be willing to change my views if you can provide such refutations). In fact I wonder if rightwingers in India have even said anything about Indian muslims populace. In fact something makes me feel that the AZ fatwas in Bikaner have never even been radio carbon dated by those who maintain a view against it. AZ was just as bad as the society of that time and of time before that allowed him to be. Had the society not allowed itself to be divided, AZ would not have been successful. While these divisions were happening Hindus were just as much a culprit as Muslims. Even your views about India &#8211; Pak war in the other thread, where you ideate that India won 48, 65 & 71 are just too simplistic. It is common sense that nobody won nothing (both Pakistani and Indian fanboys are just not seeing the reality). The war is still going on, though it is true India is gaining an upper hand finally. This war was there since as long as we can remember and will remain at least till the time, Pakistan is roundly beaten economically and its himayati is at least matched. Now this is actually possible since this land is the land of possibilities, it allows everything to happen. We obviously cannot insure against the evil but we can surely allow our good guys to better the mark set by their good guys.

Educate the commoners about there own true identity ie. of the deeprootedness of multicultural traditions instead of throwing a mythical Good AZ against bad AZ. Throw instead a good Indian population against the bad AZ ideas of rightwinger if you have to. Don&#8217;t negate the commoners&#8217; strength. It works just fine in the continuum of time. By pitting good AZ argument against bad AZ argument the leftys are only undermining the strength of India, the strength of the masses. Enable the children of the commoners to see the link between culture and economics and defence. They are wise enough to know what is best for them. Democracy implies having faith in the common man. Carry on with it.
Rana was fighting for Hinduism because practically all his subjects were hindus and all their tormentors were muslims and Islam did not have the proportions that it later developed amongst Indians. When it comes to martial history these leftys highlight is the presence of hindus amongst AZ courtiers, what they convinently forget is that even Rana had Hakim Khan Sur in his army. Now Surs were Indians even though they were ethnic Pathans exactly because they lived and died for the people of the land. And even though a lefty sees this part of history as a threat to his ideas, the reality is these ideas are a strength for Indian society as it is the history of the resistance against the foreigners, who may have claimed to be Indian but always thought only of themselves and their treasury. The leftys are promoting a history that does not match with the ground realities. If I have to accept left history then I will have to forgo the history of north west India (around 10 Crore people) without any concommitent improvement in the Hindu-Muslim relations. What kind of history is this. The right wingers in India are actually smarter then the leftwingers. They have put in a condition for Ayodhya dispute that even an idiot knows is never going to be fulfilled. And we can have a private conversation regarding Ayodhya if you want it.

On account of some recent readings I am developing a view that these Mughals were in a terrible identity crisis but no definitive idea yet.


----------



## advaita

Halaku Khan said:


> The most powerful general was Mirza Raje Jai Singh, and Aurangazeb did not dare to openly antagonize him.


Not just AZ even Khilji had doubts about his own authority. He used to say that his writ would not run beyond 100 Km of Delhi without the use of force.

Indians of those times never really accepted some kings while Surs were well accepted. The important thing is not the king but the stand taken by the lay populace which happened to be hindus or forefathers of present day muslims.

Had lay populations been cooperative with Mughals and Mughals held 26&#37; approx of world trade. Do you think the Angrez would have dared even looked at India. That Malyali lady of some small time kingdom who single handedly destroyed the Portugese fleet (some people even mention 200 ships) would have been enough to give nightmares to Angrezs.


----------



## niaz

Whether one likes or not the facts are;

1.	Despite there being no kingship in Islam, except the Rashideen; every other Islamic dynasty whether called Khilafat ( Umayyad, Abbasids, Ottomans) or Sultanate ( Ghaznavids, Saljuqis or Indian Sultans) and Spanish Muslims rulers were in fact hereditary kings.

2.	Regardless of what Pakistanis and Indians think of the Mughals, nearly all Mughal rulers were lovers of art and culture and have left a lasting legacy in the subcontinent. Much of present day music, poetry, architecture and food developed sophistication under the Mughals.

3.	Like kings all over the world, most of the Mughal kings (except A&#8217;zeb) were heavy drinkers&#8217; and libertines. It is however wrong to judge a king by his personal piety. Kings are judged by their success in war, how other kings respected them and how strong they left their domain when they died.

4.	Akbar is only the second Indian king in the 5000 years history who is called &#8220;Great&#8221;, the other being Asoka. A&#8217;zeb is nowhere when compared to Akbar as a king and a ruler. Moghal Empire shrank to Delhi and its surroundings within 25 years of A'zeb's death is proof enough.

I have a diary written by an East India Company Army colonel during late 18th early 19th century during his travels in the &#8216;Rajputana&#8217; as it was thus known. Nearly all the Rajput Chieftains were loyal to the Delhi Mughals and described the Maratha Empire which followed the Mughals as the worst ever. The &#8216;Chauth&#8217; or 1/4th tax applied by the Marathas was totally arbitrary and unjust. As rulers go, even the worst Moghal king was better than the Marathas.

Trouble is that every discussion in this forum and in the India/Pakistan context takes a religious overtone. Despite being an orthodox Muslim; A&#8217;zeb was a capricious and cruel ruler. Only lasting legacy he left is the grand Badshai Mosque at Lahore. Otherwise Aurangzeb was a bigoted and a ruthless king who spent 15 years in the South fighting Shivaji without being able to control the Maratha menace. 

IMO capable Muslim rulers in India were Alauddin Khilji, Balban, Altutmash, Feroz Tuglaq, Sher Shah Suri, Akbar, Jehangir and Shahjehan. On analysis I have come to the conclusion that root cause of the end of Muslim empire in India was Auragzeb. Had he not bankrupted the State in figthing the Maratha guerrillas, the English would not have been able to come in thru the back door.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## greatsequence

Akbar at the end of his rule became an atheist and because ancestorly he was a Muslim so he over did things against Islam to have a secular image. Some reports even suggest he was even imitating to be a semi god any how he was not an intellectual person and was unable to hold any of the theological view presented by Hinduism , Islam and Christianity. 

Shah jahan had a very loose grip on his government and did not give importance to the official matters liked to live an easy and luxurious life. Aurengzeb on the other hand was a tough guy like his Mongol ancestors. He lived a very simple life unlike the rulers of that time. Had a very strong influence of Islam and Islamic law on him. Islamic scholars enjoyed very high position in his court. One of his daughter was also a big "Alima" (female scholar). But I don't know how good of a ruler that makes him.


----------



## EjazR

@advaita

Here is a link that includes the 2008 version of NCERT textbooks, much better than when I was studying I must say
NCERT Textbooks

My views of AZ are not glorifying him in any way, I have just said that not looking at all aspects of AZ and just demonising him is simplistic. I think niaz's post above is a more accurate post of what I would agree with overall. Although I would venture to say that he started of with an accommodating attitude but became more hard line as he started getting more and more territory under his control instead of being content with what he had.

Overall, it is true that lack of unity between different chieftains and kings in the sub continent was the biggest problem. Another example of this is that the British used the Nizam of Hyderabad and Marathas to fight Tipu Sultan, even though if these three local kings had been united, the British would have never been able to establish their power in the south. An example of the strength of this unity was the 1857 war of Independence were the entire foundations of the British were shaken.

About Indo-pak conflicts, that is what is basically referred to in CBSE textbooks. My personal view is that 48 is understandable because India was not prepared and was a new nation at that time. But 65 and 99 were definitely blunders even failures because India should have prevented it in the first place and the high casualty and cost it resulted in. 99 more so because J&K was a conflict zone and still the IA failed to identify infiltrators until a Shepard told them. These were heights of embarrassment to India no matter how we fashion them.

Looking to the future, communal harmony not only among Hindus and Muslims but other faiths and ethnicities and castes is necessary for the strength of India and THAT is why after 60odd years India hasn't balkanised as was predicted by many western "experts" at that time of independence, particularly the British. The basis of this was mutual respect and justice. Anybody's attempt to undermine this is a anti-national and a traitor no matter who they are. In this regard the most prominent achievement of Nehru was that he maintained this in the most testing period right after the partition. Wether it be the language issues of Hindi vs south Indian languages, partition related issues e.t.c.. That is why he has to be respected as a builder of modern India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## advaita

^^^ Went thru the link. I think a lot has changed since I was in School. You are right NCERT is making it more contextual and pushing things into the higher classes with the lower classes dealing with only the interrelationships between History, Economics and Society. Should be better now.

At the time I used to read history, and I studied history only upto 10th standard. It was just a long list of kings, kingdoms, maps and personalities. And everything was cramed upto 10th itself. Even world history, ancient history, Pre-independence. No connect with the socio-eco life.

Hope things get even better in future. Including Landes and critical analysis of Landes.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

All these kings and rajas or rajputs were same they exploited the people , lived like kings had lots of action in bed , with 1000+ maidens and then left ...

General public got taxed ... end of story ... now we have our gov that do all that and politicians

Only person who I have respect for is Tipu sultan


----------



## third eye

niaz said:


> Whether one likes or not the facts are;
> 
> 1.	Despite there being no kingship in Islam, except the Rashideen; every other Islamic dynasty whether called Khilafat ( Umayyad, Abbasids, Ottomans) or Sultanate ( Ghaznavids, Saljuqis or Indian Sultans) and Spanish Muslims rulers were in fact hereditary kings.
> 
> 2.	Regardless of what Pakistanis and Indians think of the Mughals, nearly all Mughal rulers were lovers of art and culture and have left a lasting legacy in the subcontinent. Much of present day music, poetry, architecture and food developed sophistication under the Mughals.
> 
> 3.	Like kings all over the world, most of the Mughal kings (except Azeb) were heavy drinkers and libertines. It is however wrong to judge a king by his personal piety. Kings are judged by their success in war, how other kings respected them and how strong they left their domain when they died.
> 
> 4.	Akbar is only the second Indian king in the 5000 years history who is called Great, the other being Asoka. Azeb is nowhere when compared to Akbar as a king and a ruler. Moghal Empire shrank to Delhi and its surroundings within 25 years of A'zeb's death is proof enough.
> 
> *I have a diary written by an East India Company Army colonel during late 18th early 19th century during his travels in the Rajputana as it was thus known*. Nearly all the Rajput Chieftains were loyal to the Delhi Mughals and described the Maratha Empire which followed the Mughals as the worst ever. The Chauth or 1/4th tax applied by the Marathas was totally arbitrary and unjust. As rulers go, even the worst Moghal king was better than the Marathas.
> 
> Trouble is that every discussion in this forum and in the India/Pakistan context takes a religious overtone. Despite being an orthodox Muslim; Azeb was a capricious and cruel ruler. Only lasting legacy he left is the grand Badshai Mosque at Lahore. Otherwise Aurangzeb was a bigoted and a ruthless king who spent 15 years in the South fighting Shivaji without being able to control the Maratha menace.
> 
> IMO capable Muslim rulers in India were Alauddin Khilji, Balban, Altutmash, Feroz Tuglaq, Sher Shah Suri, Akbar, Jehangir and Shahjehan. On analysis I have come to the conclusion that root cause of the end of Muslim empire in India was Auragzeb. Had he not bankrupted the State in figthing the Maratha guerrillas, the English would not have been able to come in thru the back door.



A fair assessment. 

Would this diary you refer to be "Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan: by Lt Col James Todd ?


----------



## eastwatch

nitesh28 said:


> My intention is clear and i have mentioned in my orignal post that in india we have a poor opinion of Aurangzeb compared to Akbar. why accuse me of something wich i have already accepted.


Aurangzeb is disliked by the Hindus for no reason at all. As far as I know, Ranjit Singh was not disliked by even his Punjabi Muslim subjects, because he was an honest king and was fair to all of his subjects. Usually, people do not divide their opinion on him.

But, in case of Aurangzeb, he has been made villain by the Hindu historians only because he had to fight the rebellion by the Marathas led by a then unknown Shibaji. What the central govt of today's India would do in a similar situation? Will a rebellion be tolerated by the central govt?

It was same with Aurangzeb, he was fighting a rebel force bent on destroying the central govt in Delhi. The Historians afterwards added their personal emotion and portrayed Aurangzeb as a Hindu-hater against a Hindu patriot called Shibaji. This is certainly not the truth.

In his personal life, Badshah Aurangzeb was very honest. His examples should be followed by Pakistan's Zardari and India's FM Krishna. He lived in the palace given by the State, but he had no personal servants and his wife the Badshah-Begum had to cook her family's own food with her own hands. 

She was the only wife this honest Badshah ever had, he had no concubines. This Badshah used to repair (as we say RIPU) his own torn clothes. For his family's own livelihood, he used to copy Qu'ran and sew topi (Muslim caps). He would sell these products to a special merchant at wholesale price and with this proceed he would maintain his own family's livelihood. Badshah Alamgir was a FAQIR in his heart.

About warfare against his own brothers, I would say it was all politics of the middle age. Either you rule or you get killed. This same politics are still there in many of the Muslim countries even today. Think of the history of Bangladesh and Pakistan, the present neighbours of India. Muslims are blood-thirsty by nature, but I just do not know why it is so.


----------



## third eye

eastwatch said:


> Aurangzeb is disliked by the Hindus for no reason at all. As far as I know, Ranjit Singh was not disliked by even his Punjabi Muslim subjects, because he was an honest king and was fair to all of his subjects. Usually, people do not divide their opinion on him.
> 
> But, in case of Aurangzeb, he has been made villain by the Hindu historians only because he had to fight the rebellion by the Marathas led by a then unknown Shibaji. What the central govt of today's India would do in a similar situation? Will a rebellion be tolerated by the central govt?
> 
> It was same with Aurangzeb, he was fighting a rebel force bent on destroying the central govt in Delhi. The Historians afterwards added their personal emotion and portrayed Aurangzeb as a Hindu-hater against a Hindu patriot called Shibaji. This is certainly not the truth.
> 
> In his personal life, Badshah Aurangzeb was very honest. His examples should be followed by Pakistan's Zardari and India's FM Krishna. He lived in the palace given by the State, but he had no personal servants and his wife the Badshah-Begum had to cook her family's own food with her own hands.
> 
> She was the only wife this honest Badshah ever had, he had no concubines. This Badshah used to repair (as we say RIPU) his own torn clothes. For his family's own livelihood, he used to copy Qu'ran and sew topi (Muslim caps). He would sell these products to a special merchant at wholesale price and with this proceed he would maintain his own family's livelihood. Badshah Alamgir was a FAQIR in his heart.
> 
> About warfare against his own brothers, I would say it was all politics of the middle age. Either you rule or you get killed. This same politics are still there in many of the Muslim countries even today. Think of the history of Bangladesh and Pakistan, the present neighbours of India. Muslims are blood-thirsty by nature, but I just do not know why it is so.



A ruler is measured more by his / her public dealings & less with their personal lives.

Before Aurangzeb, Indian Islam had been influenced by mystical Sufi precepts. But based on his conservative interpretation of Islamic principles, Aurangzeb propagated a less mystical, more severe form of Islam. People were forcefully converted to Islam.

Aurangzeb became fascinated with conservative interpretations of the Qur'an, which he set about codifying. According to Aurangzeb's interpretation, Islam did not allow music, so he banished court musicians, dancers and singers. Further, based on Muslim precepts forbidding images, he stopped the production of representational artwork, including the Persianate Mughal miniature painting that had reached its zenith before his rule. He even stopped the practice of his morning appearance on the balcony of the Lal Qila.

In 1675, Aurangzeb publicly executed the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji at Chandni Chowk where Gurudwara Sisganj stands. Sikh history states that Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself to save Hindus who the Emperor had condemned for failure to convert to Islam. This marked a turning point for Sikhism. His successor, Guru Gobind Singh further militarised his followers . Aurangzeb killed four of Gobind Singh's sons.

Somewhere above you will see the beginings of Hindu/ Sikh hatred towards muslims and the fundamentalist approach in Islam which is the bane of our world today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greatsequence

third eye said:


> A ruler is measured more by his / her public dealings & less with their personal lives.
> 
> Before Aurangzeb, Indian Islam had been influenced by mystical Sufi precepts. But based on his conservative interpretation of Islamic principles, Aurangzeb propagated a less mystical, more severe form of Islam. People were forcefully converted to Islam.
> 
> Aurangzeb became fascinated with conservative interpretations of the Qur'an, which he set about codifying. According to Aurangzeb's interpretation, Islam did not allow music, so he banished court musicians, dancers and singers. Further, based on Muslim precepts forbidding images, he stopped the production of representational artwork, including the Persianate Mughal miniature painting that had reached its zenith before his rule. He even stopped the practice of his morning appearance on the balcony of the Lal Qila.
> 
> In 1675, Aurangzeb publicly executed the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji at Chandni Chowk where Gurudwara Sisganj stands. Sikh history states that Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself to save Hindus who the Emperor had condemned for failure to convert to Islam. This marked a turning point for Sikhism. His successor, Guru Gobind Singh further militarised his followers . Aurangzeb killed four of Gobind Singh's sons.
> 
> Somewhere above you will see the beginings of Hindu/ Sikh hatred towards muslims and the fundamentalist approach in Islam which is the bane of our world today.



Befor Aurengzeb Islam was a dying faith in sub continent because of the policies of Akbar. Aurenzeb did not inteperate anything but instead made a comission of 500 scholars from across the muslim world to document the rulings. The book is called "Fatawa-e-Alamgiri" which is highly adored in the Hanafi school of thought. 

Music and dance has no place in islam and we all know what was the purpose of dance girls in the middle ages. 

This argument of forcibly converting people to islam is nothing more than a joke.


----------



## ice_man

AKBAR was called GREAT only because he gave way to many rights to non muslims he was actually working against ISLAM.....now that made him GREAT in the eyes of other faiths not in muslims....

so AKBAR GREAT is nothing to do with his legacy in terms of conquest or fair and equal treatment of all 

he killed a 100 rajputs after a battle!!


----------



## nitesh28

ice_man said:


> AKBAR was called GREAT only because he gave way to many rights to non muslims he was actually working against ISLAM.....now that made him GREAT in the eyes of other faiths not in muslims....
> 
> so AKBAR GREAT is nothing to do with his legacy in terms of conquest or fair and equal treatment of all
> 
> he killed a 100 rajputs after a battle!!



giving rights to non muslims is not allowed in ISLAM?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

ice_man said:


> AKBAR was called GREAT only because he gave way to many rights to non muslims he was actually working against ISLAM.....now that made him GREAT in the eyes of other faiths not in muslims....
> 
> so AKBAR GREAT is nothing to do with his legacy in terms of conquest or fair and equal treatment of all
> 
> he killed a 100 rajputs after a battle!!


Akber was great because he tried to reconcile two groups of people with different faiths. His policy should have been followed by the next generation emperors. An emperor is not a Mullah and he is not supposed to preach his personal faith to the followers of another faith.
All his subjects are equal to him. He is not supposed to be a tormentor to the followers of another faith.

Killing in the battle fields or punishing the rebels are part of State affairs of the middle ages. Akber had waged many wars in his life to unite India under Delhi. The war he started in Bengal in around 1576 lasted for about 30 years until the time of Jahangir. During this long war, his army had to kill many Muslims in Bengal. His military commander beheaded Sultan Dawood Khan Karrani of Bengal.

Even then, Akber was great, because he had adopted a policy that somehow brought equality between his two groups of subjects.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rubyjackass

The projected villainy of Aurangzeb is not totally baseless. He also pained the Qutub Shahis of Hyderabad. There are suggestions like ' WHy did he have to attack and annex a friendly(at least a country he can pressure into doing whatever he wanted) territory?'

SO I am going to let the Hindu nationalists go on this one. THe Golconda siege is one of the black marks on the 'saintly' Aurangzeb. 





> By the mid-17th century, politics in the Deccan were ready for yet another tectonic shift. Mughal prince Aurangzeb spent most of his time in the Deccan fighting local Hindu and Muslim kingdoms to establish and enforce Mughal Sovereignty. After the death of Shah Jahan in 1666, Aurangzeb consolidated his power in Delhi as Emperor and returned to the south. He spent most of his imperial reign in military camps in the Deccan, in an almost desperate campaign to expand the empire beyond the greatest extent it had reached under Akbar. The biggest prize in his eyes was the rich city of Hyderabad, protected by the reportedly impregnable fort of Golconda.


History of Hyderabad, India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you want to justify with the rebellion suppression cause, I would remind you that even Akbar was faced with many of them and allegedly slaughtered Hindus. But still people regard him differently because he spent less time expanding and more time making relations.


----------



## Captain03

the moghuls are no different from any other rulers of the world
some were good, some were bad, but the only impact that i see from them is the spread of islam and the unity of the subcontinent, other than that they are no different


----------



## eastwatch

rubyjackass said:


> The projected villainy of Aurangzeb is not totally baseless. He also pained the Qutub Shahis of Hyderabad. There are suggestions like ' WHy did he have to attack and annex a friendly(at least a country he can pressure into doing whatever he wanted) territory?'
> 
> SO I am going to let the Hindu nationalists go on this one. THe Golconda siege is one of the black marks on the 'saintly' Aurangzeb.
> 
> History of Hyderabad, India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If you want to justify with the rebellion suppression cause, I would remind you that even Akbar was faced with many of them and allegedly slaughtered Hindus. But still people regard him differently because he spent less time expanding and more time making relations.


I have read in a History that the fight against and annexation of two small but strong kingdoms, Bijapur and Golkunda, of the south was the biggest political and military blunders made by Aurangzeb. With the downfall of these kingdoms, there remained no local force that could challenge the Marathas. As a result, Aurangzeb had to spend all his life in the South to resist the Marathas from expanding.


----------



## eastwatch

Captain03 said:


> the moghuls are no different from any other rulers of the world
> some were good, some were bad, but the only impact that i see from them is the spread of islam and the unity of the subcontinent, other than that they are no different


Other than a few zealots, the Muslim sovereigns did not force anybody to accept Islam. Islam was spread by the Pirs, Darvesh, Mullahs and Faqirs. Had the Muslim emperors tried the way the Hindus today propagate, then either their empire would have crumbled immediately or all the Hindus of India would have accepted Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rubyjackass

eastwatch said:


> I have read in a History that the fight against and annexation of two small but strong kingdoms, Bijapur and Golkunda, of the south was the biggest political and military blunders made by Aurangzeb. With the downfall of these kingdoms, there remained no local force that could challenge the Marathas. As a result, Aurangzeb had to spend all his life in the South to resist the Marathas from expanding.


Which can mean only that his greed is the culprit. And then people tell me about his stitching caps for livelihood when I see that he lived most of his time in the south fighting over lands that are not his initially and then over those tiny tracts stolen by Marathas taking advantage of his wars. See why historians in general not just Hindus dont give him credit?

Deccan was not under Mughals when Aurangzeb came in. So what he was doing is not just quelling a rebellion. 

My point is just that a man who did stupid things was rightfully denied a great place in history. It is not any conspiracy by Hindus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

nitesh28 said:


> giving rights to non muslims is not allowed in ISLAM?



now don't try to distort my words!!!! i said HINDUS love AKBAR because he distorted islam!!! if we speak in strictly religious terms!!! and not only islamic but christianity 7 judism or even hinduism AKBAR was a damned soul because he left HIS religion...and i guess in every religion leaving your own religion is a SIN...or is HINDUISM cool about people converting to other religions?


----------



## eastwatch

rubyjackass said:


> Which can mean only that his greed is the culprit. And then people tell me about his stitching caps for livelihood when I see that he lived most of his time in the south fighting over lands that are not his initially and then over those tiny tracts stolen by Marathas taking advantage of his wars. See why historians in general not just Hindus dont give him credit?
> 
> Deccan was not under Mughals when Aurangzeb came in. So what he was doing is not just quelling a rebellion.
> 
> My point is just that a man who did stupid things was rightfully denied a great place in history. It is not any conspiracy by Hindus.


An emperor does not move out of greed only, he has to think of annexation of nearby lands and expansion of his empire. I do not see a personal lust of Aurangzeb, because he was not after gold or beautiful women. But, he had to bring other parts of Hindustan under the fold of Delhi. 

But, he made this fatal mistake of destroying two small, but robust independent kingdoms in the south, when he could have used them to fight the Marathas. Because of this mistake, he had to spend his entire life fighting the Maratha rebellion in the south.


----------



## ice_man

even the name of this thread shows the mentality of hindus AKBAR & Moghuls....as in why not discuss all the moghuls and it is because of the moghuls that the "CULTURE" of the sub continent is formed!!! 

so as a DYNASTY or a family the moghuls overall generally had a positive influence


----------



## eastwatch

niaz said:


> Had he not bankrupted the State in figthing the Maratha guerrillas, the English would not have been able to come in thru the back door.


I agree with most of the points you have noted in your post. But, Aurangzeb's deeds were not responsible for the rise of english in Hindustan. Instead, it was Nawab Alivardy Khan of Bengal whose actions were directly responsible for weakening the political fabrics of Bengal. He was the Foujdar of Bihar appointed by Malik Suja-ud-Din Khan, the Subedar of Bengal. But, upon the death of his master and mentor, he conspired with Delhi Mughal PM to appoint and recognize him as the legal Subedar of Bengal instead of Malik Sarfaraz Khan, son of the deceased.

Subsequently, Malik Sarfaraz was kiilled in a battle. This event made Mir Habib, the Foujdar of Orissa to conspire with the Marathas and call them to regain Orissa for him. War between Bengal and Maratha continued for long ten years before a compromise was reached. 

During wartime, a ruler becomes very weak and starts to appease his generals and the feudal Lords. This is how the political fabrics of Bengal were destroyed and the Bengal govt became weak. Alivardy had all the qualities of a great ruler and a great general, but he should not have usurped the throne of Bengal. He was never defeated in any battle against the Marathas. The problem was that the Marathas never gave him a frontal battle, but were always skirmishing from behind. Well, it was typical of Maratha heroes all the time. 

If Alivardy had supported Malik Sarfaraz, the subsequent history would have been quite different. When Alivardy died, the throne went to his eldest but ignorant grandson Siraj-ud-Dowlah. I checked many history books to know why the throne did not go to the father of Siraj. 

Nawab Alivardy had no sons, but had three daughters named Ghoseti Begun, Amina Begum and ****** Begum. These three sisters were married to the three sons of Haji Ahmed, the elder brother of Alivardy. They were Nawazish Muhammad, Haji Jainuddin and *****.

All these three died before Alivardy himself died. The second son-in-law Jainuddin, who was the Foujdar of Bihar, and father of Siraj was killed by a group of Pathans of Bengal in his own palace when the Foujdar invited them there for a Party. In reality, Jainuddin was trying to woo this group led by Mustafa Khan to work for him. This group was previously expelled from the army of Nawab.

If Jainuddin was alive when Alivardy died, naturally the throne would have gone to him. Siraj was only 22 yrs old, but his father was probably 45 yrs old. Even if other things remain same, the seniority makes a real difference.

The generals who had betrayed Siraj would not have dared to do so with his father. He, a middle aged man, certainly knew more about politics and he had many acquintances and well wishers. He certainly also had his spy networks. Simply speaking, the history would have been different in such a case, because a Plassey conspiracy was not possible in such a situation.

So, it was not Aurangzeb's deeds in the 17th Century, but the deeds of Alivardy Khan in the mid 18th century that acted as a catalyst to bring the bloody British to rule over Hindustan. It was our bad luck, but we cannot change all those events now. However, we should see the historical events in their proper perspectives.


----------



## eastwatch

rubyjackass said:


> Deccan was not under Mughals when Aurangzeb came in. So what he was doing is not just quelling a rebellion.


As far as I know Aurangzeb was a Subedar in Deccan before becoming the Emperor, but I am not sure which part of Deccan it was. When the four sons of Shahjahan started fighting, Shah Shuja (2nd son) adavanced from his Subeh in Bengal, Aurangzeb (3rd son) advanced from Deccan and Murad (4th son) moved from the present day Pakistan's western part and Afghanistan. The eldest son Darah Sekoh was in Delhi/Agra with the Emperor.

It may be that some part of Deccan remained independent of Delhi for many centuries. But, once a region, by any chance, came under the Delhi rule, the central govt there would always try to regain control of that land. Perhaps, because of this reason, Aurangzeb moved against the two small kingdoms. But, it was only a small part of the total picture. The most pressing job was to contend the Marathas in the Deccan.


----------



## Comet

dvk1982 said:


> who the f**k r u to tell somebody has done a sin by leaving a religion or not following any religion...
> THis is the cause of todays unrest.... u belive sth and want to push the same notion on others too...
> 
> As long as somebody follows sth on his own and not under some false propaganda... nothing is wrong.... What sin crap r we talking abt ?
> Frankly this religion is a bullshit..... - by the way I strongly believe there is power (energy) around us.... thats my personal opinion....
> 
> Religion was born after Humans advanced not other way round dick heads...




First of all MIND YOUR LANGUAGE.

I believe I have to remind you that this is a forum and it has its own ethics. Try following them.


Akbar was liked by HINDUS for the reason that he changed his religion and tried to merge the religions into something new. It wasn't any thing new to do.


----------



## nitesh28

ice_man said:


> now don't try to distort my words!!!! i said HINDUS love AKBAR because he distorted islam!!! if we speak in strictly religious terms!!! and not only islamic but christianity 7 judism or even hinduism AKBAR was a damned soul because he left HIS religion...and i guess in every religion leaving your own religion is a SIN...or is HINDUISM cool about people converting to other religions?



i understood ur words perfectly again let me rephrase:

u dont like akbat because he left islam or u dont like him because he treated hindus at par with muslims.


----------



## nitesh28

if you dont like him because he left islam i can understand ur feelings

but if u dont like him because he gave hindus some extra rights i am sorry i disagree with you

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rubyjackass

eastwatch said:


> An emperor does not move out of greed only, he has to think of annexation of nearby lands and expansion of his empire. I do not see a personal lust of Aurangzeb, because he was not after gold or beautiful women. But, he had to bring other parts of Hindustan under the fold of Delhi.
> 
> But, he made this fatal mistake of destroying two small, but robust independent kingdoms in the south, when he could have used them to fight the Marathas. Because of this mistake, he had to spend his entire life fighting the Maratha rebellion in the south.


By the same line of reasoning and standards an emperor should be judged by his actions as a whole what he achieved and what he did to his posterity. What did Aurangzeb achieve? The wrath of many kings of India, irrespective of their religion and the downfall of Delhi. I suspect his popularity in Pakistan is because of his being a 'good Muslim' according to the standards of all people from a common man to the mullahs(who might say that with a glee considering facts like that he executed the Sikh Guru).

Are you really saying that the largest empire of India could not have saved us from the British if it were strong enough? The secret of the success behind the political division the British achieved in India is the lack of consolidation of the empire. In the end everyone acted as he liked in his own interest. The country as a whole was the victim. If the Mughals had grand treasures, they would have got modern arms from some European country. There were numerous enemies of British who were ready to help. Like when the West helped Japan industrialize after Meiji restoration. Don't you think?


----------



## eastwatch

rubyjackass said:


> Are you really saying that the largest empire of India could not have saved us from the British if it were strong enough? The secret of the success behind the political division the British achieved in India is the lack of consolidation of the empire. In the end everyone acted as he liked in his own interest. The country as a whole was the victim. If the Mughals had grand treasures, they would have got modern arms from some European country. There were numerous enemies of British who were ready to help. Like when the West helped Japan industrialize after Meiji restoration. Don't you think?


You are correct, the Mughals were not for entrepreneurship, nor were any of their vessels. Arabs, Spanish, Portugese, French and Englishmen applied for sea-voyage and trading license to their respective Sovereigns to do business with Hindustan. But, it was not reciprocated by the Emperors of Hindustan.

I have read somewhere that Badshah Shahjahan waited eagerly to receive the western traders in his court only to get beatifully designed gifts produced in europe. Pocket watch was one such item. But, this emperor or anyone else did not want that the similar goods be produced in Hindustan. Probably, he did not want the ordinary Hindustanis to wear such fancy goods.

Same thing happened to the production of armaments as well as the training of the army in the european way. Yes, all these acted simultaneously to eat up the strength here so that only a few number of small battles here and there brought the British on our heads.


----------



## third eye

rubyjackass said:


> By the same line of reasoning and standards an emperor should be judged by his actions as a whole what he achieved and what he did to his posterity. What did Aurangzeb achieve? The wrath of many kings of India, irrespective of their religion and the downfall of Delhi. I suspect his popularity in Pakistan is because of his being a 'good Muslim' according to the standards of all people from a common man to the mullahs(who might say that with a glee considering facts like that he executed the Sikh Guru).
> 
> Are you really saying that the largest empire of India could not have saved us from the British if it were strong enough? The secret of the success behind the political division the British achieved in India is the lack of consolidation of the empire. In the end everyone acted as he liked in his own interest. The country as a whole was the victim. If the Mughals had grand treasures, they would have got modern arms from some European country. There were numerous enemies of British who were ready to help. Like when the West helped Japan industrialize after Meiji restoration. Don't you think?



The essence of ruling or leadership ( as we now know in modern times ) is to carry the team, make everyone work / deliver to their max potential.

Az failed in this one vital point by alienating all his non muslim subjects who obviously then worked towards the detriment of the dynasty his forefathers so painstakingly created.

Not to mention the impact this & other actions had on communal harmony in the sub continent.


----------



## Kavin

ice_man said:


> i said *HINDUS love AKBAR because he distorted islam*!!! if we speak in strictly religious terms!!! and not only islamic but christianity 7 judism or even hinduism AKBAR was a damned soul because he left HIS religion...



This is what 'HINDUS' think about Akbar!



> Akbar is considered as the great Mughal emperor who put the Mughal empire on a firm and stable footing, with a reliable revenue system and with expansion of its borders deeper into Indian heartland. There is a belief prevalent in the present day India that Akbar's rule was secular and tolerant of the native Hindu faith. This belief is fostered by the Indian history texts, Hindi movies like Mughal-e-Azam, a TV serial on Doordarshan and the fictional tales of Akbar and his Hindu court jester Birbal. Although Akbar did abolish two obnoxious taxes on Hindus namely the pilgrimage tax in 1563 CE and Jizya (A tax stipulated in the Koran to be paid by Zimmis or unbelievers) in 1564 CE, his rule was better compared ONLY to the other Mughal and Turko-Afgani rules. This article illustrates this with two specific historical events. First, Akbar like all Mughal rulers had the holy Muslim title of GHAZI (SLAYER OF KAFFIR - infidel). Like Timur Lane and Nader Shah, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY TOWER ERECTED WITH THE HEADS OF THE CAPTURED/ SURRENDERED ARMY OF HEMU after the second battle of Panipat. Later, AKBAR AGAIN SLAUGHTERED MORE THAN 30,000 UNARMED CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS AFTER THE FALL OF CHITOD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1568.
> 
> Akbar killed an unconscious Hemu (a Hindu) to become a 'Ghazi' at the second battle of Panipat, he later ordered slaughter of all the captives from Hemu's army and had a victory tower built with their heads. Similarly, Akbar later on ordered a massacre of 30,000 plus unarmed captive Hindu peasants after the fall of Chitod on February 24, 1568. Are these the characteristics of a truly 'secular' and 'tolerant' emperor ? These events reveal Akbar's true nature during early part of his reign. Should Akbar be called 'Great' and 'Secular' only because he was a lesser despot than the rest of the Mughal emperors ?



Source: hindunet.org

But GENERALLY Indians love Akbar, the Great!


----------



## abdulalimkhan

eastwatch said:


> Aurangzeb is disliked by the Hindus for no reason at all. As far as I know, Ranjit Singh was not disliked by even his Punjabi Muslim subjects, because he was an honest king and was fair to all of his subjects. Usually, people do not divide their opinion on him.
> 
> But, in case of Aurangzeb, he has been made villain by the Hindu historians only because he had to fight the rebellion by the Marathas led by a then unknown Shibaji. What the central govt of today's India would do in a similar situation? Will a rebellion be tolerated by the central govt?
> 
> 
> It was same with Aurangzeb, he was fighting a rebel force bent on destroying the central govt in Delhi. The Historians afterwards added their personal emotion and portrayed Aurangzeb as a Hindu-hater against a Hindu patriot called Shibaji. This is certainly not the truth.
> 
> In his personal life, Badshah Aurangzeb was very honest. His examples should be followed by Pakistan's Zardari and India's FM Krishna. He lived in the palace given by the State, but he had no personal servants and his wife the Badshah-Begum had to cook her family's own food with her own hands.
> 
> She was the only wife this honest Badshah ever had, he had no concubines. This Badshah used to repair (as we say RIPU) his own torn clothes. For his family's own livelihood, he used to copy Qu'ran and sew topi (Muslim caps). He would sell these products to a special merchant at wholesale price and with this proceed he would maintain his own family's livelihood. Badshah Alamgir was a FAQIR in his heart.
> 
> About warfare against his own brothers, I would say it was all politics of the middle age. Either you rule or you get killed. This same politics are still there in many of the Muslim countries even today. Think of the history of Bangladesh and Pakistan, the present neighbours of India. Muslims are blood-thirsty by nature, but I just do not know why it is so.



You have very little knowledge about the history. Sivaji was not a rebellion . He was a king who fought against Mughals to protect his kingdom.

What u are telling about Aurangzeb is totally wrong. 
If your words are right then Aurangzeb must not be a Badshah

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

abdulalimkhan said:


> You have very little knowledge about the history. Sivaji was not a rebellion . He was a king who fought against Mughals to protect his kingdom.
> 
> What u are telling about Aurangzeb is totally wrong.
> If your words are right then Aurangzeb must not be a Badshah



Mister, you better read the history first to lecture on others. Sivaji was not a Prince, his father worked in the court of Bijapur. He rebelled against the central govt of India and finally established his own kingdom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PostColonial

Haha...central government. More like a bunch of decadent morons living lavishly off the hard work of Indians.


----------



## PostColonial

The mughals were the most useless bunch ever. They did not build a single institution that would help to modernize India. 

Only the Rajas of the South did something to advance their people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

nitesh28 said:


> if you dont like him because he left islam i can understand ur feelings
> 
> but if u dont like him because he gave hindus some extra rights i am sorry i disagree with you



see just like i said the HINDUS feel that he was great because he gave them rights....WRONG!! he was equally bad he prosecuted the HINDUS equally 


*It is recorded by Bayazid Biyat, personal attendant of Humayun, that Akbar gave two villages for the upkeep of a mosque and a Madrasa which was setup by destroying a Hindu temple, this was done under the supervision of 'Todar Mal' who was highly regarded Hindu minister (vizir) of Akbar.[34] In Akbar's time Todar Mal was called a simple one (sada-lauh) because he mourned the loss of the idols he used to worship and he was also called "a blind follower of custom and narrow mindedness" for being a Hindu.[36]*


*
The Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24,? 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.*

so....the HINDU LOVING akbar was actually not so loving.....now i wonder what makes him so great from the HINDU POINT OF VIEW!!

let me tell you what made him great in my eyes his love for arts,culture,cusine,music & so on.....in terms of religion he was a damned soul!!!!


----------



## Kavin

ice_man said:


> .....now i wonder what makes him so great from the HINDU POINT OF VIEW!!



There is no HINDU point of view or MUSLIM point of view.. it's only INDIAN point of view. He's the most secular Mughal emperor when compared to others, period.

PS: Secularism is the backbone of India.


----------



## third eye

PostColonial said:


> The mughals were the most useless bunch ever. They did not build a single institution that would help to modernize India.
> 
> Only the Rajas of the South did something to advance their people.



Suggest you re visit your views.

The our land records & revenue systems as they exist today are very close to what was initiated by Raja Todar Mal under the ageis of Akbar , also taxation based on the fertility of land was introduced in an organised manner then. The brits went on to improve them by initiating the system of combining the judiciary & administration under one head i.e. Collector.

Not everything that happened then was wrong. Among any bunch of idiots you do come across some worthwhile persons too.


----------



## PostColonial

Wow....land revenue system... really! What a brilliant achievement while Europe was going through the Renaissance.

We Indians really are a pathetic bunch.


----------



## third eye

PostColonial said:


> Wow....land revenue system... really! What a brilliant achievement while Europe was going through the Renaissance.
> 
> *We Indians really are a pathetic bunch*.



You have to be close to land and be a farmer to know what this implies.By the by, even today the bane in Pk ( no offence meant to anyone) is that land reforms have not been put in place as a result of which land holdings are haphazard due to which a feudal system still persists.

We are very sensitive on how the Govt taxes us today aren't we ? So is a farmer now as he was then.

...and if there is no cause to compare Europe with India. There is no comparison now in the 21st Century, what can you expect back then ?

In any case, .. to each his own.On the highlighted part, suggest you speak for yourself & do not generalise as " Indians" back then encompasses all of us in the sub continent.


----------



## eastwatch

PostColonial said:


> Wow....land revenue system... really! What a brilliant achievement while Europe was going through the Renaissance.
> 
> We Indians really are a pathetic bunch.


Do not forget all the renaissances and revolutions came from the the people living at the bottom when they go hungry. In those days people of Hindustan were leading a much richer life than the europeans. How do you expect a revolution from such a people? 

In europe, the population pressure was so much and poverty was so deep that they made voyages to the Americas just to feed themselves. Indian green revolution came in the 50s, when science and technology were widely available to enhance the production of food. So, again there was no renaissance in India. Note that China had a revolution because of widespread poverty there in the '40s.


----------



## nitesh28

ice_man said:


> see just like i said the HINDUS feel that he was great because he gave them rights....WRONG!! he was equally bad he prosecuted the HINDUS equally
> 
> 
> *It is recorded by Bayazid Biyat, personal attendant of Humayun, that Akbar gave two villages for the upkeep of a mosque and a Madrasa which was setup by destroying a Hindu temple, this was done under the supervision of 'Todar Mal' who was highly regarded Hindu minister (vizir) of Akbar.[34] In Akbar's time Todar Mal was called a simple one (sada-lauh) because he mourned the loss of the idols he used to worship and he was also called "a blind follower of custom and narrow mindedness" for being a Hindu.[36]*
> 
> well it seems i was in the wrong impression. but this information has made me neutral toward akbar. i dont hate him but do not favour him either
> 
> 
> *
> The Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24,? 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.*
> 
> so....the HINDU LOVING akbar was actually not so loving.....now i wonder what makes him so great from the HINDU POINT OF VIEW!!
> 
> let me tell you what made him great in my eyes his love for arts,culture,cusine,music & so on.....in terms of religion he was a damned soul!!!!



well i suppose i was in the wrong impression afterall. but still i dont hate him i am neutral.


----------



## niaz

eastwatch said:


> I agree with most of the points you have noted in your post. But, Aurangzeb's deeds were not responsible for the rise of english in Hindustan. Instead, it was Nawab Alivardy Khan of Bengal whose actions were directly responsible for weakening the political fabrics of Bengal. He was the Foujdar of Bihar appointed by Malik Suja-ud-Din Khan, the Subedar of Bengal. But, upon the death of his master and mentor, he conspired with Delhi Mughal PM to appoint and recognize him as the legal Subedar of Bengal instead of Malik Sarfaraz Khan, son of the deceased.
> 
> Subsequently, Malik Sarfaraz was kiilled in a battle. This event made Mir Habib, the Foujdar of Orissa to conspire with the Marathas and call them to regain Orissa for him. War between Bengal and Maratha continued for long ten years before a compromise was reached.
> 
> During wartime, a ruler becomes very weak and starts to appease his generals and the feudal Lords. This is how the political fabrics of Bengal were destroyed and the Bengal govt became weak. Alivardy had all the qualities of a great ruler and a great general, but he should not have usurped the throne of Bengal. He was never defeated in any battle against the Marathas. The problem was that the Marathas never gave him a frontal battle, but were always skirmishing from behind. Well, it was typical of Maratha heroes all the time.
> 
> If Alivardy had supported Malik Sarfaraz, the subsequent history would have been quite different. When Alivardy died, the throne went to his eldest but ignorant grandson Siraj-ud-Dowlah. I checked many history books to know why the throne did not go to the father of Siraj.
> 
> Nawab Alivardy had no sons, but had three daughters named Ghoseti Begun, Amina Begum and ****** Begum. These three sisters were married to the three sons of Haji Ahmed, the elder brother of Alivardy. They were Nawazish Muhammad, Haji Jainuddin and *****.
> 
> All these three died before Alivardy himself died. The second son-in-law Jainuddin, who was the Foujdar of Bihar, and father of Siraj was killed by a group of Pathans of Bengal in his own palace when the Foujdar invited them there for a Party. In reality, Jainuddin was trying to woo this group led by Mustafa Khan to work for him. This group was previously expelled from the army of Nawab.
> 
> If Jainuddin was alive when Alivardy died, naturally the throne would have gone to him. Siraj was only 22 yrs old, but his father was probably 45 yrs old. Even if other things remain same, the seniority makes a real difference.
> 
> The generals who had betrayed Siraj would not have dared to do so with his father. He, a middle aged man, certainly knew more about politics and he had many acquintances and well wishers. He certainly also had his spy networks. Simply speaking, the history would have been different in such a case, because a Plassey conspiracy was not possible in such a situation.
> 
> So, it was not Aurangzeb's deeds in the 17th Century, but the deeds of Alivardy Khan in the mid 18th century that acted as a catalyst to bring the bloody British to rule over Hindustan. It was our bad luck, but we cannot change all those events now. However, we should see the historical events in their proper perspectives.




Historically, for Bengal you are correct. Why I blame Aurangzeb for making it easy for East India Company is conclusion drawn from the following.

Shivaji had managed to create a small kingdom of Marathi speaking clans by liberating some territory from Bijapore in 1674. Aurangzeb invaded Deccan (South India) with the entire Moghal army in 1982 and by 1989 captured nearly all of south India including the Maratha lands. His control was however never complete and under queen Tarabai Maratha army managed to recapture their land including the capture of Malwa in 1705.

Within a few years of Aurangzeb&#8217;s death in 1707, the state&#8217;s writ shrank to Delhi and its environs. Mughal State was reduced to an empire in all but name. Nearly all subdedars and governors became independent. This was mainly because 18 years of war in the South had bankrupted the Moghal State of the wealth as well as military power and State had no stomach for waging war to enforce her authority.

Maratha exploited this weakness to the full. By 1713; only 6 years after death of Aurangzeb; Shahu&#8217;s (grandson of Shivaji) army reached Delhi and his commander managed to negotiate a very favorable treaty with the Moghal Emperor Farukhsiyar. Under the Peshwas (initially wazirs of the Maratha kings) Maratha power reached its zenith, by 1760 they controlled 1-milion square kilometers of the central and southern Indian territory including Punjab and Orissa. Despite their defeat at Panipat by Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1761; Marathas remained the foremost power in India until third Anglo Maratha war of 1818.

Nawab Murshid Quli Jaffar Khan became virtually independent Nawab of Bengal very soon after Aurangzeb's death because Moghal state had no will left to fight and recover lost territory. This resulted eventually East India Company taking over Bengal in 1757 after victory at Plassey. 

In the battle of Buxor in 1762, combined armies of Nawab of Bengal, Nawab of Awadh and the Muhgal Emperor Shah Alam II, totaling 40,000 infantry and 18,000 cavalry fought East India company troops which numbered about 8,000 Europeans and Sepoys and lost.
This time no large scale desertions (such as by Mir Jaffar in Plassey) took place. This established East India Company as dominant power of India. 

Considering that Moghal army up to Aurangzeb numbered in hundreds of thousands, it is logical to conclude that had Aurangzeb not exhausted the Moghal empire by wasting nearly 20 years in fighting South Indian states; result at Buxor would have been different. 

Being a good Muslim makes you a good human being and you would probably go to heaven; but it would not necessarily make you an effective and powerful king. Akbar may have been a bad Muslim; but his army would have ruthlessly crushed any challenge to his authority. 

However, in this forum our judgement gets clouded by religion. Hindus love Akbar because he was secular and many na&#239;ve Muslims love Aurangzeb because he was a good Muslim. 

Regret to say that both the groups are guilty of judgmental error. Akbar was a good and powerful king because he gathered around himself men based on Merit regardless of religion. All of his nine jewels (Nav rattan) i.e. Abul Fazl, Faizi, Tansen, Birbal, Raja Todar Mal, Raja Man Singh, Abur Rahim Khan &#8211;e-Khanan, Fakir Aziuudin and Mulla Dopiaza were very competent and able men in their field. Akbar exploited their expertize to the full. Aurangzeb was not blessed with any of his great ancestor&#8217;s wisdom. That is why Akbar left a stable and rich empire for his progeny whereas Aurangzeb was the principal cause the down fall of the Muslim rule in India.


----------



## ice_man

great so you are neutral and when it comes to other muslim MOGHULS don't you think you should be neutral about them as well


and no matter what you say about moghuls today the whole "CONCEPT" of INDIA is defined by the moghuls....as in culture cuisine music hell even your biggest monument the TAJ MAHAL so overall the moghuls left a legacy that as a sub continent man you should be proud off!!!


Asoka or none of the rajputs left INDIA with a very fond memory or a just rule did they??? they all killed and plundered equally bad....atleast under the MUSLIM MOGHULS something good came out of their rule....the CULTURE!! moghuls were lesser of all the evils.....


----------



## eastwatch

niaz said:


> Historically, for Bengal you are correct. Why I blame Aurangzeb for making it easy for East India Company is conclusion drawn from the following.
> 
> Shivaji had managed to create a small kingdom of Marathi speaking clans by liberating some territory from Bijapore in 1674. Aurangzeb invaded Deccan (South India) with the entire Moghal army in 1982 and by 1989 captured nearly all of south India including the Maratha lands. His control was however never complete and under queen Tarabai Maratha army managed to recapture their land including the capture of Malwa in 1705.
> 
> Within a few years of Aurangzebs death in 1707, the states writ shrank to Delhi and its environs. Mughal State was reduced to an empire in all but name. Nearly all subdedars and governors became independent. This was mainly because 18 years of war in the South had bankrupted the Moghal State of the wealth as well as military power and State had no stomach for waging war to enforce her authority.
> 
> Maratha exploited this weakness to the full. By 1713; only 6 years after death of Aurangzeb; Shahus (grandson of Shivaji) army reached Delhi and his commander managed to negotiate a very favorable treaty with the Moghal Emperor Farukhsiyar. Under the Peshwas (initially wazirs of the Maratha kings) Maratha power reached its zenith, by 1760 they controlled 1-milion square kilometers of the central and southern Indian territory including Punjab and Orissa. Despite their defeat at Panipat by Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1761; Marathas remained the foremost power in India until third Anglo Maratha war of 1818.
> 
> Nawab Murshid Quli Jaffar Khan became virtually independent Nawab of Bengal very soon after Aurangzeb's death because Moghal state had no will left to fight and recover lost territory. This resulted eventually East India Company taking over Bengal in 1757 after victory at Plassey.
> 
> In the battle of Buxor in 1762, combined armies of Nawab of Bengal, Nawab of Awadh and the Muhgal Emperor Shah Alam II, totaling 40,000 infantry and 18,000 cavalry fought East India company troops which numbered about 8,000 Europeans and Sepoys and lost.
> This time no large scale desertions (such as by Mir Jaffar in Plassey) took place. This established East India Company as dominant power of India.
> 
> Considering that Moghal army up to Aurangzeb numbered in hundreds of thousands, it is logical to conclude that had Aurangzeb not exhausted the Moghal empire by wasting nearly 20 years in fighting South Indian states; result at Buxor would have been different.
> 
> Being a good Muslim makes you a good human being and you would probably go to heaven; but it would not necessarily make you an effective and powerful king. Akbar may have been a bad Muslim; but his army would have ruthlessly crushed any challenge to his authority.
> 
> However, in this forum our judgement gets clouded by religion. Hindus love Akbar because he was secular and many naïve Muslims love Aurangzeb because he was a good Muslim.
> 
> Regret to say that both the groups are guilty of judgmental error. Akbar was a good and powerful king because he gathered around himself men based on Merit regardless of religion. All of his nine jewels (Nav rattan) i.e. Abul Fazl, Faizi, Tansen, Birbal, Raja Todar Mal, Raja Man Singh, Abur Rahim Khan e-Khanan, Fakir Aziuudin and Mulla Dopiaza were very competent and able men in their field. Akbar exploited their expertize to the full. Aurangzeb was not blessed with any of his great ancestors wisdom. That is why Akbar left a stable and rich empire for his progeny whereas Aurangzeb was the principal cause the down fall of the Muslim rule in India.



I have not yet completely read your post, but I think, your assessment is correct about the independence of Subedars because of weakness of Mughal Delhi. In my free time I will read the full text, many things are there to learn.


----------



## Al-zakir

nitesh28 said:


> In this forum the name of Aurangzeb is sometimes mentioned but not of the other Mughal Rulers. Is there ant specific reason or just that Aungzeb is more popular in pakistan.
> 
> I agree in India Auranzeb is not liked much and Akbar is considered better.
> 
> 
> Links of articles will be appreciated.



Akbar tried to mix match the divinity of Islam with shirk of Hinduism with the concept of *D&#299;n-i Il&#257;h&#299;* (Din-i-Ilahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). He lived a haram life and perhaps was a non believer because he made some controversial decisions that goes against the fundamental teaching of Islam. He was a good king however not popular amongst Muslim in general from Islamic prospective. 

On the flip side, Aurangzeb was a conservative Muslim and lived a simple Islamic life. He enforced sharia laws like he supposed to do as a Muslim ruler. He was the most honest Mughal king with respect to lavishing life style of rests. He encouraged non believers to be part of *Deen-e-Islam* while discouraged shirkism. Perhaps his conservative approached made him villain within Hindu community however hero among Muslims from Islamic prospective. 

So it obvious that Aurangzeb would be more popular amongst Muslims in general just like Akbar is popular among Hindu for obvious reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakSher

Akbar was a womanizer and every good looking hindu girl was his kaneez or wife, that is why he came up with Deen-e-Akbari. He set the foundation for the fall of the of the last muslim empire. So, he is sentenced to death by beheading.


----------



## nitesh28

ice_man said:


> great so you are neutral and when it comes to other muslim MOGHULS don't you think you should be neutral about them as well
> 
> 
> and no matter what you say about moghuls today the whole "CONCEPT" of INDIA is defined by the moghuls....as in culture cuisine music hell even your biggest monument the TAJ MAHAL so overall the moghuls left a legacy that as a sub continent man you should be proud off!!!
> 
> 
> Asoka or none of the rajputs left INDIA with a very fond memory or a just rule did they??? they all killed and plundered equally bad....atleast under the MUSLIM MOGHULS something good came out of their rule....the CULTURE!! moghuls were lesser of all the evils.....



i dont disagree with the contribution of the mughals. evry indian knows what they gave us. u mention taj mahal every one knows shah jahan built it and we acknowledge it. they have contrbuted a lot to our culture agreed.

now do u want me it say we are forever indebted to mughal oh sorry muslims for ruling us. then u are wrong. because we consider them indians and they were one of us. now u have pakistan and u want us to admit is whatever india is it is due to muslims and muslims only then that is not acceptible.

does culture is only what the rulers give and nt what the general public practices. therefore excluding the practices of hindus and saying only mughal culture is indian culture is wrong. it is all part of indian cuture.

and single out ashoka or other hindu kings they were as good and as bad as the mughals. under the rule india was as big as at any time under mughal rule.


----------



## PostColonial

lol@Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal was built for the pleasure of Shah Jahan. It had no benefit for the people of India whatsoever. 

Look at the contrast. Ashoka built hospitals while Mughals built tombs and palaces.


----------



## PostColonial

Ashoka even built animal hospitals. He built great universities and institutions of learning. Don't insult Ashoka by comparing him with the decadent Mughals.


----------



## Spring Onion

PostColonial said:


> lol@Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal was built for the pleasure of Shah Jahan. It had no benefit for the people of India whatsoever.
> 
> Look at the contrast. Ashoka built hospitals while Mughals built tombs and palaces.



 India is earning huge revenue in terms of tourism from these places.

On another note India was developed by invaders mostly.


And yes we also agree that Mughals have only spent a luxurious life nothing else.

And on another note Ashoka wasnt a Hindu


----------



## PostColonial

^Well Thank You Shah Jahan, for your amazing planning and vision to built a potential tourist trap that would earn profits after 400 years. 

If by invaders you mean British, then yes I agree. But under Mughals this country (and that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh mind you) fell behind both Europe and China in development. 

Yes Ashoka was buddhist. Your point?


----------



## Spring Onion

PostColonial said:


> ^Well Thank You Shah Jahan, for your amazing planning and vision to built a potential tourist trap that would earn profits after 400 years.
> 
> If by invaders you mean British, then yes I agree. But under Mughals this country (and that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh mind you) fell behind both Europe and China in development.
> 
> Yes Ashoka was buddhist. Your point?



 The Brits or the Mughals or for that mattter central asian invaders, my point is and many sane Indians also agree the India was mainly developed by outsiders.


as far as the last line is conerned you got my point dint you ? 


Anyway after 400 years or whatever but its a reality Taj mahal is a tourist spot which is earning you.


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> India is earning huge revenue in terms of tourism from these places.


...and the point is?



> On another note India was developed by invaders mostly.


...including that portion which is now Pakistan.



> And yes we also agree that Mughals have only spent a luxurious life nothing else.


That is not true, but I realise you are having a Jana moment.



> And on another note Ashoka wasnt a Hindu


You mean after he converted from Hinduism?


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> The Brits or the Mughals or for that mattter central asian invaders, my point is and many sane Indians also agree the India was mainly developed by outsiders.


Yes of course. Nothing happened before the great Mughals. It was a land of savages and our autochthonous population used to roam this land in lion cloth, perhaps not even that.




> as far as the last line is conerned you got my point dint you ?


AWWWW....another Jana moment.




> Anyway after 400 years or whatever but its a reality Taj mahal is a tourist spot which is earning you.


Neighbours envy, owners pride


----------



## PostColonial

Jana said:


> The Brits or the Mughals or for that mattter central asian invaders, my point is and many sane Indians also agree the India was mainly developed by outsiders.



"Many Sane Indians"  Gosh I wonder how you manage to get by with such nonsense. 

No, as I said, the Mughals contributed to making India one of the most backward places on earth. They didn't develop anything.



> as far as the last line is conerned you got my point dint you ?



No I'm sorry I don't. Do elaborate your "point".



> Anyway after 400 years or whatever but its a reality Taj mahal is a tourist spot which is earning you.



Absolutely. As I said, all Indians are deeply thankful to Shah Jahan for his ultra-mega-long term planning.


----------



## TopCat

Yes India was in its peak under Buddhist rule, first Gupta Dynasty and gained its reputation under Pala dynasty who spread the kingdom from Indonesia to Afganistan and people as far as from Japan could know Pala dyanasty and come to India for knowledge and education.
But as the buddhist declined the Hindus took over and only the surviving buddhist throughout the hindu rules later only converted to Islam specially in eastern india where most of the converts were buddhist.
So in a sense most of good rulers of India were the same group of people, first as a Buddhist then as a Muslim.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Spring Onion

toxic_pus said:


> Yes of course. Nothing happened before the great Mughals. It was a land of savages and our autochthonous population used to roam this land in lion cloth, perhaps not even that.
> 
> 
> 
> AWWWW....another Jana moment.
> 
> 
> 
> Neighbours envy, owners pride



 no dear we dont envoy for us its enough it was built by a Muslim ruler who ruled over India.

My comment was in response to your Indian countryman who was making fun of Taj Mahal  whereas the entire India takes pride it in it.

Another matter that fundamentalist Hindus tried to term it once Hindu temple lolzz

and hey please do take some time to study the history most of the development took place during outsiders' rule in India and indeed it inculdes present day Pakistan too so dont loose heart


----------



## Spring Onion

PostColonial said:


> "Many Sane Indians"  Gosh I wonder how you manage to get by with such nonsense.
> 
> .



 hey what ? you think calling Indians sane is "nonesense"???


----------



## Spring Onion

iajdani said:


> Yes India was in its peak under Buddhist rule, first Gupta Dynasty and gained its reputation under Pala dynasty who spread the kingdom from Indonesia to Afganistan and people as far as from Japan could know Pala dyanasty and come to India for knowledge and education.
> But as the buddhist declined the Hindus took over and only the surviving buddhist throughout the hindu rules later only converted to Islam specially in eastern india where most of the converts were buddhist.
> So in a sense most of good rulers of India were the same group of people, first as a Buddhist then as a Muslim.


 well Indians will still not accept it. They will link it with hinduism

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> Yes India was in its peak under Buddhist rule, first Gupta Dynasty and gained its reputation under Pala dynasty who spread the kingdom from Indonesia to Afganistan and people as far as from Japan could know Pala dyanasty and come to India for knowledge and education.
> But as the buddhist declined the Hindus took over and only the surviving buddhist throughout the hindu rules later only converted to Islam specially in eastern india where most of the converts were buddhist.
> So in a sense most of good rulers of India were the same group of people, first as a Buddhist then as a Muslim.



LOL what rubbish. Did you just make up all of that, or do they teach this nonsense in your school?


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> no dear we dont envoy for us its enough it was built by a Muslim ruler who ruled over India.


...and yet we get to claim it as ours and earn from it. Isn't it nice.



> and hey please do take some time to study the history most of the development took place during outsiders' rule in India and indeed it inculdes present day Pakistan too so dont loose heart


Isn't it natural that people who rule are the ones who are responsible for its development. Who else would have developed India, when Mughals were ruling. Residents of plant cuckoo?


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> LOL what rubbish. Did you just make up all of that, or do they teach this nonsense in your school?



Why rubbish??? Most of the muslim in eastern india was surviving buddhist. What is your problem here?


----------



## Spring Onion

toxic_pus said:


> ...and yet we get to claim it as ours and earn from it. Isn't it nice.
> 
> 
> Isn't it natural that people who rule are the ones who are responsible for its development. Who else would have developed India, when Mughals were ruling. Residents of plant cuckoo?



ehhh Nevermind. Its another matter that the charachters in Mahabharat were busy in fighting each others 

On another note it means once Bharat was always rules by outsiders right ?


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> Why rubbish??? Most of the muslim in eastern india was surviving buddhist. What is your problem here?



Yeah "same people were good rulers of India" lol what a load of self-serving rubbish. 

Ever heard of Gupta period? Do you know why it is called the "Golden Age" of India? Ever heard of Sangam Period? Cholas? Cheras? Pandyas? Satavahanas? Travancore? 

Your post is total nonsense infact. Please go and read some real history rather than make up some self-praising stuff in your own head.


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> Yeah "same people were good rulers of India" lol what a load of self-serving rubbish.
> 
> Ever heard of Gupta period? Do you know why it is called the "Golden Age" of India? Ever heard of Sangam Period? Cholas? Cheras? Pandyas? Satavahanas? Travancore?
> 
> Your post is total nonsense infact. Please go and read some real history rather than make up some self-praising stuff in your own head.



I mentioned Gupta and Pala dynasty, that should cover most of Buddhist rein in North India. South India had different history and had nothing to do with us in east and north India. I did not make anything up here. Why should I?


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> I mentioned Gupta and Pala dynasty, that should cover most of Buddhist rein in North India. South India had different history and had nothing to do with us in east and north India. I did not make anything up here. Why should I?



No you clearly know nothing about Gupta dynasty. Guptas were Hindus, not Buddhist, although both Hinduism and Buddhism flourished during that time.

Infact, there was nothing called "Hinduism" and "buddhism" back then, these definitions were only created by western historians. People believed in the Dharma of the Buddha but worshipped Hindu gods at the same time.


----------



## PostColonial

Oh and what was that about South Indian history having nothing to do with North Indian?


----------



## PostColonial




----------



## TopCat

Well yu are right at the begining there were very little distinct between Buddhism and Hinduism as Hinduism was not infested by cast system fully that time. And most of the Gupta took buddhism as another sect of hindu religion and buddhism flourished under gupta empire. But later the true Buddhist dynasty came through Palas who reined India for since 7th century to 11 century and took India to its peak.


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> Oh and what was that about South Indian history having nothing to do with North Indian?



Hmm good question. Infact there were two sects that time. Davidian were ruling south and Aryans reining over north. I dont know why but there were simply not much overlapping till the second millenium. Not sure but Buddhism probably did not penetrate to south. But they were in Srilanaka. You could enlighten me about that.


----------



## TopCat

What is the time span of thsi rule?


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> Well yu are right at the begining there were very little distinct between Buddhism and Hinduism as Hinduism was not infested by cast system fully that time. And most of the Gupta took buddhism as another sect of hindu religion and buddhism flourished under gupta empire. But later the true Buddhist dynasty came through Palas who reined India for since 7th century to 11 century and took India to its peak.



My friend, caste has existed in India for thousands of years. It was there before the "aryans" came, it was there during Ashoka's period, during Gupta period, during Pala period. It has always been present. 

You are assuming that because the Viharas (universities) declined, the caste system emerged. Nothing of that sort happened.


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> My friend, caste has existed in India for thousands of years. It was there before the "aryans" came, it was there during Ashoka's period, during Gupta period, during Pala period. It has always been present.
> 
> You are assuming that because the Viharas (universities) declined, the caste system emerged. Nothing of that sort happened.



Well sorry for my ignorance. Most of my hindu friends as well as some of the hindu historians that I read, says cast system was later introduced and people could not change cast and all which were very late introduction. Now you are saying something completely different.


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> Hmm good question. Infact there were two sects that time. Davidian were ruling south and Aryans reining over north. I dont know why but there were simply not much overlapping till the second millenium. Not sure but Buddhism probably did not penetrate to south. But they were in Srilanaka. You could enlighten me about that.



For starters, this whole division between "Dravidians" and "Aryans" was a misconception created during colonial rule. Recent studies have shown that most Indians have the same genetic makeup, and it is not possible to differentiate between "Aryans" and "Dravdians" on the basis of genetic analysis. 

Read this:
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India

A certain percentage of the upper castes have greater genetic affinity with Europeans, but these people are present all over India. These may be the descendants of the migrating Vedic aryans that we keep obsessing about, but in reality have played a pretty minor role in Indian history.


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> For starters, this whole division between "Dravidians" and "Aryans" was a misconception created during colonial rule. Recent studies have shown that most Indians have the same genetic makeup, and it is not possible to differentiate between "Aryans" and "Dravdians" on the basis of genetic analysis.
> 
> Read this:
> Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India
> 
> A certain percentage of the upper castes have greater genetic affinity with Europeans, but these people are present all over India. These may be the descendants of the migrating Vedic aryans that we keep obsessing about, but in reality have played a pretty minor role in Indian history.



LOL.
Well in eastern India, it was mix of Ariyan,Dravidian,mongoloid and austro asian genetics. They are all found here. So genetics of all race are here and we can see from face and skin color. Even they found African Negro genetics in Assamese Naga tribes which means they came from Africa.
So by just saying Ariyan Davidian a myth is just something I cant buy.

Another distinct features are language. Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Oria, Assamese all had the same root and we can understand each other in north. Again Tamil, Telegu, Kannada, etc had a complete different sect and nobody in North could understand a word of it.


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> Well sorry for my ignorance. Most of my hindu friends as well as some of the hindu historians that I read, says cast system was later introduced and people could not change cast and all which were very late introduction. Now you are saying something completely different.



Indian society was always divided into endogamous groups (which means groups that don't intermarry). Some people blame the decline of Buddhism and "Brahminism (ignoring the fact that Ashoka, the great patron of Buddhism, hired a Brahmin named Chanakya as his advisor)", some people blame the British, but the fact is that it has always existed. 

Read: 
Dravidians and Aryans have same genetic structure


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> LOL.
> Well in eastern India, it was mix of Ariyan,Dravidian,mongoloid and austro asian genetics. They are all found here. So genetics of all race are here and we can see from face and skin color. Even they found African Negro genetics in Assamese Naga tribes which means they came from Africa.
> So by just saying Ariyan Davidian a myth is just something I cant buy.




_
HYDERABAD: The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on
ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed ``fact'' that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.

``This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide,'' Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday. _
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> _
> HYDERABAD: The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on
> ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed ``fact'' that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.
> 
> ``This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide,'' Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday. _
> Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India



I think the Ariyan Dravidian is a complete different issue which has merits to be discussed in a different thread. Lets get back to the topic where it started.


----------



## eastwatch

PostColonial said:


> ^Well Thank You Shah Jahan, for your amazing planning and vision to built a potential tourist trap that would earn profits after 400 years.
> 
> If by invaders you mean British, then yes I agree. But under Mughals this country (and that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh mind you) fell behind both Europe and China in development.
> 
> Yes Ashoka was buddhist. Your point?


I am surprised to see you are equating Mughals (read Muslims) with the British. British never made Hindustan their home, they came on certain missions ordered by their government and then went back to their HOME in England. They were colonial masters only and they did not belong to our land. 

But, the Mughals immigrated to this land and made it their HOME. Hindustan was and is their homeland. Mughals were not the only outsiders who made Hindustan their HOME. There were many others before and after the Arya immigrants came in and settled in Hindustan. If these outsiders are Hindustani, then certainly other non-Hindu groups, who also came from the same land to which the Aryas belonged, cannot be regarded as outsiders. No distinction should be made because of religion.


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> Its another matter that the charachters in Mahabharat were busy in fighting each others


Apparently the concept of 'good v/s evil' or 'right v/s wrong', the core theme of all epics, all religious texts, gets lost in the orgasmic urge to hit the reply button. A perfect Jana moment.



> On another note it means *once* Bharat was *always* rules by outsiders right ?


*Once* Bharat was ruled by outsiders - YES
*Always* ruled by outsiders - NO

Didn't know that Indian history was rocket science. PHEW.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eastwatch

Jana said:


> ehhh Nevermind. Its another matter that the charachters in Mahabharat were busy in fighting each others
> 
> On another note it means once Bharat was always rules by outsiders right ?


The way you have put the word 'outsider,' it is same as saying that England is always being ruled by the outsiders after the invasion from Nornandy by William I in the mid 11th century. It is also same as saying USA has always been ruled by europeans. Or it is same as saying USA is at present being ruled by an African outsider.

To make good relationship with the Hindus, we must not insult them with words like victor or vanquished. Specially it is no more applicable when both these two groups were vanquished at the hands of a few red-faced British. But, the sole responsibility of our being colonized by the whites lie with the Muslims, because they were ruling India at the time of British victories.

Until medieval times people used to migrate and move out seeking better pasture or agriculture lands. It was for survival. But, since survival is always for the fittest, these migrant people had to make incursion into a new land by the use of military force. Before the Muslims came, many others also came and subjugated the locals, but ultimately, they themselves became locals. Same thing happened to the migrant Muslims also.

It is same today, but now people move where they can find jobs. However, the basic remains same, i.e, survival. Thinking in that line, you cannot say Hindustan was ever ruled by outsiders, except during the short British period. Hindus and Muslims, we may quarrel and fight each other, but we are DESI and no one is outsider here in Hindustan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Spring Onion

nitesh28 said:


> now do u want me it say we are forever indebted to mughal oh sorry muslims for ruling us. then u are wrong. *because we consider them indians and they were one of us*. .



 so the Mughals who were the outsiders who were infact central asians were Indians ??????????????  how did i miss that nitesh 


OMG


----------



## Spring Onion

eastwatch said:


> I am surprised to see you are equating Mughals (read Muslims) with the British. British never made Hindustan their home, they came on certain missions ordered by their government and then went back to their HOME in England. They were colonial masters only and they did not belong to our land.
> 
> But, the Mughals immigrated to this land and made it their HOME. Hindustan was and is their homeland. Mughals were not the only outsiders who made Hindustan their HOME. There were many others before and after the Arya immigrants came in and settled in Hindustan. If these outsiders are Hindustani, then certainly other non-Hindu groups, who also came from the same land to which the Aryas belonged, cannot be regarded as outsiders. No distinction should be made because of religion.



 the problem with the Hindu Indians is that they have some kind of complex. Those who invaded India were NEVER Indians or locals its another thing that many Indians trying to prove themselves the siblings of central asians lolzz


come on eastwatch i was not insulting them rather i am saying that those were outsiders NOT INDIANS


----------



## third eye

Jana said:


> so the Mughals who were the outsiders who were infact central asians were Indians ??????????????  how did i miss that nitesh
> 
> 
> OMG



Anyone who came to India and became one of us was / is an Indian. There are countless examples .. anglo Indians, parsis, french and so on. No country is an island and even Islands have all sorts of mixes.

We all are a mix of centuries of amalgamations. Even today traces of alexanders troops ( lineage ) are found in Pk. Wouldn't you consider them pakistanis ? Religion has no place in nationality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PostColonial

Jana said:


> the problem with the Hindu Indians is that they have some kind of complex. Those who invaded India were NEVER Indians or locals its another thing that many Indians trying to prove themselves the siblings of central asians lolzz



I'm afraid that its you who has some sort of complex regarding your views about "Hindu Indians".



> come on eastwatch i was not insulting them rather i am saying that those were outsiders NOT INDIANS



People have migrated into Indians throughout history. First they migrated from Africa, then they migrate from Central Asia, then the vedic Aryans, the Hunas, Scythians, numerous Afghan, Persian and Turkic tribes, Mughals, Parsis, Syrian Christians etc. etc. You are conveniently labeling those migrants whom YOU identify with as "outsiders" to India. 

Well let me tell you something Mr. Jana, and I'll be using YOUR LOGIC to prove my point. The whole ideology of Pakistan, Islam, is completely foreign to Pakistan. There's nothing remotely Pakistani about it. Those who brought this Islam to Pakistan were not only outsiders to Pakistan, but were among the most ruthless and violent men that ever existed. They looted, plundered and raped with abandon, and they destroyed the civilization that existed, replacing it with their own imperialist ideology. Ironically, you worship those very same people as the "bringers of civilization". What a sad tragedy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PostColonial

eastwatch said:


> I am surprised to see you are equating Mughals (read Muslims) with the British. British never made Hindustan their home, they came on certain missions ordered by their government and then went back to their HOME in England. They were colonial masters only and they did not belong to our land.
> 
> But, the Mughals immigrated to this land and made it their HOME. Hindustan was and is their homeland. Mughals were not the only outsiders who made Hindustan their HOME. There were many others before and after the Arya immigrants came in and settled in Hindustan. If these outsiders are Hindustani, then certainly other non-Hindu groups, who also came from the same land to which the Aryas belonged, cannot be regarded as outsiders. No distinction should be made because of religion.



You are right of course, but I was replying to the previous comment, which is why I stated "If by outsiders YOU mean the British...etc". I was simply interpreting the previous post, and not giving my own views regarding whether the Mughals were outsiders or Indians. 

However, the Mughals were of course foreign conquerers when the first came. But what I fail to understand is that why some Pakistanis are so eager to point this out, when clearly, the Mughals were outsiders with respect to Pakistan as well. They defeated the armies in the region of Pakistan first, before moving into India, so if anything, Pakistanis should be ashamed of this history (going by their own logic)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PostColonial

Sadly, some Pakistanis prefer to believe in self-serving myths like "Mughals brought civilization to India" or that "Islam helped to eradicate the caste system" etc. in order to prove their superiority. 

The facts of course are that India was among the most technologically advanced regions on earth before the arrival of the Mughals. However, by the end of the Mughal rule, it had become among the most backward regions on the planet, and although it was fairly prosperous, it was terribly weakened in comparison to the rising European powers.


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> Sadly, some Pakistanis prefer to believe in self-serving myths like "Mughals brought civilization to India" or that "Islam helped to eradicate the caste system" etc. in order to prove their superiority.
> 
> The facts of course are that India was among the most technologically advanced regions on earth before the arrival of the Mughals. However, by the end of the Mughal rule, it had become among the most backward regions on the planet, and although it was fairly prosperous, it was terribly weakened in comparison to the rising European powers.



Mugal did not rule the whole India in their entire tenure. I did not see any little England in the southern part of India where there were no Moguls and were completley ruled by Hindus. Even at the end of mogul and early british rule the current day Maharastra and punjab was under maratta rule for more than 200 years. They took those area 1000 years backward and were subject to frequent famine and millions died out of hunger.

Fantasy is good but that must have a limit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> Mugal did not rule the whole India in their entire tenure. I did not see any little England in the southern part of India where there were no Moguls and were completley ruled by Hindus. Even at the end of mogul and early british rule the current day Maharastra and punjab was under maratta rule for more than 200 years. They took those area 1000 years backward and were subject to frequent famine and millions died out of hunger.
> 
> Fantasy is good but that must have a limit.



Blamiing marathas for famine remains as ur favorite fantasy...sorry iajdani ,india didnt suffer any major famines anywhere neither during the Mugal nor the maratha rule.

All famine occured after british asendancy in Bengal with the British presidency from 1760 onwards.

See how britishers are responsible for catastrofic famine ....

Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Spring Onion

PostColonial said:


> I'm afraid that its you who has some sort of complex regarding your views about "Hindu Indians".


 there is nothing special about Hindus which could send a person like me into any kind of complex 





> People have migrated into Indians throughout history. First they migrated from Africa, then they migrate from Central Asia, then the vedic Aryans, the Hunas, Scythians, numerous Afghan, Persian and Turkic tribes, Mughals, Parsis, Syrian Christians etc. etc. You are conveniently labeling those migrants whom YOU identify with as "outsiders" to India.
> 
> Well let me tell you something Mr. Jana, and I'll be using YOUR LOGIC to prove my point. The whole ideology of Pakistan, Islam, is completely foreign to Pakistan. There's nothing remotely Pakistani about it. Those who brought this Islam to Pakistan were not only outsiders to Pakistan, but were among the most ruthless and violent men that ever existed. They looted, plundered and raped with abandon, and they destroyed the civilization that existed, replacing it with their own imperialist ideology. Ironically, you worship those very same people as the "bringers of civilization". What a sad tragedy.




 Let me tell YOU something Mr you know for us being Muslims Pakistan is our identity and Islam is our ideology.

Once you become a Muslim you are part of this Ummah simple as that.

And for your information we do not call Mughals as Pakistanis unlike the Indians who are trying to cover up their centuries-old complex by claiming to be decendents of Central Asians which indeed they are not.

They did not migrated rather they invaded you and once they grabbed your land they steped in. 


Regrads 

Ms Jana


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> Blamiing marathas for famine remains as ur favorite fantasy...sorry iajdani ,india didnt suffer any major famines anywhere neither during the Mugal nor the maratha rule.
> 
> All famine occured after british asendancy in Bengal with the British presidency from 1760 onwards.
> 
> See how britishers are responsible for catastrofic famine ....
> 
> Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That is not currect. Most of the famine in 18th and early 19th century were under marattan rules. I gave you all the list in the other threads.


----------



## Spring Onion

third eye said:


> Anyone who came to India and became one of us was / is an Indian. There are countless examples .. anglo Indians, parsis, french and so on. No country is an island and even Islands have all sorts of mixes.
> 
> We all are a mix of centuries of amalgamations. Even today traces of alexanders troops ( lineage ) are found in Pk. Wouldn't you consider them pakistanis ? Religion has no place in nationality.



We are talking about the roots Sir and by no chance NO aspect Mughals have ever been Indians or for that matter Indian Hindus.


I would certainly consider the Kelashs' as Pakistanis but if you want me to consider Alexander as a Pakistani just because he landed here then well i think such a notion is either result of some intefriority complex or just an ostrich like attitude.


----------



## TopCat

Mogul is a institution rather than just few invaders. Yes Babur was a outsider but Akbar and onwards are definitely Indians. Also a governement and army does not only made of the ruler but millions of people are involved who are basically Indians. So the Mogul rule was driven by Indians only.


----------



## jarnee

atmi_chuza said:


> A'Zeb was devout & all but over did a few things. Killed his own brother & jailed his father. Dara was the rightful emperor no AZ. Not very muslim like I must say!



Has Dara shikoh survived and been an emperor ..he would have ended the Islam in SE asia as we know today..he was mixing Isalm's good things with Hindu's good practices. ..religion known as "Din eh Illa hi" ...maybe then lot of Hindus would have adopted to that ..who knows.. but i am sure ..history would have been different so would have been the present ...but as they say by gones are by gones


----------



## Khajur

Jana said:


> the problem with the Hindu Indians is that they have some kind of complex. Those who invaded India were NEVER Indians or locals its another thing that many Indians trying to prove themselves the siblings of central asians lolzz
> 
> 
> *come on eastwatch i was not insulting them rather i am saying that those were outsiders NOT INDIANS*



They were never pakistanis either... so why so pakistani live with this stupid notion that they ruled in for many centuries...though fact is that they its the foreigners from Mahmud of Ghazni who over throw hindu shahi empire ruling in current day pakistan to Turkmen/moghul Babar had no bearing with pakistan.

*If just because they were followers of islam can any muslim say actually their ancentors were ruling india..*??.*in the same token may be a convert in tamilnadu or pashtun in pakistan say his ancestors were Beduins of Arabia*. There may be some arab or Turkmen/moghul blood among the current citizens subcontinets but thats very negligible.


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> That is not currect. Most of the famine in 18th and early 19th century were under marattan rules. I gave you all the list in the other threads.



If dont u want accept history aganist ur religious discomfort, its ur problem.BTW Britishers were christian protestants.


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> there is nothing special about Hindus which could send a person like me into any kind of complex


But your posts - not just in this thread - speak of something else, of a 'Hindu India' fetish.


Jana said:


> PostColonial said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have migrated into Indians throughout history. First they migrated from Africa, then they migrate from Central Asia, then the vedic Aryans, the Hunas, Scythians, numerous Afghan, Persian and Turkic tribes, Mughals, Parsis, Syrian Christians etc. etc. You are conveniently labeling those migrants whom YOU identify with as "outsiders" to India.
> 
> Well let me tell you something Mr. Jana, and I'll be using YOUR LOGIC to prove my point. The whole ideology of Pakistan, Islam, is completely foreign to Pakistan. There's nothing remotely Pakistani about it. Those who brought this Islam to Pakistan were not only outsiders to Pakistan, but were among the most ruthless and violent men that ever existed. They looted, plundered and raped with abandon, and they destroyed the civilization that existed, replacing it with their own imperialist ideology. Ironically, you worship those very same people as the "bringers of civilization". What a sad tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell YOU something Mr you know for us being Muslims Pakistan is our identity and Islam is our ideology.
> 
> Once you become a Muslim you are part of this Ummah simple as that.
> 
> And for your information we do not call Mughals as Pakistanis unlike the Indians who are trying to cover up their centuries-old complex by claiming to be decendents of Central Asians which indeed they are not.
> 
> They did not migrated rather they invaded you and once they grabbed your land they steped in.
> 
> 
> Regrads
> 
> Ms Jana
Click to expand...

Your inability to provide a counter argument, other than emotional and sentimental nonsense, is noted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

Jana said:


> We are talking about the roots Sir and by no chance NO aspect Mughals have ever been Indians or for that matter Indian Hindus.
> 
> 
> I would certainly consider the Kelashs' as Pakistanis but if you want me to consider Alexander as a Pakistani just because he landed here then well i think such a notion is either result of some intefriority complex or just an ostrich like attitude.



well, from the third generation onward , Moghul *Emperor Jahangir whose mother was a hindu rajput woman,* Moghul rules were as naturalised indian as any other indian national.


----------



## PostColonial

Eh? Even the British didn't rule the whole of India for their entire tenure. However, they managed to make India one of the poorest places on the planet by the end of their tenure. 

You again seem to be slipping into your imagination in order to prove your superiority. 

Tell me, Mr. Iajdani, name ONE significant scientific discovery or accomplishment of the Mughal rulers. Comeon. I challenge you. 

Anyways, you are right about the Marathas. They were basically warriors with little knowledge of science, government, institutions, economics or culture. However, they were the one of the first indigenous attempts to stake claim on this land for many centuries, and their ignorance just shows how much the centuries of Mughal rule had made Indians backward and ignorant.


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> If dont u want accept history aganist ur religious discomfort, its ur problem.BTW Britishers were christian protestants.



We know what brits is all about. We are talking about Mogul taking India backward when it should have been a Rennaissance like Europe. Well Rennaissance in europe came after mogul or at the end of mogul.
Secondly its you who are trying comfort with your religion. I dont have to as we already have.


----------



## Khajur

toxic_pus said:


> But your posts - not just in this thread - speak of something else, of a 'Hindu India' fetish.
> 
> Your inability to provide a counter argument, other than emotional and sentimental nonsense, is noted.



*some still suffers from the propaganda virus spread on other pakistani forums where no substantial indian counter arguments are allowed.*

In a way,this forum which open a fair dabate may help to bust to those myths long hold as well researched modern history among general pakistani populous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> Eh? Even the British didn't rule the whole of India for their entire tenure. However, they managed to make India one of the poorest places on the planet by the end of their tenure.
> 
> You again seem to be slipping into your imagination in order to prove your superiority.
> 
> Tell me, Mr. Iajdani, name ONE significant scientific discovery or accomplishment of the Mughal rulers. Comeon. I challenge you.
> 
> Anyways, you are right about the Marathas. They were basically warriors with little knowledge of science, government, institutions, economics or culture. However, they were the one of the first indigenous attempts to stake claim on this land for many centuries, and their ignorance just shows how much the centuries of Mughal rule had made Indians backward and ignorant.



Well steam engine was discovered long after Mogul. Mogul did not invent anything as they were not scientist or philosopher but they did introduce some advance technology in Farming like irrigation, communication networks, good governance and brought India some affluence. British parliament had to introduce legislature for stopping Indian clothing flourishing european market. Indian silk and muslin was known all over the world that time. Columbus set sail for India at the time of Mogul and invented America.
Yes whether you like it or not, Mogul did brought modernity in Indian society and brought betterment in the day to day life in ordinary Indians.


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> We know what brits is all about. We are talking about Mogul taking India backward when it should have been a Rennaissance like Europe. Well Rennaissance in europe came after mogul or at the end of mogul.
> Secondly its you who are trying comfort with your religion. I dont have to as we already have.



sometime u talk about famine...and sometime Rennaissance..as i said there was no Rennaissance or famine on the other hand before the rise of ruling British colonial empire...and *its actually the British policies were responsible for the famine as they occured during their rules in mostly their territories.*


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> Well steam engine was discovered long after Mogul. Mogul did not invent anything as they were not scientist or philosopher but they did introduce some advance technology in Farming like irrigation, communication networks, good governance and brought India some affluence. British parliament had to introduce legislature for stopping Indian clothing flourishing european market. Indian silk and muslin was known all over the world that time. Columbus set sail for India at the time of Mogul and invented America.
> Yes whether you like it or not, Mogul did brought modernity in Indian society and brought betterment in the day to day life in ordinary Indians.



Its not about the steam engine friend. Europe had seen its scientific institutions begin to flourish way back in the 12th century, when they began to to import knowledge from the middle east and improve upon it. By contrast, North Indian scientific institutions and centers of learing (Mathura, Ujjain, Varanasi, etc.) went into terminal decline and their scientific output went to zero, thanks to the Mughals who wanted nothing to do with them. The great gametic cities atrophied and declined into ghosts of their former past. 

Also, the Mughals did not 'bring affluence' to India. India was always an affluent place (in relative terms of course). 

Irrigation? LOL..are you joking? Are you suggesting that Indians did not know about irrigation befor the Mughals? Let me tell you, the first dam in India was the Grand Anicut, built by the Chola king Karikalan in the 2nd century BC. 

Read:
Grand Anicut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry do disappoint you, but the Mughals did ZERO to develop India. Whatever they did do, other empires did far better in the same time frame. Infact, the Mughals presided over the most spectacular decline in learning and science of Indian history. 

The most enlightened Mughal (Akbar) was an illiterate. Need I say more?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> Its not about the steam engine friend. Europe had seen its scientific institutions begin to flourish way back in the 12th century, when they began to to import knowledge from the middle east and improve upon it. By contrast, North Indian scientific institutions and centers of learing (Mathura, Ujjain, Varanasi, etc.) went into terminal decline and their scientific output went to zero, thanks to the Mughals who wanted nothing to do with them. The great gametic cities atrophied and declined into ghosts of their former past.
> 
> Also, the Mughals did not 'bring affluence' to India. India was always an affluent place (in relative terms of course).
> 
> Irrigation? LOL..are you joking? Are you suggesting that Indians did not know about irrigation befor the Mughals? Let me tell you, the first dam in India was the Grand Anicut, built by the Chola king Karikalan in the 2nd century BC.
> 
> Read:
> Grand Anicut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sorry do disappoint you, but the Mughals did ZERO to develop India. Whatever they did do, other empires did far better in the same time frame. Infact, the Mughals presided over the most spectacular decline in learning and science of Indian history.
> 
> The most enlightened Mughal (Akbar) was an illiterate. Need I say more?



That is your biased opinion. India in its history never dominated in the field of science and technology. Aristotol born long before 12th century. We just dont like to talk about those for our own gratification but Guras were always miles ahead of Indians even when they could not manage to feed themselves.
The learning institutes you mentioned were just religious institutes driven by Buddhism. Yes they did some good work in the field of Philosophy and some great poetry were written. Also there were some astronomoy which had basically no practical values. The best we could say about the invention of Zero but I still doubt european borrowed it from here or not.

Yes Mogul did some good work in the field of good governance and introduce India with International trade. And yes they also worked in the field of modernization of Farming. They also work in road communication and also introduced institutionalized education Madrassas (which you may not like). 
Mogul also introduced some written form of administration and invented a complete new language called Urdu.

Well I can go on for ever but will not change a bit if you keep a biased opinion inside you with extreme inferiority complex.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

^^ Google Damascus steel and what it was used for.


----------



## PostColonial

iajdani said:


> That is your biased opinion. India in its history never dominated in the field of science and technology. Aristotol born long before 12th century. We just dont like to talk about those for our own gratification but Guras were always miles ahead of Indians even when they could not manage to feed themselves.



HAHAHA. What bloody nonsense. Atleast learn to spell "Aristrotle". 

You clearly know nothing about Indian scientific accomplishments, and yes, let me tell you, India DID dominate most of the world in terms of scientific accomplishment. Wow. You are really ignorant.



> The learning institutes you mentioned were just religious institutes driven by Buddhism. Yes they did some good work in the field of Philosophy and some great poetry were written. Also there were some astronomoy which had basically no practical values. The best we could say about the invention of Zero but I still doubt european borrowed it from here or not.



Philosophy of course. Indian philosophy has always been an inspiration to the world, and these were not just religious institutions, they were centers of astronomy, centers of art, architecture, mathematics, surgery, ethics, administration etc. 

My friend, get yourself an education. Prompto. 



> Yes Mogul did some good work in the field of good governance and introduce India with International trade. And yes they also worked in the field of modernization of Farming. They also work in road communication and also introduced institutionalized education Madrassas (which you may not like).
> Mogul also introduced some written form of administration and invented a complete new language called Urdu.



International trade? LOL. Are you suggesting that Indians did not trade with the world before the Mughals? More nonsense from you. Indians have traded with the Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese, South East Asia, since time immemorial. What rubbish! 

Madarassas? Tell me my friend, what use are Madarassas in a country of mostly non-muslims? And moreover, what scientific accomplishments were done in these Madarassas? NOTHING. ZILCH. ZERO. 

Urdu? Haha. Well gee, they developed a language. What a fantastic accomplishment! Who would have thought of that!


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> HAHAHA. What bloody nonsense. Atleast learn to spell "Aristrotle".
> 
> You clearly know nothing about Indian scientific accomplishments, and yes, let me tell you, India DID dominate most of the world in terms of scientific accomplishment. Wow. You are really ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The learning institutes you mentioned were just religious institutes driven by Buddhism. Yes they did some good work in the field of Philosophy and some great poetry were written. Also there were some astronomoy which had basically no practical values. The best we could say about the invention of Zero but I still doubt european borrowed it from here or not.[/QUOT]
> 
> Philosophy of course. Indian philosophy has always been an inspiration to the world, and these were not just religious institutions, they were centers of astronomy, centers of art, architecture, mathematics, surgery, ethics, administration etc.
> 
> My friend, get yourself an education. Prompto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International trade? LOL. Are you suggesting that Indians did not trade with the world before the Mughals? More nonsense from you. Indians have traded with the Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese, South East Asia, since time immemorial. What rubbish!
> 
> Madarassas? Tell me my friend, what use are Madarassas in a country of mostly hindus? And moreover, what scientific accomplishments were done in these Madarassas? NOTHING. ZILCH. ZERO.
> 
> Urdu? Haha. Well gee, they developed a language. What a fantastic accomplishment! Who would have thought of that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I m not nonsense but you are dumb who yet to learn how to response to a intellegent talk...
> There were no practical tool that you could come up with which was invented on those institution like steam engine? or something Archemedese did? Ohh by the way be compassionate on my spelling. Not every word in greek or romans i could spell.
> It feels good to dream about Indian were the most advance people in the whole world but the truth is, it was not. Even chinese invented a lot of things well ahead of Europeans like gun powder and some other machines.
> I just dont find India in the same level even though I belong to this community.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spring Onion

Khajur said:


> They were never pakistanis either... so why so pakistani live with this stupid notion that they ruled in for many centuries...though fact is that they its the foreigners from Mahmud of Ghazni who over throw hindu shahi empire ruling in current day pakistan to Turkmen/moghul Babar had no bearing with pakistan.



when did we say they were Pakistanis  
whenever we talk we say Muslims ruled over INDIA.




> *If just because they were followers of islam can any muslim say actually their ancentors were ruling india..*??.*in the same token may be a convert in tamilnadu or pashtun in pakistan say his ancestors were Beduins of Arabia*. There may be some arab or Turkmen/moghul blood among the current citizens subcontinets but thats very negligible.




Again we dont claim to be childern of Mughals without any proof unlike Indians  

And well if anyone's ancestors are Arabian Beduin he/she will say so but if not atleast he/she should not claim that


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> PostColonial said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.
> 
> 
> It feels good to dream about Indian were the most advance people in the whole world but the truth is, it was not. Even chinese invented a lot of things well ahead of Europeans like gun powder and some other machines.
> I just dont find India in the same level even though I belong to this community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iajdani,
> what irony that u dont know about ur indian history of which Bangadesh always been part of*...u talk as if indian civilization started with muslim or moghul invasion...what a shame*!
> 
> If u are interested u can read many authentic sources about indian contribution toi world science ...pls google it before demonstrating any more ignorance here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spring Onion

Khajur said:


> *some still suffers from the propaganda virus spread on other pakistani forums where no substantial indian counter arguments are allowed.*
> 
> In a way,this forum which open a fair dabate may help to bust to those myths long hold as well researched modern history among general pakistani populous.



ehhh sorry to burst your bubble I am a PATHAN and thank God i have no link with whatsoever with Indian blood 

But oh yeh may be my ancestors did attack India from Afghanistan 

anyway what modern history you want to teach us ?


----------



## Khajur

Jana said:


> ehhh sorry to burst your bubble I am a PATHAN and thank God i have no link with whatsoever with Indian blood
> 
> But oh yeh may be my ancestors did attack India from Afghanistan
> 
> anyway what modern history you want to teach us ?



what bubble ??

*U always have been so loud about ur " PATHAN " background even people visiting neighbouring websites know that u are a pathan...*

And no offence... ur ancestors first attacked the areas that come under todays pakistan...so if u feel like u can hand ur sorry to note them....cause it made no difference to me still a Brahmin like my ancient ancestors those come to india thousands years ago...I still chant my Vedic verse .


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> iajdani said:
> 
> 
> 
> iajdani,
> what irony that u dont know about ur indian history of which Bangadesh always been part of*...u talk as if indian civilization started with muslim or moghul invasion...what a shame*!
> 
> If u are interested u can read many authentic sources about indian contribution toi world science ...pls google it before demonstrating any more ignorance here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say Indian civilization started in Mogul era. It was the era when India was at its peak in trade and economy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spring Onion

Khajur said:


> what bubble ??
> 
> *U always have been so loud about ur " PATHAN " background even people visiting neighbouring webites know that u are a pathan...*
> 
> And no offence... ur ancestors first attacked the areas that come under todays pakistan...so if u feel like u can hand ur sorry to note them....cause it made no difference to me still a Brahmin like my ancient ancestors those come to india thousands years ago...I still chant my Vedic verse .



 i consider it important to remind you before you try to tell me anything about Indian/Hindu blood. I aint have any of these.

Secondly NO my ancestors have only been using current day Pakistan as gateway to attack your India  

The current day Pakistan bordering Afghanistan have always been a gateway to attack current day Hindustan.

and lolz on brahmins the fake people who have snatched the real hindusim from the real Hindus and today the original Hindus are oppressed.

and oh even if my ancestors attacked currrent day Pakistan it proves they were good warriors


----------



## Khajur

Jana said:


> i consider it important to remind you before you try to tell me anything about Indian/Hindu blood. I aint have any of these.
> 
> *Secondly NO my ancestors have only been using current day Pakistan as gateway to attack your India  *The current day Pakistan bordering Afghanistan have always been a gateway to attack current day Hindustan.
> 
> and lolz on brahmins the fake people who have snatched the real hindusim from the real Hindus and today the origional Hindus are opperessed.



Oh really,i guess ur ancestors were soothsayers who knew exactly where Radicliffe would draw the partition line in 1947...hats up to ur ancestors .

fake brahmins?? Real Hindus??

Jana madam,pls pardon us ur deep insightful knowlegde about hinduism.

*" and oh even if my ancestors attacked currrent day Pakistan it proves they were good warriors . "*

yaa,right... but problem is area inhabited by ur people *never cease to be battle fields*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KSRaj

Jana said:


> Secondly NO my ancestors have only been using current day Pakistan as gateway to attack your India



Are you trying to claim that that the land under present day Pakistan was used just as a gate!?

Why so? It was one of the densely populatedc regions, quite rich too. But as per your logic, the invading Afghans didnt find anything worth in Pakistan to plunder. Why so?

I hope you really gave some thought before claiming Pakistan was used just as a gateway!


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> Khajur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say Indian civilization started in Mogul era. It was the era when India was at its peak in trade and economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just speaking about eastern india which include todays Bangladesh, we were conducting more trade with places in far east asia like Indonesia,Malaysia,phlipines,koria for centuries before the moghuls by the sea route.These india areas were very prosperous ...its a different matter that most of our temple bulit during 10th century are gone...u know how
> 
> Even till today,orissa celebrates its ancient tradition of trader sailing off to distant islands like Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Ceylon in south asia on the auspicious day of Kartika purnima.
> 
> Kartika Purnima, Kartika Purnima Festival, Hindu Festivals, Festivals of Orissa, Kartika Festivals, Kartika month Festivals, Legends behind Kartika Purnima, Stories of Kartika Purnima, Rituals behind Kartika Purnima
> 
> And How do u think indian Buddist religion went off to these far off places ??
Click to expand...


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> iajdani said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just speaking about eastern india which include todays Bangladesh, we were conducting more trade with places in far east asia like Indonesia,Malaysia,phlipines,koria for centuries before the moghuls by the sea route.These india areas were very prosperous ...its a different matter that most of our temple bulit during 10th century are gone...u know how
> 
> Even till today,orissa celebrates its ancient tradition of trader sailing off to distant islands like Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Ceylon in south asia on the auspicious day of Kartika purnima.
> 
> Kartika Purnima, Kartika Purnima Festival, Hindu Festivals, Festivals of Orissa, Kartika Festivals, Kartika month Festivals, Legends behind Kartika Purnima, Stories of Kartika Purnima, Rituals behind Kartika Purnima
> 
> And How do u think indian Buddist religion went off to these far off places ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you talking about Pala dyanasty which was another golden era. But those trade were again in a very limited scale. I was talking about flourishing european market with silk and muslin. Silk used to go from Murshidabad area and Muslin from Dhaka region. And you know what both the city was built by Moguls.
Click to expand...


----------



## KSRaj

iajdani said:


> I was talking about flourishing european market with silk and muslin. Silk used to go from Murshidabad area and Muslin from Dhaka region. And you know what both the city was built by Moguls.



iajdani,

India was a major textile producing and exporting country long before the Moguls.
Excerpts from a couple of articles:

"The foundations of the Indian textile trade with other countries began as early as the second century BC. A hoard of block printed and resist-dyed fabrics, mainly of Gujrati origin, found in the tombs of Fostat, Egypt, are the proof of large scale Indian export of cotton textiles to the Egypt in medieval times."


"India has a diverse and rich textile tradition. The origin of Indian textiles can be traced to the Indus valley civilization. The people of this civilization used homespun cotton for weaving their garments. Excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, have unearthed household items like needles made of bone and spindles made of wood, amply suggesting that homespun cotton was used to make garments. Fragments of woven cotton have also been found from these sites.

The first literary information about textiles in India can be found in the Rig-Veda, which refers to weaving. The ancient Indian epics-Ramayana and Mahabharata also speak of a variety of fabrics of those times. The Ramayana refers to the rich styles worn by the aristocracy on one hand and the simple clothes worn by the commoners and ascetics. Ample evidence on the ancient textiles of India can also be obtained from the various sculptures belonging to Mauryan and Gupta age as well as from ancient Buddhist scripts and murals (Ajanta caves). Legend has it that when Amrapali, a courtesan from the kingdom of Vaishali met Gautama Buddha, she wore a richly woven semi transparent sari, which speaks volumes of the technical achievement of the ancient Indian weaver.

India had numerous trade links with the outside world and Indian textiles were popular in the ancient world. Indian silk was popular in Rome in the early centuries of the Christian era. Hoards of fragments of cotton material originating from Gujarat have been found in the Egyptian tombs at Fostat, belonging to 5th century A.D. Cotton textiles were also exported to China during the heydays of the silk route.

Silk fabrics from south India were exported to Indonesia during the 13th century. India also exported printed cotton fabrics or chintz, to European countries and the Far East before the coming of the Europeans to India. The British East India Company also traded in Indian cotton and silk fabrics, which included the famous Dacca muslins. Muslins from Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were also popular abroad.(Muslin-a very thin cotton material) (Chintz-cotton cloth, usually printed with flowery patterns, that has a slightly shiny appearance)"


----------



## TopCat

That was true that Indians did wear clothes long before Mogul came. But my point was those trades gets its volume and institutonalized under mogul rule. Dhaka and Murshidabad was built under mogul. Also mogul paved the way of large number of middle eastern trader who used to trade Indian items to europe. European market opened up under mogul rule.


----------



## KSRaj

iajdani said:


> That was true that Indians did wear clothes long before Mogul came. But my point was those trades gets its volume and institutonalized under mogul rule. Dhaka and Murshidabad was built under mogul. Also mogul paved the way of large number of middle eastern trader who used to trade Indian items to europe. European market opened up under mogul rule.



You didnt bother reading what I posted, didnt you? :-(


----------



## vandemataram

Jana said:


> ehhh sorry to burst your bubble I am a PATHAN and thank God i have no link with whatsoever with Indian blood
> 
> But oh yeh may be my ancestors did attack India from Afghanistan
> 
> anyway what modern history you want to teach us ?



So which India are you talking about ms Jana ? So I am to understand that you are a descendant of the invaders?


----------



## third eye

Jana said:


> We are talking about the roots Sir and by no chance NO aspect Mughals have ever been Indians or for that matter Indian Hindus.
> 
> 
> I would certainly consider the Kelashs' as Pakistanis but if you want me to consider Alexander as a Pakistani just because he landed here then well i think such a notion is either result of some intefriority complex or just an ostrich like attitude.



Well, if 'roots'did not grow from 1526 to 1857 and beyond whilst the Mughals ruled India either in part of full then then I agree with you they are not Indian. 

Did any of the Mughals go back to central Asia ? What should we call them ? Outsiders who founded a dynasty and stayed on or one of us ? By the way, going by this analogy none of the people living in the USA would be Americans.

Perish the thought of inferiority complex when we discuss India. There is no nation who ( should) know this better than Pk.

Its just about assimilating all those who come to the land & make it their home... and it is nothing to do with being an Ostrich, its about removing blinkers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dvk1982

Jana said:


> India is earning huge revenue in terms of tourism from these places.
> 
> On another note India was developed by invaders mostly.
> 
> 
> And yes we also agree that Mughals have only spent a luxurious life nothing else.
> 
> And on another note Ashoka wasnt a Hindu



And what was Goutam Buddha ??? before Ashoka became Buddhist ???

As I said, religion is just a belief.... religious fanatics think world starts and ends with one religion and one belief....


----------



## eastwatch

PostColonial said:


> LOL what rubbish. Did you just make up all of that, or do they teach this nonsense in your school?


Why it is rubbish? In the west the Afghans were Budhists before the arrival of Islam. In the east many Bangalis were also Budhists before the arrival of Islam. These Budhists had a clear idea of one God. Hindu Brahmins tormented and forced them to come back to the fold of Hinduism, but only as low class Sudra, although many of these Budhists were not Sudra when a few hundred years back their forefathers accepted Budhism. 

So, after the arrival of Afghan Turkic Muslims in Bengal under the leadership of Ikhtiar-ud-Din Muhammed Bakhtiar in 1198, these enlightened Budhists took shelter in Islam to safeguard their prestige, as well as their belief in one God. Western part of Pakistan and Bangladesh still have many Budhist Monasteries to prove that one God-centered Budhism was widespread in these regions and these Budhists accepted Islam as their religion. 

I understand, your Hindu mythology says that the MLECCHO Muslims forced the Hindus to accept Islam. It is less true, and more true is that mostly the Budhists accepted Islam willingly in Hindustan. I have read also a Bengali poem written in early 13th Century whereby the Budhists are praising Islam, how it has saved them from the Brahminical tyranny and how it is easy for them to understand one-god concept of Islam.


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> ehhh sorry to burst your bubble *I am a PATHAN* and thank God *i have no link with whatsoever with Indian blood*





Jana said:


> i consider it important to remind you before you try to tell me anything about Indian/Hindu blood. *I aint have any of these*.


Since we are on a bubble bursting spree, let me try and burst yours too.

In 2001-02 Mr Raheel Qamar et.al studied the y-chromosomal DNA variations among various ethnic groups of Pakistan. They studied  718 persons from 12 ethnic groups, including Pathans. They made certain interesting discoveries. They found, that there are 5 haplogroups that are common among almost all Pakistanis. Haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9 constitute about 79% of Pakistani population. Since these haplogroups are frequent in western Asia and Europe but not in China or Japan, it means that Pakistani populations mostly cluster around a pooled South Asian sample and lie close to a Middle Eastern sample. The reason, however is because Y variation in many areas of the world is predominantly structured by geography, not by language or ethnic affiliation. The fifth common Haplogroup is Haplogroup 28 and is found among 14% of Pakistani population. 

It is this Haplogroup 28 that is your Indian connection or in your words Indian/Hindu blood. It is found in 30% of Indian and as one goes to the west, it gradually decreases (Pakistan  14%, Tajikistan  10%, Uzbekistan  3%), finally almost disappearing in Europe (Russia  0.4%, Caucasus  1.4%). 

But where do Pathans stand in all this. Well, bang in the middle. About 13% of Pathans show presence of Hap 28, which is almost the national average.[_Look for Chart F and code PKH_] The only ethnic groups that show some isolation and are pretty distinct are the Hazaras, not the Pathans. Although Hazaras and Pathans have more affinity to West Asians, Pathans are still as much Indian as any other Pakistani is.

May be its not yet time to thank 'God' for your lack of 'India/Hindu blood'. What say you?



Jana said:


> But oh yeh may be my ancestors did attack India from Afghanistan





Jana said:


> and oh even if my ancestors attacked currrent day Pakistan it proves they were good warriors


While they were at it, they plundered, slaughtered, proselytized and raped the region that is now Pakistan. So yes they were good warriors along with being 'good' plunderers, 'good' murderers and not to forget, 'good' rapists. 

Let me grab my popcorn bowel. Response to this post may just turn out to be too entertaining to miss.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch said:


> Why it is rubbish? In the west the Afghans were Budhists before the arrival of Islam. In the east many Bangalis were also Budhists before the arrival of Islam. *These Budhists had a clear idea of one God*. Hindu Brahmins tormented and forced them to come back to the fold of Hinduism, but only as low class Sudra, although many of these Budhists were not Sudra when a few hundred years back their forefathers accepted Budhism.
> 
> So, after the arrival of Afghan Turkic Muslims in Bengal under the leadership of Ikhtiar-ud-Din Muhammed Bakhtiar in 1198, these enlightened Budhists took shelter in Islam to safeguard their prestige, as well as *their belief in one God*. Western part of Pakistan and Bangladesh still have many Budhist Monasteries to prove that one God-centered Budhism was widespread in these regions and these Budhists accepted Islam as their religion.
> 
> I understand, your Hindu mythology says that the MLECCHO Muslims forced the Hindus to accept Islam. It is less true, and more true is that mostly the Budhists accepted Islam willingly in Hindustan. I have read also a Bengali poem written in early 13th Century whereby the Budhists are praising Islam, how it has saved them from the Brahminical tyranny and *how it is easy for them to understand one-god concept of Islam*.


Buddhism doesn't have the concept of 'GOD' in sense that other religion perceives - omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-this and omni-that - let alone 'one god'. Buddhism is atheistic at best and pantheistic at worse.


----------



## ice_man

Khajur said:


> Blamiing marathas for famine remains as ur favorite fantasy...sorry iajdani ,india didnt suffer any major famines anywhere neither during the Mugal nor the maratha rule.
> 
> All famine occured after british asendancy in Bengal with the British presidency from 1760 onwards.
> 
> See how britishers are responsible for catastrofic famine ....
> 
> Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



true that the famine happened after the BRITISH came in but they were allowed in by the HINDUS.....the hindu rulers wanted the british to help them overthrow the mughals......and then again even in the 1880's revolt the hindus betrayed the Bahdur Shah Zafar


----------



## ice_man

PostColonial said:


> ^Well Thank You Shah Jahan, for your amazing planning and vision to built a potential tourist trap that would earn profits after 400 years.
> 
> If by invaders you mean British, then yes I agree. But under Mughals this country (and that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh mind you) fell behind both Europe and China in development.
> 
> Yes Ashoka was buddhist. Your point?



how so did the country fall back under the moghuls? i think moghuls came and civilized the land and ended the constant battle amongst tribes.....and under moghuls arts,culture litreature progressed isn't that what the whole European Renaissance was all about ?


----------



## ice_man

toxic_pus said:


> Since we are on a bubble bursting spree, let me try and burst yours too.
> 
> In 2001-02 Mr Raheel Qamar et.al studied the y-chromosomal DNA variations among various ethnic groups of Pakistan. They studied  718 persons from 12 ethnic groups, including Pathans. They made certain interesting discoveries. They found, that there are 5 haplogroups that are common among almost all Pakistanis. Haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9 constitute about 79% of Pakistani population. Since these haplogroups are frequent in western Asia and Europe but not in China or Japan, it means that Pakistani populations mostly cluster around a pooled South Asian sample and lie close to a Middle Eastern sample. The reason, however is because Y variation in many areas of the world is predominantly structured by geography, not by language or ethnic affiliation. The fifth common Haplogroup is Haplogroup 28 and is found among 14% of Pakistani population.
> 
> It is this Haplogroup 28 that is your Indian connection or in your words Indian/Hindu blood. It is found in 30% of Indian and as one goes to the west, it gradually decreases (Pakistan  14%, Tajikistan  10%, Uzbekistan  3%), finally almost disappearing in Europe (Russia  0.4%, Caucasus  1.4%).
> 
> But where do Pathans stand in all this. Well, bang in the middle. About 13% of Pathans show presence of Hap 28, which is almost the national average.[_Look for Chart F and code PKH_] The only ethnic groups that show some isolation and are pretty distinct are the Hazaras, not the Pathans. Although Hazaras and Pathans have more affinity to West Asians, Pathans are still as much Indian as any other Pakistani is.
> 
> May be its not yet time to thank 'God' for your lack of 'India/Hindu blood'. What say you?
> 
> 
> 
> While they were at it, they plundered, slaughtered, proselytized and raped the region that is now Pakistan. So yes they were good warriors along with being 'good' plunderers, 'good' murderers and not to forget, 'good' rapists.
> 
> Let me grab my popcorn bowel. Response to this post may just turn out to be too entertaining to miss.



Pathans are a very large tribe....and they are closely related to the central asian people of khorasan.....for that matter people like SHARKUH,SALMAN,SAIF claim to be pathans...even irfan PATANS...or zaheer khan....

Khan is a name that was given to people who collaborated with the BRITISH.....just like the british made there servants wear clothing similar to moghuls inorder to ridicule the culture...and heritage.....

so the so called "PATHAN" sample needs to be defined before researched on.


----------



## ice_man

Kavin said:


> There is no HINDU point of view or MUSLIM point of view.. it's only INDIAN point of view. He's the most secular Mughal emperor when compared to others, period.
> 
> PS: Secularism is the backbone of India.



hmmm SECULARISM.....ok golden temple attack in 84,babri masjid in 90's gujarat massacre in 2000's and assam killing of chirstians....now all these cases were carried out by HINDUS and remain unsolved hell people like ADVANI ran for presidency and he is supposed to be the main culprit for the babri masjid....JAGDISH tytler is a free man so is NARINDER MODI......while DAUD IBRAHIM is wanted lol!!! 

varun gandhi won his seat!!!!! lol SECULARISM yes next i know TALIBAN will be secular too given such drastic facts!!!


----------



## third eye

ice_man said:


> hmmm SECULARISM.....ok golden temple attack in 84,babri masjid in 90's gujarat massacre in 2000's and assam killing of chirstians....now all these cases were carried out by HINDUS and remain unsolved hell people like ADVANI ran for presidency and he is supposed to be the main culprit for the babri masjid....JAGDISH tytler is a free man so is NARINDER MODI......while DAUD IBRAHIM is wanted lol!!!
> 
> varun gandhi won his seat!!!!! lol SECULARISM yes next i know TALIBAN will be secular too given such drastic facts!!!



Isn't it surprising that despite all this India is in its original shape while others splintered around them ?


----------



## ice_man

PostColonial said:


> lol@Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal was built for the pleasure of Shah Jahan. It had no benefit for the people of India whatsoever.
> 
> Look at the contrast. Ashoka built hospitals while Mughals built tombs and palaces.



lol asoka is the worst example you can give after the battle of kalinga he killed a 100,000 innocent people for no reason!!! he did so much of a blood bath that he himself got tired of it eventually and took up Buddhism!! 

the moghuls gave you your cusinie they made all the small quarreling tribes unite under there banner! 

under the moguls bloodshed was not a common practice.....


----------



## ice_man

third eye said:


> Isn't it surprising that despite all this India is in its original shape while others splintered around them ?



no it is not surprising my friend indian media and intelligence agencies insure that countries around india are not left at peace and are hindered from progressing.....

and before you come back with pakistan does it too!!! well yes we do both countries are playing with fire.....and both will eventually suffer....so i hope sanity prevails and both countries act responsibly....


----------



## third eye

ice_man said:


> no it is not surprising my friend indian media and intelligence agencies insure that countries around india are not left at peace and are hindered from progressing.....
> 
> and before you come back with pakistan does it too!!! well yes we do both countries are playing with fire.....and both will eventually suffer....so *i hope sanity prevails *and both countries act responsibly....




Hmm..

Indian intel agencies seem to be doing better than what Indians think of them.

I too hope sanity prevails - on all sides. Lets get back to the Mughals.


----------



## PostColonial

eastwatch said:


> Why it is rubbish? In the west the Afghans were Budhists before the arrival of Islam. In the east many Bangalis were also Budhists before the arrival of Islam. These Budhists had a clear idea of one God. Hindu Brahmins tormented and forced them to come back to the fold of Hinduism, but only as low class Sudra, although many of these Budhists were not Sudra when a few hundred years back their forefathers accepted Budhism.



Simplistic BS. Afghans were Buddhist and Hindu. Heard of Hindu-Shahi dynasty in Afghanistan? 

Secondly, Buddhists don't believe in God you dolt. They believe in Dharma - path of righteousness, just like Hindus. 

Thirdly are you telling me that all the Afghans and Bengalis were "sudras" lol. What about all the "sudras" in India, why didn't they convert to Buddhism? What a load of self-serving rubbish. Please tell your government to teach you real history instead of this nonsense.




> So, after the arrival of Afghan Turkic Muslims in Bengal under the leadership of Ikhtiar-ud-Din Muhammed Bakhtiar in 1198, these enlightened Budhists took shelter in Islam to safeguard their prestige, as well as their belief in one God. Western part of Pakistan and Bangladesh still have many Budhist Monasteries to prove that one God-centered Budhism was widespread in these regions and these Budhists accepted Islam as their religion.



HAHAHAHA. Are you f*king kidding me? What about all the Islamic conquerers who destroyed the Buddhist monasteries and burnt all the libraries up in smoke that could be seen for hundreds of kilometers, who massacred all the Buddhist monks and chopped off the hands of those who refused to convert to Islam? 

And India has no Buddhist monasteries? India has FAR more Buddhist monasteries than Bangladesh+Pakistan combined, even today. What a load of crap.




> I understand, your Hindu mythology says that the MLECCHO Muslims forced the Hindus to accept Islam. It is less true, and more true is that mostly the Budhists accepted Islam willingly in Hindustan. I have read also a Bengali poem written in early 13th Century whereby the Budhists are praising Islam, how it has saved them from the Brahminical tyranny and how it is easy for them to understand one-god concept of Islam.



I can show you plenty of poems written by Hindus praising Buddha, by Buddhist praising Hindu gods, and I can also show you dozens of temples and places in India with images of Buddha and Hindu gods side by side. 
This is not MYTHOLOGY (i.e. the crap that they teach you in Bangladesh) but real HISTORY. 

One God? You dolt, as I said, Buddhists believe in ethical living, not God-worshipping.


----------



## PostColonial

ice_man said:


> how so did the country fall back under the moghuls? i think moghuls came and civilized the land and ended the constant battle amongst tribes.....and under moghuls arts,culture litreature progressed isn't that what the whole European Renaissance was all about ?



Constant battle between tribes? What mumbo-jumbo are you spouting buddy? 
Are you telling me that the Mughals didn't fight any wars? :lol" 

Sure, Mughals were great architects and had high taste in music and culture. They were a cultured lot, I'll give you that. But the damage they did to Indian sciences and progress is too deep to forgive. 

Infact, under the Mughals, North India was so backward and supersititious that even today the results are showing. South India which managed to hold of Mughal rule for a long period of time, is today the most prosperous, sees less of caste-conflict, and is much better in terms of science and development than the parts that were under Mughal rule.
Infact, there is a direct correlation between the backwardness of a place, and its length under Mughal rule. They are proportional to each other.


----------



## eastwatch

ice_man said:


> Pathans are a very large tribe....and they are closely related to the central asian people of khorasan.....for that matter people like SHARKUH,SALMAN,SAIF claim to be pathans...even irfan PATANS...or zaheer khan....
> 
> Khan is a name that was given to people who collaborated with the BRITISH.....just like the british made there servants wear clothing similar to moghuls in order to ridicule the culture...and heritage.....
> 
> so the so called "PATHAN" sample needs to be defined before researched on.


British title was 'Khan Bahadur' and for Hindus it was 'Roy Bahadur.' British had shown many ways to disrespect the natives of India. But, the family title Khan is not one of their gifts.

During the Muslim rule in India, only the very braves and big Mansabders were given this title either by the Delhi Badshah or by the Subedars. However, it could be that many of the receivers of this title belonged to the Pathan stock, because they were indeed braves. So, this title ultimately became a family title of the descendents of those who were bestowed with the title 'Khan.'

However, during and after the British period, all the Pathans started to use this title after their names. This is why people in the subcontinent think that a person with the title of 'Khan' is a Pathan, when, in fact, he may or may not be a pure blooded Pathan. 

Pathan Muslim immigrants who have been living in India and Bangladesh are certainly mixed blooded people, and some may not be Pathan at all. But, people in India think of them as Pathan. In BD nobody is aware that some people living among them with the family title of 'khan' are Pathan. Collectively, we regard ourselves as only Muslims of Bengal or Bangali Muslims.


----------



## TopCat

PostColonial said:


> Simplistic BS. Afghans were Buddhist and Hindu. Heard of Hindu-Shahi dynasty in Afghanistan?
> 
> Secondly, Buddhists don't believe in God you dolt. They believe in Dharma - path of righteousness, just like Hindus.
> 
> Thirdly are you telling me that all the Afghans and Bengalis were "sudras" lol. What about all the "sudras" in India, why didn't they convert to Buddhism? What a load of self-serving rubbish. Please tell your government to teach you real history instead of this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHA. Are you f*king kidding me? What about all the Islamic conquerers who destroyed the Buddhist monasteries and burnt all the libraries up in smoke that could be seen for hundreds of kilometers, who massacred all the Buddhist monks and chopped off the hands of those who refused to convert to Islam?
> 
> And India has no Buddhist monasteries? India has FAR more Buddhist monasteries than Bangladesh+Pakistan combined, even today. What a load of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you plenty of poems written by Hindus praising Buddha, by Buddhist praising Hindu gods, and I can also show you dozens of temples and places in India with images of Buddha and Hindu gods side by side.
> This is not MYTHOLOGY (i.e. the crap that they teach you in Bangladesh) but real HISTORY.
> 
> One God? You dolt, as I said, Buddhists believe in ethical living, not God-worshipping.



YOur ignorance can not change the fact. Eastwatch did not say say Bengalis were sudras but the other way around.
Bengal was the last frontier of Buddhism and the last ruler of Buddism ruled Bengal name Mahipal. By the end of Mahipal the whole India except Bengal were cleaned up and the remaining Buddhist all flocked in Bengal. Most of the Buddhist monasteries outside Bengal were taken over or destroyed by Hindus (ofcourse few still remained). Ohh by the way Bengal means current day Bangaldesh, WB and Bihar, Orissa which included Nalinda as well.
Buddhist were always in pressure in the western part of the kingdom and eventually they have more density in the the eastern side of the kingdom.
The end result was when Islam came to India, most ot the Buddhist converted to Muslim and eventually current day Bangladesh turned into Muslim majority and the only place within thousand miles where you can see that many Muslims.

PS: The library of Nalinda University was burnt by Khilji which is one of heinous thing he did on his way to Bengal. But he was a worrior anyways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

PostColonial said:


> Constant battle between tribes? What mumbo-jumbo are you spouting buddy?
> Are you telling me that the Mughals didn't fight any wars? :lol"
> 
> Sure, Mughals were great architects and had high taste in music and culture. They were a cultured lot, I'll give you that. But the damage they did to Indian sciences and progress is too deep to forgive.
> 
> Infact, under the Mughals, North India was so backward and supersititious that even today the results are showing. South India which managed to hold of Mughal rule for a long period of time, is today the most prosperous, sees less of caste-conflict, and is much better in terms of science and development than the parts that were under Mughal rule.
> Infact, there is a direct correlation between the backwardness of a place, and its length under Mughal rule. They are proportional to each other.


What ice_man was telling is that at the onset of Muslim rule that started in 1190 with the conquest of Delhi by the Khilji Turks from Afghanistan (Mughals came in 1526), India was not united as a nation State. There was provincialism and regionalism, and as a result, all the Maharajas were fighting each other. 

It symbolizes weak governance since there was no effective central govt. Muslim conquest changed that and India was united in a single nation-State, although it was not universal.


----------



## PostColonial

^What complete nonsense. You do love your fairytales, don't you?


----------



## PostColonial

eastwatch said:


> What ice_man was telling is that at the onset of Muslim rule that started in 1190 with the conquest of Delhi by the Khilji Turks from Afghanistan (Mughals came in 1526), India was not united as a nation State. There was provincialism and regionalism, and as a result, all the Maharajas were fighting each other.
> 
> It symbolizes weak governance since there was no effective central govt. Muslim conquest changed that and India was united in a single nation-State, although it was not universal.



Well that's true. Did I dispute that? 

However, I'd like to know what "Tribal Warfare" was going on


----------



## eastwatch

toxic_pus said:


> Buddhism doesn't have the concept of 'GOD' in sense that other religion perceives - omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-this and omni-that - let alone 'one god'. Buddhism is atheistic at best and pantheistic at worse.


Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does not bring 'Nirvana.'

But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma. 

Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'


----------



## PostColonial

^My friend, Buddhists in India (except perhaps the monks in the monasteries) have ALWAYS worshipped Hindu gods, even when they were technically "buddhists". 

The Hindu gods were always present in their lives, Buddhism wasn't as much a religion as a framework for ethical living, etc.


----------



## Halaku Khan

eastwatch said:


> Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does no bring 'Nirvana.'
> 
> But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.
> 
> Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'



Actually, Indic philosophies including Buddhism (which is a part of the larger Sanatana Dharma family) are, at the core, Monistic, and not Monotheistic. This is the difference between Buddhism and Advaita on one hand, and faiths like Islam on the other.

Understanding the difference between Monotheism and Monism, and understanding what is sometimes called "idol worship" will take us into deeper waters, and be off-topic on this thread.


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch said:


> Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does not bring 'Nirvana.'
> 
> But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.
> 
> Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'


'Atheism' is not believing in god, which Gautam Buddha did and preach. You are confusing 'spirituality' with 'atheism'. So better start reading on these aspects of Buddhism.

The concept of 'Brahma' itself is unique to Hinduism, and you can rest assured that Buddha didn't teach that he was 'Maha Brahma'. Anyway, can you give a citation of a Pali text that records Buddha making such a claim. I will be damned if you find one.

Last para is your usual BS.


----------



## Khajur

eastwatch said:


> Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does not bring 'Nirvana.'
> 
> But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.
> 
> *Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul*.'



What non sense ??
Stop spreading BS about things u've no idea.Its a old habit that dies hard i guess.

Buddhism is about living by certain principles belief tought by Buddha like non violence and renunciation of material life to *achieve the ultimatel goal of salvation or Nirvana*.


*Its not like one get converted to Buddism to lead a monastic life by discarding hindu drarma.*

*When Ashoka choose became a disiciple of a Buddist monk...he didnt say he was no more a hindu/Sanatana dharmi.No,all those Buddist monks remained within the hindu caste system though they led a life of a monk irrespectrive of caste.*

It Buddist philosophy that spreaded all over india as long as the rulers gave patronage to Buddist monks and its monasteries. still today one can be a hindu and practice buddist way of life.

Its only outside india where there is no prevalence of hindusim in like countires china,japan,vietanam of East Asia where its got the satatus of a distinct religion.

*"* Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is *'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul * *"*

*Wow, so they all converted to Islam and ofcourse destroyed all signs of Buddism like Stupa and monasteries from their lands*.

*Fact of the matter is with the muslim invasion in the middle ages ,Buddism dint get the state patronage like before to run its monasteries and educationcal centesr ran ultimately by people who were Sanata hindu dharmis by birth and slowly became extinct from india starting from current day AFPAK region. *


----------



## eastwatch

A religion starts like a cult, but the followers choose to move it away further to a distinct religion. It happened to Budhism and it also happened to Sikhism. When a cult spreads and is accepted by many, it then takes the form of a distinct religion. 

Your claim is unfounded that Budhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. In philosophy and in practice these two are distinct. Budhism has been allowed a forced death by the Brahmans in India, but it remains distinctly a religion in many other parts of asia.

Muslims surely did not patronage Budhism, but they are not responsible for its demise. It is the Hindu Brahmins who very fondly took care of that long before the arrival of Muslims.


----------



## Khajur

eastwatch said:


> Your claim is unfounded that Budhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. In philosophy and in practice these two are distinct.* Budhism has been allowed a forced death by the Brahmans in India, but it remains distinctly a religion in many other parts of asia*.



Hats off to u logic... Buddism which has been flourishing for many centuries from King Ashoka to Pala dynasty till 1000AD ,started to disappear starting from the AFPAK region coinciding the muslim invasion in to india frm the west and....u say its due to the forced death by the Brahmins...and u think its the Brahmins of the AFPAK(khamboja) region who destroyed the Buddha Stupas and monasteries and then converted to islam along with the Buddists.


"Muslims surely did not patronage Budhism, but they are not responsible for its demise. *It is the Hindu Brahmins who very fondly took care of that long before the arrival of Muslims*. "

Hello,check out the history of *pala dynasty *who were chief patrons of Buddism ruled till the 900AD in AFPAK((khamboja) ) region and till 1120AD in the areas of Bengal ,Assam including current day Bangladesh .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Devapala.jpg


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> Hats off to u logic... Buddism which has been flourishing for many centuries from King Ashoka to Pala dynasty till 1000AD ,started to disappear starting from the AFPAK region coinciding the muslim invasion in to india frm the west and....u say its due to the forced death by the Brahmins...and u think its the Brahmins of the AFPAK(khamboja) region who destroyed the Buddha Stupas and monasteries and then converted to islam along with the Buddists.
> 
> 
> "Muslims surely did not patronage Budhism, but they are not responsible for its demise. *It is the Hindu Brahmins who very fondly took care of that long before the arrival of Muslims*. "
> 
> Hello,check out the history of *pala dynasty *who were chief patrons of Buddism ruled till the 900AD in AFPAK((khamboja) ) region and till 1120AD in the areas of Bengal ,Assam including current day Bangladesh .
> 
> Fileevapala.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Talked about pala dynasty here.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/35113-akbar-other-mughals-12.html#post510163

Second you have to get some insight why out of nowhere Bengal became a Muslim majority region. All the answers lies here.


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> Talked about pala dynasty here.
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/35113-akbar-other-mughals-12.html#post510163
> 
> Second you have to get some insight why out of nowhere Bengal became a Muslim majority region. All the answers lies here.





> Bengal was the last frontier of Buddhism and the last ruler of Buddism ruled Bengal name Mahipal. By the end of Mahipal the whole India except Bengal were cleaned up and the remaining Buddhist all flocked in Bengal. Most of the Buddhist monasteries outside Bengal were taken over or destroyed by Hindus (ofcourse few still remained). Ohh by the way Bengal means current day Bangaldesh, WB and Bihar, Orissa which included Nalinda as well.
> Buddhist were always in pressure in the western part of the kingdom and eventually they have more density in the the eastern side of the kingdom.
> *The end result was when Islam came to India, most ot the Buddhist converted to Muslim *and eventually current day Bangladesh turned into Muslim majority and the only place within thousand miles where you can see that many Muslims.



Lets go by ur own logic:

But the the question is *why did those Buddist who were thriving for many centuries converted to Islam*??

What forced them to convert to islam *instead following their age old practice of Buddism as usual *??

*Its like they were waiting for the arrival of islam...*

*As u urself pointed out ,they were are Buddists ,not some lower cast hindus who got converted after long suffering the Caste biases prevelent in hindu religion...*

The fact remains Both hindu and Buddist were either lured or forced to join islam after muslims started to dominate india for long time ...some long resisted and remain hindu till today ,but others had a different destiny to carve.


----------



## TopCat

Well, If it were lower cast hindus then the whole India would have been a muslim majority by now or at least where lower cast were in large number like Bihar. 
There was a big reason for Buddhist to get converted to Islam. If you look at the conversion process in Bengal then you will know. It was not done in individual level but in a community level like converting the whole village at a time. Which suggest those were of the same kind of people who took shelter under the Islam.
Right after Pala dynasty the Senas (Bhramin) took over and they ruled for 200 or more years when it was belived that there were large scale subjugation on Buddhist. Also there was another big factor, when Buddhist lost control of power, the ordinary buddhist found themselves off guard. They were started treating like Sudras or lower caste in every social and administrative level.
Senas (the ruler of bengal that time) became so disconnected from its own people that only 18 soldiers of Khilji could defeat the last Sena king. He ran away, even historians never looked for him means where he gone afterwards.

After Senas defeat, there were smaller kings all over the places who used to rule smaller kingdom within Bengal and they were the most notorious of all. I should mention Shah Jalal the saint who basically spread Islam in Bengal were invited by a convert muslim in Sylhet who were tortured by then King Gour Govinda. Later Shah Jalal came and defeated that king and started preaching people.


----------



## nitesh28

Jana said:


> so the Mughals who were the outsiders who were infact central asians were Indians ??????????????  how did i miss that nitesh
> 
> 
> OMG



iguess i phrased my sentense wrong. bbut after being here for so many ears i guess they were indians

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> Well, If it were lower cast hindus then the whole India would have been a muslim majority by now or at least where lower cast were in large number like Bihar.
> There was a big reason for Buddhist to get converted to Islam. If you look at the conversion process in Bengal then you will know. It was not done in individual level but in a community level like converting the whole village at a time. Which suggest those were of the same kind of people who took shelter under the Islam.
> Right after Pala dynasty the Senas (Bhramin) took over and they ruled for 200 or more years when it was belived that there were large scale subjugation on Buddhist. Also there was another big factor, when Buddhist lost control of power, the ordinary buddhist found themselves off guard. They were started treating like Sudras or lower caste in every social and administrative level.
> Senas (the ruler of bengal that time) became so disconnected from its own people that only 18 soldiers of Khilji could defeat the last Sena king. He ran away, even historians never looked for him means where he gone afterwards.
> 
> After Senas defeat, there were smaller kings all over the places who used to rule smaller kingdom within Bengal and they were the most notorious of all. I should mention Shah Jalal the saint who basically spread Islam in Bengal were invited by a convert muslim in Sylhet who were tortured by then King Gour Govinda. Later Shah Jalal came and defeated that king and started preaching people.



I still believe no person in the world would change his own religion if tourtured by people of other religions ...*it would've logical to understand if some lower cast dalit changes his religion due to upper cast opression...*but why *Buddists would think up leaving Buddism even if they were tortured...by hindus*?? its very non plausible explanation.


----------



## nitesh28

ice_man said:


> lol asoka is the worst example you can give after the battle of kalinga he killed a 100,000 innocent people for no reason!!! he did so much of a blood bath that he himself got tired of it eventually and took up Buddhism!!
> 
> the moghuls gave you your cusinie they made all the small quarreling tribes unite under there banner!
> 
> under the moguls bloodshed was not a common practice.....



on a lighter note

if you think only mughlai is what all indian food is about then u dont know anything about indian food if i were to start naming indian dishes this form would become tooooooo long


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> I still believe no person in the world would change his own religion if tourtured by people of other religions ...*it would've logical to understand if some lower cast dalit changes his religion due to upper cast opression...*but why *Buddists would think up leaving Buddism even if they were tortured...by hindus*?? its very non plausible explanation.



Well Islam had its own apeal that time. Large scale conversion took place. Starting with buddhist, lower cast, sujugated people then as the Islam taken the dominance position the upper cast and well off people accepted Islam later on. So the end result is its Hindu and Buddist both regardless of cast accepted Islam in Bengal.


----------



## eastwatch

This is post #183 sent by iajdani:

Senas (the ruler of bengal that time) became so disconnected from its own people that only 18 soldiers of Khilji could defeat the last Sena king. He ran away, even historians never looked for him means where he gone afterwards.
[/QUOTE]
I must straighten some historical facts. The story of 17 Muslim soldiers taking over Hindu Bengal that has remaind popular among the Muslims of Bengal is half-true. In those days in Hindustan, a country was usually known in the name of its Capital City. In case of Bengal, it was called Gaud (GOUR). 

Raja Laxman Sen, because of old age, used to live much of his time in the temple town of Nadia and his eldest son Prince Biswarup Sen used to administer the country from Gaud on behalf of his King father. Instead of attacking a fortified Capital Gaud, Ikhtier Uddin Muhammed bin Bakhtier Khilji opted for attacking Nadia and capture the King.

In those days, Bengal/Bihar had hardly a population of more than 3 or 4 million. Most of the country was filled with jungles and marshes. Bakhtier hid his 10,000 to 12,000 horsemen somewhere in the jungles a little away from the City-palace with an instruction that they would move after receiving signals from the advance party. 

Bakhtier took 17 of his horsemen with him, who camouflaged themselves as merchants. They entered the main gate without creating any doubts because the soldiers guarding the gates were accustomed to the sight of foreign traders.

But, grasping the absence of a large number of troops in the City, Bakhtier sent signals to the Turkic force who were hiding in the jungles and started fighting the guards. The palace was taken, and the old, but very respectable King Laxman, left the City hurriedly in a fast moving rowboat. Within seconds, the rowboat was out of reach of the Turkish archers. 

I believe, there were many Turkic people who came and settled in Bengal after they built their kingdom here. But, this truth remains hidden underneath the story of 17 horsemen. Bakhtiar invaded Bengal from the nearby Bihar where many thousands of his Afghan Turkic countrymen had already migrated to work under him. 

Moreover, the entire north India was under the control of Afghan Turkic Kutubuddin Aibek, who was ruling this land from Delhi. Caravans were always moving from Delhi to Ghor in Afghanistan, bringing in the spouses and children of those Khilji Turks who had decided to settle in their dreamland HINDUSTAN.

Only two years after he took over Bengal, Bakhtier took 10,000 horsemen to invade Tibet and simultaneously sent another 4000 to 5,000 troops under two brothers named Shihab and Shahab to invade Jajnagar of Orissa. Moreover, he kept more or less an equal number of troops to administer and protect his Kingdom in Bengal and Bihar during his absence. It means, he had at least 30,000 to 40,000 able-bodied troops with him in Bengal. 

Considering that all the Muslims in those days were soldiers, it can be safely assumed that the number of Afghan Turkic population that came to Bengal was no less than 250,000 in number. It was a mass migration of people living in poor Afghanistan to a land of plenty. Many hundred thousands others chose to live in the northern India.

People wonder why suddenly, there are more Muslims in Bengal than it is in Delhi. I believe, conversion plus the reasons like that I have cited above are responsible for the increase of Muslim population in Bengal. Similar migration to Bengal happened during the entire Muslim period. 

Please refer to 1) Taj-ul-Nasiri written by Minhaj Uddin Siraj and 2) History of Bengal by Charles Stewart, and many other history books.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IBRIS

Ignorant people are taken in by the supposed dynasties judgement of thing that Astrologicaly distroys ones mind to the point where the athiest seems more of a saviour than the original saviour of the faith. This encourages the enemies and rivals to dominate the confused, the ordinary indavidual to the point where his judgements are viewed as a genious, perhaps someone should really realize the dragon is observing from above without the respect of ones faith or his views. All it takes for oppertunists to strike when the metal is hot. "Then he could bend it to what ever way he wantss it to be".


----------



## ice_man

PostColonial said:


> Constant battle between tribes? What mumbo-jumbo are you spouting buddy?
> Are you telling me that the Mughals didn't fight any wars? :lol"
> 
> Sure, Mughals were great architects and had high taste in music and culture. They were a cultured lot, I'll give you that. But the damage they did to Indian sciences and progress is too deep to forgive.
> 
> Infact, under the Mughals, North India was so backward and supersititious that even today the results are showing. South India which managed to hold of Mughal rule for a long period of time, is today the most prosperous, sees less of caste-conflict, and is much better in terms of science and development than the parts that were under Mughal rule.
> Infact, there is a direct correlation between the backwardness of a place, and its length under Mughal rule. They are proportional to each other.




ok what nonsense is this how can you be cultured and architecturally advanced and yet be lacking in science? and if the moghuls lacked in SCIENCE as you claim how come they kept winning in battles must be superior weaponry...means superior sciences that develop such weapons!!!! so before you tell me SOUTH is better than north please do your research correct!!! and like i said RENAISSANCE the great period in history of the west was when they got cultured so if you agree with me that moghuls were already cultured means they were modern in terms of everything...science music arts you name it!!!


----------



## ice_man

eastwatch said:


> British title was 'Khan Bahadur' and for Hindus it was 'Roy Bahadur.' British had shown many ways to disrespect the natives of India. But, the family title Khan is not one of their gifts.
> 
> During the Muslim rule in India, only the very braves and big Mansabders were given this title either by the Delhi Badshah or by the Subedars. However, it could be that many of the receivers of this title belonged to the Pathan stock, because they were indeed braves. So, this title ultimately became a family title of the descendents of those who were bestowed with the title 'Khan.'
> 
> However, during and after the British period, all the Pathans started to use this title after their names. This is why people in the subcontinent think that a person with the title of 'Khan' is a Pathan, when, in fact, he may or may not be a pure blooded Pathan.
> 
> Pathan Muslim immigrants who have been living in India and Bangladesh are certainly mixed blooded people, and some may not be Pathan at all. But, people in India think of them as Pathan. In BD nobody is aware that some people living among them with the family title of 'khan' are Pathan. Collectively, we regard ourselves as only Muslims of Bengal or Bangali Muslims.



exactly so my point is correct that when you talk about pathan's being true indian blood...then your sampling is incorrect!!! you are assuming mixed breed as true blood....or people who were just given the title KHAN....as being true blood!! 

true pathan blood could be traced back to the armies of khorasan and not indian by origin....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

ice_man said:


> exactly so my point is correct that when you talk about pathan's being true indian blood...then your sampling is incorrect!!! you are assuming mixed breed as true blood....or people who were just given the title KHAN....as being true blood!!
> 
> true pathan blood could be traced back to the armies of khorasan and not indian by origin....


Did you actually take your time to read this. The research was done in Pakistan on the basis of regional distribution of ethnic population and not on the basis of what some people use their surname as.

Really pathetic. Oh btw, there is not such thing as 'true blood'. And also, the research doesn't claim PATHANs to have originated in India. Read, understand and then post your rejoinder


----------



## ice_man

nitesh28 said:


> on a lighter note
> 
> if you think only mughlai is what all indian food is about then u dont know anything about indian food if i were to start naming indian dishes this form would become tooooooo long



lol buddy i know alot of indian food from dosas idli to sambaar!!! but hey mughali is the one the world knows about in terms of all the i guess chicken dishes or tandooris....


----------



## ice_man

toxic_pus said:


> Did you actually take your time to read this. The research was done in Pakistan on the basis of regional distribution of ethnic population and not on the basis of what some people use their surname as.
> 
> Really pathetic. Oh btw, there is not such thing as 'true blood'. And also, the research doesn't claim PATHANs to have originated in India. Read, understand and then post your rejoinder



no i lost myself half way through the jargon!!! but hey if its regional then again it comes down to settlers from different areas 

and what do you mean there is nothing as true blood isn't that concept gained from HINDUISM where hindu BRAHMAN are born Brahmans??? 



and besides why are we arguing atheists,Muslims and all kind of nonsense what about the main topic moghuls and stuff.....


----------



## toxic_pus

ice_man said:


> no i lost myself half way through the jargon!!! but hey if its regional then again it comes down to settlers from different areas


That results in, what is called 'intermingling'. Diversification of Genes happens that way and that is why, there is no such thing as 'true blood'.


> and what do you mean there is nothing as true blood isn't that concept gained from HINDUISM where hindu BRAHMAN are born Brahmans???


If this is your idea of flaming, then its not working on me. Try harder. Anybody can claim anything. That doesn't change reality.


> and besides why are we arguing atheists,Muslims and all kind of nonsense what about the main topic moghuls and stuff.....


Well, scroll back. You will find out.


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> I still believe no person in the world would change his own religion if tourtured by people of other religions ...*it would've logical to understand if some lower cast dalit changes his religion due to upper cast opression...*but why *Buddists would think up leaving Buddism even if they were tortured...by hindus*?? its very non plausible explanation.



I just came across this article.
The History of Ancient Bengal, Part 2
See how cast system and orthodox bhraminism was rejected by Bengalis to begin with. It was never accepted, so there is no question of lower caste people accepting Islam in large numbers.


----------



## Halaku Khan

iajdani said:


> I just came across this article.
> The History of Ancient Bengal, Part 2
> See how cast system and orthodox bhraminism was rejected by Bengalis to begin with. It was never accepted, so there is no question of lower caste people accepting Islam in large numbers.



That article relies on the Aryan invasion/migration theory, which has now been discredited by modern genetic studies. See The peopling of India - Pragati


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> I just came across this article.
> The History of Ancient Bengal, Part 2
> *See how cast system and orthodox bhraminism was rejected by Bengalis to begin with*. It was never accepted, so there is no question of lower caste people accepting Islam in large numbers.



First u assert, its the casteless Buddist majority of old Bengal till 1170 who flourished under Pala dynasty for several centuries... who later accepted islam...Now u say there were largre numbers of lower caste people accepted islam 

*Now the big question still unanswered why Buddist left their owm religion and converted to islam??*

*" *See how *cast system and orthodox bhraminism was rejected by Bengalis *to begin with "


Horse crap...dont forget there *are nearly six crores of Bengalis,very happy to be hindus who live in West Bengal*, besides some more in states like Tripura and else where including Bdesh.Infact there were so many hindu Benagalis out there ,that original Bengal was equally divided into two parts during the partition of india in 1947..


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> First u assert, its the casteless Buddist majority of old Bengal till 1170 who flourished under Pala dynasty for several centuries... who later accepted islam...Now u say there were largre numbers of lower caste people accepted islam
> 
> *Now the big question still unanswered why Buddist left their owm religion and converted to islam??*
> 
> *" *See how *cast system and orthodox bhraminism was rejected by Bengalis *to begin with "
> 
> 
> Horse crap...dont forget there *are nearly six crores of Bengalis,very happy to be hindus who live in West Bengal*, besides some more in states like Tripura and else where including Bdesh.Infact there were so many hindu Benagalis out there ,that original Bengal was equally divided into two parts during the partition of india in 1947..



Yes it was castless Buddhist who accepted the Islam as well as castfull hindus too. Once a Buddhist majority region (by the end of Mahipal) became Buddhist nil, where did those Buddha follower gone? Again by the end of Senas the region was Hindu majority yet a significant number of Buddhist remained who accepted Islam. 
Those Hindus who did not accpet Islam still remained as *Happy* Hindu under their cast system in Bangladesh, West Bengal and in reamining India.

My point was that the significant number of People in Bengal never accepted cast system brought about by Orthodox Bhraminism because Buddhism in this region was older than these cast system. 
Those enlightened people always ruled Bengal and later on accepted Islam as well.
Please refer to the article i posted above.


----------



## TopCat

Halaku Khan said:


> That article relies on the Aryan invasion/migration theory, which has now been discredited by modern genetic studies. See The peopling of India - Pragati



Ohh give me a break. I am equally proud of my both Davidian and Aryan root. Please refer that article somebody else who had a problem with their own root.


----------



## Nemesis

> That article relies on the Aryan invasion/migration theory, which has now been discredited by modern genetic studies. See The peopling of India - Pragati



What nonsense. The aryan migration theory has only been discredited by right wingers in India who seem to believe that everything originated from India. Aryans originated from Central Asia. All archaeological evidence suggests this. 

Reading this thread, i believe a lot of simplistic analysis has been done. While i agree with most points of PostColonial, his argument that India started declining under Mughal rule is too simplistic. 

Yes, it is true there was very little scientific research under the great Mughals, so what? Science is no yardstick to judge a civilization. Hell even the European renaissance began with works of literature and art. 

Under the Mughals, art, literature, architecture and trade flourished and major reforms in agriculture took place. It is only after Aurangzeb, India went into decline. Due to a combination of outrageously lavish spending by the later mughals and the constant wars they fought and the rise of European imperialism in India. 

About the European renaissance that some are using as an argument against the Mughals, they are sadly misinformed. The Renaissance in Europe was not a result of "great scientific institutions" - they were none in Europe during the time of the great Mughals ( 1526 -1658). (The royal society in England was established only in 1660). The renaissance in Europe was a direct result of the fall of the Byzantine empire. 

You see all the great intellectuals in Constantinople, rather than be killed by the Ottomans, decided to flee to Italy along with all important texts pertaining to the Roman empire. A rather wise choice. As a result Italy became the first nation to witness the "rebirth" of western civilization. Not patronage of scientific institutions by European monarchs or some sort of enlightenment they may have achieved during the middle ages, but rather fate/luck whatever you want to call it.

PS - To all those members who believe that India was developed by outsiders or civilization started in India after Muslim rule or some such rubbish, please read up real history. If you say such things outside your respective nations, you'll be laughed out of the building.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Halaku Khan

Nemesis said:


> What nonsense. The aryan migration theory has only been discredited by right wingers in India who seem to believe that everything originated from India. Aryans originated from Central Asia. All archaeological evidence suggests this.



Genetic diversity studies can indeed give a good idea about the direction of migrations. You seem to be unaware of the latest research. Even die-hard supporters of the Aryan Invasion theory have been forced to modify their stand. I will ignore your ad hominem remarks about "right wingers" etc.


----------



## Halaku Khan

iajdani said:


> Ohh give me a break. I am equally proud of my both Davidian and Aryan root. Please refer that article somebody else who had a problem with their own root.



There were various unscientific theories about Aryans that were proposed in the ninteenth century, but the scientific consensus has turned in the past few decades. 

It's not an issue of pride or lack thereof.


----------



## ice_man

LOL the funniest things is PAKISTANIS don't want to be classified as INDIAN we will go to any extent to prove WE are not like U....and U indians will do anything to try and make yourself be in the same genetics as US!


----------



## Nemesis

> Genetic diversity studies can indeed give a good idea about the direction of migrations. You seem to be unaware of the latest research. Even die-hard supporters of the Aryan Invasion theory have been forced to modify their stand. I will ignore your ad hominem remarks about "right wingers" etc.



Since i have no idea of the of the latest developments in Archaeo-genetics apparently - primarily a paper by Toomas Kivisild which is taken by members of the Hindu right in India and abroad as conclusive proof against Aryan migration - i will let experts refute it. Please feel free :- 

Recent Findings in Archaeogenetics and Aryan Migration Theory 

Some extracts - 



> *The study by Kivisild et al primarily focused on the question of the original migration of the human race from Africa some 50,000 years ago, and as such was not meant to determine the question of Aryan origin that is said to have happened around 3,500 years back.*





> *The above summary and attached documents are provided to demonstrate the selective promotion of research material by the supporters of Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation and the suppression of other, more recently available research that undermines their thesis is reflective of their priorities in promoting their ideological agendas over a factual, methodical and unbiased study of history. Further, this desire by VF/HEF supporters to prove by any means that Aryans are indigenous people directly relate to their contemporary political agenda back in India of distinguishing the indigenous Aryan Hindus from foreign Muslim and Christian invaders and thereby characterizing Indias Muslim and Christian minorities as traitors that need to be marginalized and persecuted.*



Yes, clearly I'm not informed of the "latest developments". Kindly drink the right wing kool aid somewhere else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nemesis

> LOL the funniest things is PAKISTANIS don't want to be classified as INDIAN we will go to any extent to prove WE are not like U....and U indians will do anything to try and make yourself be in the same genetics as US!



That's probably because you - *yes you*, please don't generalize your entire populace - suffer from an acute case of inferiority complex. That mixed with brainwashing and reading half-baked history has led to your delusions.


----------



## eastwatch

ice_man said:


> LOL the funniest things is PAKISTANIS don't want to be classified as INDIAN we will go to any extent to prove WE are not like U....and U indians will do anything to try and make yourself be in the same genetics as US!



In a greater Hindustani empire, Afghanistan was always included in it. Like most other Provinces of Hindustan, Afghans also took care not to be mixed up genetically by marrying people from other areas. Even then, Afghanistan was a part of Hindustan. The area that comprises Pakistan was always a part of Hindustan - united or not - in the old time. 

Today, the subcontinent is divided into three. But, many times it was divided into thirty. But, in union or in division we all remain basically Hindustani. We all have a shared history of many centuries and a separate history of only 60 years. Why to emphasize more on 60 years and less on many centuries?


----------



## Spring Onion

ice_man said:


> LOL the funniest things is PAKISTANIS don't want to be classified as INDIAN we will go to any extent to prove WE are not like U....and U indians will do anything to try and make yourself be in the same genetics as US!



This is very simple ice. Most of the Punjabi Pakistanis have Indian roots. 

Whereas NWFP has no link with any Indian roots. We are Aryans.


I dont know much about Sindh's natives so cant comment without research.


Most of the Indians try to claim that they are Aryans whereas they are not.


On a last note: whenever you become a Muslim there is no question of inferriority or superiority. We are equal simple as that and thats something which distinguish Islam from Hinduism.


----------



## TopCat

ice_man said:


> LOL the funniest things is PAKISTANIS don't want to be classified as INDIAN we will go to any extent to prove WE are not like U....and U indians will do anything to try and make yourself be in the same genetics as US!



No you are not right as Pakistani always consider themselves as being Indian with Arabian connection in them. Even Iranian sometimes try to show their Indian connection.


----------



## toxic_pus

Jana said:


> This is very simple ice. Most of the Punjabi Pakistanis have Indian roots.
> 
> *Whereas NWFP has no link with any Indian roots. We are Aryans.*
> 
> 
> I dont know much about Sindh's natives so cant comment without research.
> 
> 
> Most of the Indians try to claim that they are Aryans whereas they are not.
> 
> 
> On a last note: whenever you become a Muslim there is no question of inferriority or superiority. We are equal simple as that and thats something which distinguish Islam from Hinduism.


Something for you to chew on.(Posted earlier)

In 2001-02 Mr Raheel Qamar et.al studied the y-chromosomal DNA variations among various ethnic groups of Pakistan. They studied  718 persons from 12 ethnic groups, including Pathans. They made certain interesting discoveries. They found, that there are 5 haplogroups that are common among almost all Pakistanis. Haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9 constitute about 79&#37; of Pakistani population. Since these haplogroups are &#8220;frequent in western Asia and Europe but not in China or Japan&#8221;, it means that &#8220;Pakistani populations mostly cluster around a pooled South Asian sample and lie close to a Middle Eastern sample&#8221;. The reason, however is &#8220;because Y variation in many areas of the world is predominantly structured by geography, not by language or ethnic affiliation&#8221;. The fifth common Haplogroup is Haplogroup 28 and is found among 14% of Pakistani population. 

It is this Haplogroup 28 that is your &#8216;Indian connection&#8217; or in your words &#8216;Indian/Hindu blood&#8217;. It is found in 30% of Indian and as one goes to the west, it gradually decreases (Pakistan &#8211; 14%, Tajikistan &#8211; 10%, Uzbekistan &#8211; 3%), finally almost disappearing in Europe (Russia &#8211; 0.4%, Caucasus &#8211; 1.4%). 

But where do Pathans stand in all this. Well, bang in the middle. About 13% of Pathans show presence of Hap 28, which is almost the national average.[_Look for Chart F and code PKH_] The only ethnic groups that show some isolation and are pretty distinct are the Hazaras, not the Pathans. Although Hazaras and Pathans have more affinity to West Asians, Pathans are still as much &#8216;Indian&#8217; as any other Pakistani is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nemesis

> Whereas NWFP has no link with any Indian roots. We are Aryans.
> most of the Indians try to claim that they are Aryans whereas they are not.



 

Okay i know i'm going to regret this, but can you back up what you say with genetic research which have been accepted by the international community?


----------



## TopCat

Jana said:


> This is very simple ice. Most of the Punjabi Pakistanis have Indian roots.
> 
> Whereas NWFP has no link with any Indian roots. We are Aryans.
> 
> 
> I dont know much about Sindh's natives so cant comment without research.
> 
> 
> Most of the Indians try to claim that they are Aryans whereas they are not.
> 
> 
> On a last note: whenever you become a Muslim there is no question of inferriority or superiority. We are equal simple as that and thats something which distinguish Islam from Hinduism.



There is nothing called Aryan in modern days and Aryan is no way a better race. When Indus Valley civilization fell, people with lighter skin from central asia migrated to India for better living who were called Aryan at the begining. Later some sort of Cast system were introduced which incoroporated Aryan and native Indian in it including higher and lower cast. But a lot of darker skin people with traditional occoupation were left behind and were considered sudras later on. So a lot of people like you now a days consider themselves as being in blue blood because of human made mistake which was done 2 and half thousand years ago. Just get a lif.


----------



## Halaku Khan

Nemesis said:


> Yes, clearly I'm not informed of the "latest developments". Kindly drink the right wing kool aid somewhere else.



Tch tch ... I would recommend a more detached and scientific temper. The source you cite is from a polemical website that shrieks about "Hindutva hatred". You seem to be a bird of a similar feather.


----------



## Khajur

edited......off topic


----------



## Nemesis

> Tch tch ... I would recommend a more detached and scientific temper. The source you cite is from a polemical website that shrieks about "Hindutva hatred". You seem to be a bird of a similar feather.



cough***cop out***cough

and here i was expecting you to refute the sources i stated with evidence. Sigh, why do i get my hopes up with you lot.


----------



## Halaku Khan

Khajur said:


> *Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations
> *


*

That study is a bit dated ... 2001 ... there are more recent studies that do a much more detailed study of paternal DNA lineages, and come to a very different conclusion. Will post later.*


----------



## Halaku Khan

GENETICS AND THE ARYAN DEBATE 
By Michel Danino



Background 
Along with the birth of anthropology, the nineteenth century saw the development of semi-scientific to wholly unscientific disciplines, such as anthropometry, craniometry or phrenology. Unquestioningly accepting the prevalent concept of race, some scientists constructed facial and nasal indexes or claimed to measure the skulls volume for every race, of course with the result that the white races cranium was the most capacious and its owner, therefore, the most intelligent; others went further, insisting that amidst the white race, only the Germans were the pure descendants of the Aryan race which was destined the rule the earth.

In India, from 1891 onward, Herbert H. Risley, an official with the colonial government, set about defining in all seriousness 2,378 castes belonging to 43 races, all of it on the basis of a nasal index. The main racial groups were Indo-Aryan, Turko- Iranian, Scytho-Dravidian, Aryo-Dravidian, Mongoloid and Mongolo-Dravidian.

Unfortunately, this imaginative but wholly unscientific work weighed heavily on the first developments of Indian anthropology; in the 1930s, for instance, B. S. Guha studied skeletons from Mohenjo-daro and submitted a detailed report on the proto- Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid and Alpine races peopling the city, all of them non-Aryan of course. Long lists of such fictitious races filled academic publications, and continue to be found in Indian textbooks today. 

In the wake of World War II, the concept of race collapsed in the West. Rather late in the day, anthropologists realized that race cannot be scientifically defined, much less measured, thus setting at naught a whole century of scholarly divagations on superior and inferior races. Following in the footsteps of pioneers like Franz Boas,1 leading scientists, such as Ashley Montagu,2 now argued strongly against the fallacy of race. It is only with the emergence of more reliable techniques in biological anthropology that anthropometry got a fresh chance; it concentrated not on trying to categorize noses or spot races, but on tracing the evolution of a population, on signs of continuity or disruption, and on possible kinships between neighbouring populations.

In the Indian context, we are now familiar with the work of U.S anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.3 Their chief conclusion, as far as the Aryan debate is concerned, is that there is no trace of demographic disruption in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period. 

Die-hard proponents of such an invasion / migration have therefore been compelled to downscale it to a trickle-in infiltration,4 limited enough to have left no physical trace, although they are at pains to explain how a trickle was able to radically alter Indias linguistic and cultural landscape when much more massive invasions of the historical period failed to do so.5 Other proponents still insist that the Indo-Aryan immigrants seem to have been numerous and strong enough to continue and disseminate much of their culture,6 but do not explain how the immigrants failed to leave any trace in the anthropological record. 

A powerful new tool 

In the 1980s, another powerful tool of inquiry came on the scene: genetics, with its growing ability to read the history contained in a human bodys three billion bits of information. In particular, techniques used in the identification of genetic markers have been fast improving, leading to a wide array of applications, from therapeutics to crime detection to genealogy. Let us first summarize the basic definitions relevant to our field. 

*In trying to reconstruct ancestry, biologists use two types of DNA, the complex molecule that carries genetic information. The first, Y-DNA, is contained in the Y- chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes; it is found in the cells nucleus and is transmitted from father to son. The second, mtDNA or mitochondrial DNA, is found in mitochondria, kinds of power generators found in a cell, but outside its nucleus; this mtDNA is independent of the Y-DNA, simpler in structure, and transmitted by the mother alone. For various reasons, all this genetic material undergoes slight alterations or mutations in the course of time; those mutations then become characteristic of the line of descendants: if, for instance, the mtDNAs of two humans, however distant geographically, exhibit the same mutation, they necessarily share a common ancestor in the maternal line. 

Much of the difficulty lies in organizing those mutations, or genetic markers, in consistent categories called haplotypes (from a Greek word meaning single), which constitute an individuals genetic fingerprint. Similar haplotypes are then brought together in haplogroups, each of which genetically identifies a particular ethnic group. Such genetic markers can then be used to establish a genetic distance between two populations. *

Identifying and making sense of the right genetic markers is not the only difficulty; dating their mutations remains a major challenge: on average, a marker of Y- DNA may undergo one mutation every 500 generations, but sudden changes caused by special circumstances can never be ruled out. Genetics, therefore, needs the inputs from palaeontology and archaeology, among other disciplines, to confirm its historical conclusions. 

Indias case 

Since the 1990s, there have been numerous genetic studies of Indian populations, often reaching apparently divergent conclusions. There are three reasons for this: (1) the Indian region happens to be one of the most diverse and complex in the world, which makes it difficult to interpret the data; (2) early studies relied on too limited samples, of the order of a few dozens, when hundreds or ideally thousands of samples are required for some statistical reliability; (3) some of the early studies fell into the old trap of trying to equate linguistic groups with distinct ethnic entities  a relic of the nineteenth-century erroneous identification between language and race; as a result, a genetic connection between North Indians and Central Asians was automatically taken to confirm an Aryan invasion in the second millennium BCE, disregarding a number of alternative explanations.7 

More recent studies, using larger samples and much refined methods of analysis, both at the conceptual level and in the laboratory, have reached very different conclusions (interestingly, some of their authors had earlier gone along with the old Aryan paradigm8). We will summarize here the chief results of nine studies from various Western and Indian Universities, most of them conducted by international teams of biologists, and more than half of them in the last three years; since their papers are complex and technical, what follows is, necessarily, highly simplified and represents only a small part of their content. 

The first such study dates back to 1999 and was conducted by the Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, a pioneer in the field, with fourteen co-authors from various nationalities (including M. J. Bamshad).9 It relied on 550 samples of mtDNA and identified a haplogroup called U as indicating a deep connection between Indian and Western-Eurasian populations. However, the authors opted for a very remote separation of the two branches, rather than a recent population movement towards India; in fact, the subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward migration of modern humans from Africa, some 40,000 years ago: 
We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.

In other words, the timescale posited by the Aryan invasion / migration framework is inadequate, and the genetic affinity between the Indian subcontinent and Europe should not be interpreted in terms of a recent admixture of western Caucasoids10 with Indians caused by a putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,0004,000 years BP. 

The second study was published just a month later. Authored by U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell,11 it dealt with the first migration of modern man from Africa towards Asia, and found that migrations into India did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations. Disotell made observations very similar to those of the preceding paper:


The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,0004,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the caucasoid features of south Asians may best be considered pre-caucasoid  that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.


Here again, the Eurasian connection is therefore traced to the original migration out of Africa. On the genetic level, the supposed Aryan invasion of India 3000-4000 years ago was much less significant than is generally believed. 

A year later, thirteen Indian scientists led by Susanta Roychoudhury studied 644 samples of mtDNA from some ten Indian ethnic groups, especially from the East and South.12 They found a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Significantly, most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation. That is a crucial observation, which later studies will endorse: on the maternal side at least, there is no such thing as a Hindu or Muslim genetic identity, nor even a high- or low-caste one, a North- or South-Indian one  hence the expressive title of the study: Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA. 

The authors also noted that haplogroup U, already noted by Kivisild et al. as being common to North Indian and Caucasoid populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of the invasion: in reality, we have now shown that indeed haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. We have also shown that the tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations. 

Also in 2000, twenty authors headed by Kivisild contributed a chapter to a book on the archaeogenetics of Europe.13 They first stressed the importance of the mtDNA haplogroup M common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is inconsistent with the general Caucasoidness of Indians. 

This shows, once again, that the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene. The authors then studied the U haplogroup, finding its frequency to be 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia; but, in their opinion, Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits. In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought. 

Another important point is that looking at mtDNA as a whole, even the high castes share more than 80 per cent of their maternal lineages with the lower castes and tribals; this obviously runs counter to the invasionist thesis. Taking all aspects into consideration, the authors conclude: We believe that there are now enough reasons not only to question a recent Indo-Aryan invasion into India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a part of the common gene pool ancestral to the diversity of human maternal lineages in Europe. Mark the word ancestral. 

After a gap of three years, Kivisild directed two fresh studies. The first, with nine 
colleagues, dealt with the origin of languages and agriculture in India.14 Those biologists stressed Indias genetic complexity and antiquity, since present-day Indians [possess] at least 90 per cent of what we think of as autochthonous Upper Palaeolithic maternal lineages. They also observed that the Indian mtDNA tree in general [is] not subdivided according to linguistic (Indo-European, Dravidian) or caste affiliations, which again demonstrates the old error of conflating language and race or ethnic group. 

Then, in a new development, they punched holes in the methodology followed by studies basing themselves on the Y-DNA (the paternal line) to establish the Aryan invasion, and point out that if one were to extend their logic to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against misleading interpretations based on limited samples and faulty methodology. 

The second study of 2003, a particularly detailed one dealing with the genetic heritage of Indias earliest settlers, had seventeen co-authors with Kivisild (including L. Cavalli-Sforza and P. A. Underhill), and relied on nearly a thousand samples from the subcontinent, including two Dravidian-speaking tribes from Andhra Pradesh.15 Among other important findings, it stressed that the Y-DNA haplogroup M17, regarded till recently as a marker of the Aryan invasion, and indeed frequent in Central Asia, is equally found in the two tribes under consideration, which is inconsistent with the invasionist framework. Moreover, one of the two tribes, the Chenchus, is genetically close to several castes, so that there is a lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes, a fact that can hardly be overemphasized. 







*This also emerges from a diagram of genetic distances between eight Indian and seven Eurasian populations, distances calculate on the basis of 16 Y-DNA haplogroups (Fig. 1). The diagram challenges many common assumptions: as just mentioned, five castes are grouped with the Chenchus; another tribe, the Lambadis (probably of Rajasthani origin), is stuck between Western Europe and the Middle East; Bengalis of various castes are close to Mumbai Brahmins, and Punjabis (whom one would have thought to be closest to the mythical Aryans) are as far away as possible from Central Asia! It is clear that no simple framework can account for such complexity, least of all the Aryan invasion / migration framework. *
The next year, Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzed 796 Indian (including both tribal and caste populations from different parts of India) and 436 Iranian mtDNAs.16 Of relevance here is the following observation, which once again highlights the pitfalls of any facile ethnic-linguistic equation: 
Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more autochthonous than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.

We finally jump to 2006 and end with two studies. The first was headed by Indian biologist Sanghamitra Sengupta and involved fourteen other co-authors, including L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill.17 Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists, i.e. of the mythical Indo- Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, *the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an Indo- European expansion, an identification they called convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic. To them, the subcontinents genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages. This is also highly suggestive (the R1a lineages being a different way to denote the haplogroup M17). 

Finally, and significantly, this study indirectly rejected a Dravidian authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, since it noted, Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus.... They found, in conclusion, overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers. *

Another Indian biologist, Sanghamitra Sahoo, headed eleven colleagues, including T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap, for a study of the Y-DNA of 936 samples covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them tribes.18 The authors left no room for doubt:

*The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian- specific lineages northward.*

So the southward gene flow that had been imprinted on our minds for two centuries was wrong, after all: the flow was out of, not into, India. The authors continue:

*The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.*


The last of the two rejected associations is that of the Indo-Aryan expansion; the first, that of the spread of agriculture, is the well-known thesis of Colin Renfrew,19 which traces Indo-European origins to the beginnings of agriculture in Anatolia, and sees Indo-Europeans entering India around 9000 BP, along with agriculture: Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. see no evidence of this in the genetic record. 
*The same data allow the authors to construct an eloquent table of genetic distances between several populations, based on Y-haplogroups (Fig. 2). We learn from it, for instance, that the caste populations of north and south India are not particularly more closely related to each other (average Fst value = 0.07) than they are to the tribal groups (average Fst value = 0.06), an important confirmation of earlier studies. In particular, Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions. As a result, it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools, a momentous conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan paradigm, which imagined Indian tribes as adivasis and the caste Hindus as descendants of Indo-Aryans invaders or immigrants.*

In reality, we have no way, today, to determine who in India is an adi-vasi, but enough data to reject this label as misleading and unnecessarily divisive.






Conclusions 

It is, of course, still possible to find genetic studies trying to interpret differences between North and South Indians or higher and lower castes within the invasionist framework, but that is simply because they take it for granted in the first place. None of the nine major studies quoted above lends any support to it, and none proposes to define a demarcation line between tribe and caste. The overall picture emerging from these studies is, first, an unequivocal rejection of a 3500-BP arrival of a Caucasoid or Central Asian gene pool. Just as the imaginary Aryan invasion / migration left no trace in Indian literature, in the archaeological and the anthropological record, it is invisible at the genetic level. The agreement between these different fields is remarkable by any standard, and offers hope for a grand synthesis in the near future, which will also integrate agriculture and linguistics. 

Secondly, they account for Indias considerable genetic diversity by using a time- scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 or 50,000 years. In fact, several experts, such as Lluís Quintana-Murci,20 Vincent Macaulay,21 Stephen Oppenheimer,22 Michael Petraglia,23 and their associates, have in the last few years proposed that when Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: 

*indeed, nearly all Europeans  and by extension, many Americans  can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia. 24 

Oppenheimer, a leading advocate of this scenario, summarizes it in these words:

For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a male Aryan invasion of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.25*



We will not call it, of course, an Indian invasion of Europe; in simple terms, India acted as an incubator of early genetic differentiation of modern humans moving out of Africa.26 

Genetics is a fast-evolving discipline, and the studies quoted above are certainly not the last word; but they have laid the basis for a wholly different perspective of Indian populations, and it is most unlikely that we will have to abandon it to return to the crude racial nineteenth-century fallacies of Aryan invaders and Dravidian autochthons. Neither have any reality in genetic terms, just as they have no reality in archaeological or cultural terms. In this sense, genetics is joining other disciplines in helping to clean the cobwebs of colonial historiography. If some have a vested interest in patching together the said cobwebs so they may keep cluttering our history textbooks, they are only delaying the inevitable. 
* 

References & Notes 


1 
Franz Boas, Race, Language and Culture (New York: Macmillan, 1912). 
2 
Ashley Montagu, Mans most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race (New York: Columbia 
University Press, 1942). 
3 
Let us mention three important papers: (1) B. E. Hemphill, J. R. Lukacs & K. A. R. Kennedy, 
Biological adaptations and affinities of the Bronze Age Harappans, in Harappa 
Excavations 1986-1990: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism, ed. 
R. H. Meadow (Madison: Prehistory Press, 1991), pp. 137-182. (2) Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, 
Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia? in The 
Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. George Erdosy (Berlin & New York: Walter de 
Gruyter, 1995), pp. 32-66. (3) Brian E. Hemphill, Alexander F. Christensen & S. I. 
Mustafakulov, Trade or Travel: An Assessment of Interpopulational Dynamics among 
Bronze Age Indo-Iranian Populations, South Asian Archaeology, 1995, ed. Raymond 
Allchin & Bridget Allchin (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing, 1997), vol. 2, pp. 855- 
871. 
4 
See for instance Michael Witzel, Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian 
and Iranian Texts, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, vol. 7 (2001), No. 3 (25 May), § 8. 
5 
For a fuller discussion of this and other paradoxes of the Aryan invasion theory, see Michel 
Danino, LInde et linvasion de nulle part: le dernier repaire du mythe aryen (Paris: Les 
Belles Lettres, 2006), forthcoming in English as The Invasion That Never Was, 3rd ed. 
6 
Ram Sharan Sharma, Advent of the Aryans in India (New Delhi: Manohar, 2001), p. 52. 
7 
See a few examples in The Indian Human Heritage, ed. D. Balasubramanian & N. Appaji 
Genetics and the Aryan Debate / p. 12 


Rao (Hyderabad: Universities Press, 1998). 
8 
This is the case of L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, of Stanford University, co-author of a classic work 
which, as regards India, did not dare to question the invasionist framework: L. L. Cavalli- 
Sforza, P. Menozzi & A. Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 1994); twelve years later, Cavalli-Sforza co-authored two papers 
that rejected this framework, see notes 15 & 17 below. Another case is that of the Indian 
biologist Partha P. Majumder (see notes 12 & 17 below). 
9 
T. Kivisild, M. J. Bamshad, K. Kaldma, M. Metspalu, E. Metspalu, M. Reidla, S. Laos, J. 
Parik, W. S. Watkins, M. E. Dixon, S. S. Papiha, S. S. Mastana, M. R. Mir, V. Ferak, R. 
Villems, Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA 
lineages in Current Biology, 18 November 1999, 9(22):1331-4. (Most of the articles quoted 
in this paper are available on the Internet; to locate them, enter their full title in a good search 
engine.) 
10 
Caucasoid is a nineteenth-century term for a member of the white race, coined at a time 
when the Caucasus was thought to be the homeland of the Indo-Europeans. The term has no 
scientific meaning but has stuck, and is still used occasionally by biologists, although, as 
further quotations will show, often within quotation marks, as a reminder of its inadequacy. 
11 
T. R. Disotell, Human evolution: the southern route to Asia in Current Biology, vol. 9, No. 
24, 16 December 1999, pp. R925-928(4). 
12 
Susanta Roychoudhury, Sangita Roy, Badal Dey, Madan Chakraborty, Monami Roy, Bidyut 
Roy, A. Ramesh, N. Prabhakaran, M. V. Usha Rani, H. Vishwanathan, Mitashree Mitra, 
Samir K. Sil & Partha P. Majumder, Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is revealed 
by analysis of mitochondrial DNA, Current Science, vol. 79, No. 9, 10 November 2000, pp. 
1182-1192. 
13 
Toomas Kivisild, Surinder S. Papiha, Siiri Rootsi, Jüri Parik, Katrin Kaldma, Maere Reidla, 
Sirle Laos, Mait Metspalu, Gerli Pielberg, Maarja Adojaan, Ene Metspalu, Sarabjit S. 
Mastana, Yiming Wang, Mukaddes Golge, Halil Demirtas, Eckart Schnakenberg, Gian 
Franco de Stefano, Tarekegn Geberhiwot, Mireille Claustres & Richard Villems, An Indian 
Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond, ch. 31 of 
Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe, ed. Colin Renfrew & Katie 
Boyle (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000), pp. 267-275. 
14 
Toomas Kivisild, Siiri Rootsi, Mait Metspalu, Ene Metspalu, Juri Parik, Katrin Kaldma, 
Esien Usanga, Sarabjit Mastana, Surinder S. Papiha & Richard Villems, The Genetics of 
Language and Farming Spread in India, ch. 17 in Examining the farming/language 
dispersal hypothesis, eds. Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (Cambridge: McDonald Institute 
for Archaeological Research, 2003), pp. 215222. Italics in one of the quotations are in the 
original. 
15 
T. Kivisild, S. Rootsi, M. Metspalu, S. Mastana, K. Kaldma, J. Parik, E. Metspalu, M. 
Adojaan, H.-V. Tolk, V. Stepanov, M. Gölge, E. Usanga, S. S. Papiha, C. Cinnioglu, R. King, 
L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. A. Underhill & R. Villems, The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest 
Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations, American Journal of Human 
Genetics and the Aryan Debate / p. 13 


Genetics 72(2):313-32, 2003. 
16 
Mait Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, Ene Metspalu, Jüri Parik, Georgi Hudjashov, Katrin 
Kaldma, Piia Serk, Monika Karmin, Doron M Behar, M Thomas P Gilbert, Phillip Endicott, 
Sarabjit Mastana, Surinder S. Papiha, Karl Skorecki, Antonio Torroni & Richard Villem, 
Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped 
during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans, BMC Genetics 
2004, 5:26. 
17 
Sanghamitra Sengupta, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Roy King, S. Q. Mehdi, Christopher A. 
Edmonds, Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow, Alice A. Lin, Mitashree Mitra, Samir K. Sil, A. 
Ramesh, M. V. Usha Rani, Chitra M. Thakur, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, & 
Peter A. Underhill, Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome 
Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal 
Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists, American Journal of Human 
Genetics, February 2006; 78(2):202-21. (Italics in one of the quotations are mine.) 
18 
Sanghamitra Sahoo, Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali 
Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, & 
V. K. Kashyap, A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion 
scenarios, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 24 January 2006, vol. 103, 
No. 4, pp. 843848. (Italics in one of the quotations are mine.) 
19 
Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London: 
Penguin Books, 1989). 
20 
Lluís Quintana-Murci, Raphaëlle Chaix, R. Spencer Wells, Doron M. Behar, Hamid Sayar, 
Rosaria Scozzari, Chiara Rengo, Nadia Al-Zahery, Ornella Semino, A. Silvana Santachiara- 
Benerecetti, Alfredo Coppa, Qasim Ayub, Aisha Mohyuddin, Chris Tyler-Smith, S. Qasim 
Mehdi, Antonio Torroni, & Ken McElreavey, Where West Meets East: The Complex 
mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor, American Journal of 
Human Genetics 74(5):827-45, May 2004. 
21 
Vincent Macaulay, Catherine Hill, Alessandro Achilli, Chiara Rengo, Douglas Clarke, 
William Meehan, James Blackburn, Ornella Semino, Rosaria Scozzari, Fulvio Cruciani, Adi 
Taha, Norazila Kassim Shaari,6 Joseph Maripa Raja, Patimah Ismail, Zafarina Zainuddin, 
William Goodwin, David Bulbeck, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Stephen Oppenheimer, Antonio 
Torroni, Martin Richards, Single, Rapid Coastal Settlement of Asia Revealed by Analysis of 
Complete Mitochondrial Genomes, Science 13 May 2005, vol. 308, No. 5724, pp. 1034-36. 
22 
Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve: Modern Mans Journey out of Africa (New York: 
Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003). See an introduction to Oppenheimers theory on the 
website: 
Bradshaw Foundation - | Rock Art | Cave Art Paintings | Archaeology | Anthropology |. 
23 
Hannah V. A. James & Michael D. Petraglia, Modern Human Origins and the Evolution of 
Behavior in the Later Pleistocene Record of South Asia, Current Anthropology vol. 46, 
Supplement, December 2005, pp. S3-S27. 
Genetics and the Aryan Debate / p. 14 

24 
William F. Allman, Eve Explained: How Ancient Humans Spread Across the Earth (on the 
website of Discovery Channel, 21 August 2004). 
25 
Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve, op. cit., p. 152. 
26 
See note 15 above.


----------



## Halaku Khan

^^^ The interesting thing is, that if you do a careful and detailed *paternal* DNA analysis, the people of the Brahmin caste are much closer to Sri Lankans than they are to Europeans!


----------



## Khajur

Halaku Khan said:


> ^^^ The interesting thing is, that if you do a careful and detailed *paternal* DNA analysis, the people of the Brahmin caste are much closer to Sri Lankans than they are to Europeans!




well,most Srilankans hardly look like avg Brahmin caste of north india ..even some south indian Saraswat Brahmins are most fair skinned of all south asian with light eyes, for that matter.*And its compares linguistic ethinic groups like Bengali,Gujarati to Caste groups like Brahmins*.Also *Brahmins are diverse group of people with many sub groups.*


*BTW,ur article mostly debunks the Aryan invasion theory and instead say its the indians M17 who actually went to Eurpore ...sort of reverse indian invasion of Europe.*

konkani Brahmins....Ajit agarkar, Aditi gowitrikar and Archana joglekar...
















contrast:same konkani Brahmins, Ashutosh gowarikar and Sanjay manjrekar can pass off as Srilankans











*PS:I personally dont believe in Aryan invasion of 3000BCE-4000BCE is true...its perhaps resultds of migrations for over tens of thousands of yrs ...* ...and pics are only inteneded to showcase radical indian genetic diversity ,that too among a small brahmin group ,not to assert anything beyond that.Period.


----------



## Halaku Khan

Khajur said:


> well,most Srilankans hardly look like avg Brahmin caste of north india ..even some south indian Saraswat Brahmins are most fair skinned of all south asian with light eyes, for that matter.*And its compares linguistic ethinic groups like Bengali,Gujarati to Caste groups like Brahmins*.Also *Brahmins are diverse group of people with many sub groups.*
> 
> 
> *BTW,ur article mostly debunks the Aryan invasion theory and instead say its the indians M17 who actually went to Eurpore ...sort of reverse indian invasion of Europe.*



True, Brahmins are not homogenous. The diagram shows that Konkanastha Brahmins (from the Maharashtra coast) are paternally much closer to Sri Lankans than they are to Europeans.

Yes, the Aryan invasion theory has pretty much been discarded, except by fringe polemical groups.


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> well,most Srilankans hardly look like avg Brahmin caste of north india ..even some south indian Saraswat Brahmins are most fair skinned of all south asian with light eyes, for that matter.*And its compares linguistic ethinic groups like Bengali,Gujarati to Caste groups like Brahmins*.Also *Brahmins are diverse group of people with many sub groups.*
> 
> 
> *BTW,ur article mostly debunks the Aryan invasion theory and instead say its the indians M17 who actually went to Eurpore ...sort of reverse indian invasion of Europe.*
> 
> konkani Brahmins....Ajit agarkar, Aditi gowitrikar and Archana joglekar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contrast:same konkani Brahmins, Ashutosh gowarikar and Sanjay manjrekar can pass off as Sriankans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PS:I personally dont believe in Aryan invasion of 3000BCW-4000BCE is true...its perhaps resultds of migrations for over tens of thousands of yrs ...* ...and pics are only inteneded to showcase indian genetic diversity ,not to assert anything beyond that.Period.



I respect your personal opinion but it has to be backed by archeologica discovery. Till the first millenium BC the most of discovery in India proved that those cities and civilization were of Dravidian. The discoveries of later dates found the linkage of Aryans. Aryans did not come empty handed but brought tools, lifestyle, arts and crafts with them similar to Indus Valley which proved everything.


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> I respect your personal opinion but it has to be backed by archeologica discovery. Till the first millenium BC the most of discovery in India proved that those cities and civilization were of Dravidian. The discoveries of later dates found the linkage of Aryans. Aryans did not come empty handed but brought tools, *lifestyle, arts and crafts with them similar to Indus Valley which proved everything*.



Similarity with Indus Valley ??

Aryans supposedly came from central asia...they carried *no similarites * with the indiginous Indus Valley civilization ...infact some historians even *claim *that its their arrival brought an end to Indus Valley civilization .


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> GENETICS AND THE ARYAN DEBATE
> By Michel Danino


Please don't quote Michel Danino, if you want to be taken seriously. Mr Danino is a journalist and his opinion has same value as mine. Besides Mr Danino has ruined all his credibility, whatever he had, after he came out in defense of N.S.Rajaram, when he (Rajaram) was caught red handed, concocting archeological evidence.

Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is dead as door knob, and some of the first historians who questioned this theory are the leftist ones (surprise surprise). Ms Romila Thapar, way back in 60s proved that the theory is unsubstantiated. The theory that is widely accepted by international archeologists and historians, is of Aryan Migration (AMT).

I suggest you read on the following people (off the top of my head)

Michael Witzel, Steve Farmar, Asko Parpola, Joseph Staahl, Iravatham Mahadevan etc.

Avoid like e-bola: (i.e. if you don't want to be a typical jingo)

N.S.Rajaram, Talageri, Jha, Stephen Knapp, Lal, Koenraad Elst etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

iajdani said:


> Till the first millenium BC the most of discovery in India proved that those cities and civilization were of Dravidian.


Not yet proved. But debate is certainly on.



> The discoveries of later dates found the linkage of Aryans. Aryans did not come empty handed but brought tools, lifestyle, arts and crafts with them *similar to Indus Valley* which proved everything.


Can we have a reference here.


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> Similarity with Indus Valley ??
> 
> Aryans supposedly came from central asia...they carried *no similarites * with the indiginous Indus Valley civilization ...infact some historians even *claim *that its their arrival brought an end to Indus Valley civilization .



There are some difference of opinions in this subject matter. Indus valley civilization did cover central asia too basically it spread up to Babylon of Iraq.


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> Please don't quote Michel Danino, if you want to be taken seriously. Mr Danino is a journalist and his opinion has same value as mine. Besides Mr Danino has ruined all his credibility, whatever he had, after he came out in defense of N.S.Rajaram, when he (Rajaram) was caught red handed, concocting archeological evidence.
> 
> Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is dead as door knob, and some of the first historians who questioned this theory are the leftist ones (surprise surprise). Ms Romila Thapar, way back in 60s proved that the theory is unsubstantiated. The theory that is widely accepted by international archeologists and historians, is of Aryan Migration (AMT).
> 
> I suggest you read on the following people (off the top of my head)
> 
> Michael Witzel, Steve Farmar, Asko Parpola, Joseph Staahl, Iravatham Mahadevan etc.
> 
> Avoid like e-bola: (i.e. if you don't want to be a typical jingo)
> 
> N.S.Rajaram, Talageri, Jha, Stephen Knapp, Lal, Koenraad Elst etc.



The Aryan migration theory too, is now disproved.

The article by Danino gives very unambiguous verbatim quotations from credible scientific literature.

The polemical types like to use ad-hominem arguments, but that is a pretty despicable tactic, imho.


----------



## toxic_pus

Although pointed out by Nemesis, Toomas Kivisild's paper was contradicted by Richard Cordaux et. al. Any paper that uses Kivisild's paper as reference is to be avoided. 

Excerpts from Cordaux's paper


> The origins of the nearly one billion people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent and following the customs of the Hindu caste system are controversial: are they largely derived from Indian local populations (i.e. tribal groups) or from recent immigrants to India? Archaeological and linguistic evidence support the latter hypothesis, whereas recent genetic data seem to favor the former hypothesis.[...] We find that caste and tribal groups differ significantly in their haplogroup frequency distributions; caste groups are homogeneous for Y chromosome variation and more closely related to each other and to central Asian groups than to Indian tribal or any other Eurasian groups. *We conclude that paternal lineages of Indian caste groups are primarily descended from Indo-European speakers who migrated from central Asia approximately 3,500 years ago.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

iajdani said:


> There are some difference of opinions in this subject matter. *Indus valley civilization did cover central asia too basically it spread up to Babylon of Iraq*.



what??
Where did u learn this piece of history??

Its *Indus* valley civilization ...it spreaded around Indus valley extending to some areas in Gujarat and Rajastan.

PS:Some of ur observations makes me feel u badly want to rewrite history.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> The Aryan migration theory too, is now disproved.
> 
> The article by Danino gives very unambiguous verbatim quotations from credible scientific literature.
> 
> The polemical types like to use ad-hominem arguments, but that is a pretty despicable tactic, imho.


AMT is far, far, far, far from being disproved. On the contrary, new evidences are coming to light almost on yearly basis.

EDIT: Read a little bit about Andronovo culture and Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC)

Many of the 'credible scientific literature' he quotes have been refuted later on.


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> what??
> Where did u learn this piece of history??
> 
> Its *Indus* valley civilization ...it spreaded around Indus valley extending to some areas in Gujarat and Rajastan.
> 
> PS:Some of ur observations makes me feel u badly want to rewrite history.



Here is the catch. You are talking about Harappan and Mohenjodaro as of your Indus Valley civilization. Somewhat you are right.
But historian and archeological findings suggest that there is huge geographical areas starting from Babylon to current day India had a civilization dating back 6000 BC which includes your Harappa and Mohenjodaro. I am not talking about a particular city here.


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> Although pointed out by Nemesis, Toomas Kivisild's paper was contradicted by Richard Cordaux et. al.



Kivisild's 2003 paper was a very detailed effort.

Cordaux's line of argument does not explain the greater diversity of M17 in South Asia, rather than in Central Asia.

And there are several papers later than Cordaux's paper which come to an entirely different conclusion.



toxic_pus said:


> Any paper that uses Kivisild's paper as reference is to be avoided.


One cannot just discard evidence because it is inconvenient.


----------



## ant80

Nemesis said:


> Since i have no idea of the of the latest developments in Archaeo-genetics apparently - primarily a paper by Toomas Kivisild which is taken by members of the Hindu right in India and abroad as conclusive proof against Aryan migration - i will let experts refute it. Please feel free :-
> 
> Recent Findings in Archaeogenetics and Aryan Migration Theory
> 
> Some extracts -
> 
> Yes, clearly I'm not informed of the "latest developments". Kindly drink the right wing kool aid somewhere else.



Hello Nemesis, with respect, I would like to point out there there will be more similarity between individuals of different race than between one individual and his/her next-door neighbor. There is a book called "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley. And there are other books called The Selfish Gene and Sperm Wars by various authors that I would recommend for a thorough description of why that is true. Not arguing either way, but that finding of greater similarity between Brahmin and Western European has to be taken with a pinch of salt. 

There have been other studies as well. I am going to investigate into this after I finish my PhD, but there are scientific publications since 2001 that are significant as well. I'd like to point out this sentence which is telling from the above article.


> If biologists had never been told anything about such a migration, they would be incapable of inferring it from the DNA of Indians, whether tribes or upper castes, from the South or North.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> Kivisild's 2003 paper was a very detailed effort.
> 
> Cordaux's line of argument *does not explain the greater diversity of M17 in South Asia,* rather than in Central Asia.


Because that was not the objective of the research. It was primarily to find if the caste groups in India are indeed indigenous. What it found was:


> Haplogroups R-M17, J-M172, R-M124, and L-M20 are among the most frequent Y lineages in caste groups.They are all significantly more frequent in caste than in tribal groups. The average frequency of R-M17 in 15 tribal groups from four different states of India is only 9% (or 6% if the Chenchus are excluded). Thus, the unusually high frequency of R-M17 in the Chenchu tribe (27%) is not representative of other tribal groups and hence cannot be taken as evidence for an Indian origin of R-M17, as claimed previously [This is the reference to Kivisild et al]. By contrast, R-M17 is present in all Indian caste groups and reaches a frequency of 40% in north caste groups. Given the high frequency of R-M17 in central Asia (typically 20%40%), its rarity in west Asia and its absence in east Asia, Indian R-M17 Y chromosomes most probably have a central Asian origin. Haplogroup J-M172 in India may have a west Asian origin. However, it was noted that the M67 marker, which is common in west Asian J-M172 chromosomes, is almost absent from Indian J-M172 chromosomes. Given that J-M172 is rare in Indian tribal groups, absent in east Asia, and typically found in central Asia at frequencies of 10%20%, it is possible that Indian J-M172 chromosomes originate from central Asia rather than west Asia. Haplogroup R-M124 is restricted to the Indian subcontinent, Iran, and central Asia. It generally occurs at low frequencies (1%4%) except in Indian caste groups and Indo-European speakers from central Asia (8%). Haplogroup L-M20 is found predominantly in India and Pakistan (15%) and has tentatively been associated with the expansion of farming, thus implying a non Indian origin.
> 
> In sum, although largely the same haplogroups are found in tribal and caste groups, they exhibit significantly different distributions in that the most frequent haplogroups in tribal groups are significantly rarer in caste groups and vice versa. Moreover, *haplogroups that are likely to be of indigenous origin are in higher frequency in tribal groups, whereas haplogroups that are likely to be of non indigenous origin are higher in frequency in caste groups.*





> And there are several papers later than Cordaux's paper which come to an entirely different conclusion.


Please provide those papers. It will be interesting.


> One cannot just discard evidence because it is inconvenient.


Give me a break.


----------



## toxic_pus

ant80 said:


> Not arguing either way, but that finding of greater similarity between Brahmin and Western European has to be taken with a pinch of salt.


Any genetical study on a large community of people, trying to determine their origin and trajectory of evolution, is always to be taken with a pinch of salt, because of immaturity of the techniques used. However these studies do provide a direction and unless proved otherwise, there is no reason why these should be dismissed by a wave of hand.



> I'd like to point out this sentence which is telling from the above article.
> 
> 
> 
> If biologists had never been told anything about such a migration, they would be incapable of inferring it from the DNA of Indians, whether tribes or upper castes, from the South or North.
Click to expand...

No scientific discipline walks alone. It needs to be corroborated from other discipline as well. If archeological evidence, as well as biological evidence point to the same direction, it means that a theory, on which evidences are being sought, is more than likely to be correct. But if these evidences are at loggerheads with each other, then it means, that the theory needs to be revised. Thats how science works - through validation.

You seem to be a man of science. That makes it even more unfortunate that you are buying this BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## third eye

Could we come back to Akbar & other Mughals please.


----------



## faisal4pro

third eye said:


> Could we come back to Akbar & other Mughals please.


*I dont know the reason of this thread! 
This section is for Pakistan's Defense not for Mughals! 

Mughals are not Pakistani at all! so dear Mods

Close this thread!*


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> Because that was not the objective of the research. It was primarily to find if the caste groups in India are indeed indigenous.


It may not have been the objective of his research. But the higher diversity of M17 in South Asia shows that South Asia was the source, not the destination of the migration.



> Please provide those papers. It will be interesting.


Look at the refs to the 2006 papers given in Danino's article.



> Give me a break.


Do take one.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> It may not have been the objective of his research. But the *higher diversity of M17 in South Asia* shows that South Asia was the source, not the destination of the migration.


The bold part has been proved wrong by Cordaux et al. You would have known it if you had read my earlier post where I have quoted the relevant part. Here it is again:


> *The average frequency of R-M17 in 15 tribal groups from four different states of India is only 9%* (or 6% if the Chenchus are excluded). Thus, the *unusually high frequency of R-M17 in the Chenchu tribe (27%) is not representative of other tribal groups and hence cannot be taken as evidence for an Indian origin of R-M17*, as claimed previously. By contrast, R-M17 is present in all Indian caste groups and reaches a frequency of 40% in north caste groups. Given the high frequency of R-M17 in central Asia (typically 20%40%), its rarity in west Asia and its absence in east Asia, Indian R-M17 Y chromosomes most probably have a central Asian origin.


The above turns Kivisilid's finding on its head. Their research clearly shows, that Kivisild et al made sampling error, depending too much on a particular tribe, the Chenchu tribe to draw their conclusion. Also, the spread of M17 appears to be West-Easterly and not the other way round.

And mind you, Cordaux's research was based, in large part, on Kivisilid's research.


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> The bold part has been proved wrong by Cordaux et al. You would have known it if you had read my earlier post where I have quoted the relevant part. Here it is again:
> 
> The above turns Kivisilid's finding on its head. Their research clearly shows, that Kivisild et al made sampling error, depending too much on a particular tribe, the Chenchu tribe to draw their conclusion. Also, the spread of M17 appears to be West-Easterly and not the other way round.
> 
> And mind you, Cordaux's research was based, in large part, on Kivisilid's research.



Cordaux talks about _frequency of occurrence_ in some tribal groups - not diversity. So that does not disprove the observations about diversity in South Asia vis-a-vis Central Asia.

Furthermore, Kivisilid mentions several South Indian tribes where M17 is significant, not just the Chenchu.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> Cordaux talks about _frequency of occurrence_ in some tribal groups - not diversity. So that does not disprove the observations about diversity in South Asia vis-a-vis Central Asia.
> 
> Furthermore, Kivisilid mentions several South Indian tribes where M17 is significant, not just the Chenchu.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


>



Something more to chew on: A very new (2009) study showing:

"no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals" and "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins" 

Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 4755


*This discussion has admittedly strayed somewhat. A Mod may kindly transfer all "Aryan Invasion Theory" related posts into a separate thread. Thanks.*


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> Something more to chew on: A very new (2009) study showing:
> 
> "no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals" and "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins"
> 
> Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47&#8211;55


Just skimmed through the paper. The finding is not surprising, the conclusion drawn is. For example, their finding that 'the presence of R1a1* in very high frequency in Brahmins, irrespective of linguistic and geographic affiliations' is consistent with other research works. However, they conclude that 'co-presence of this haplogroup in many of the tribal populations of India, its existence in high frequency in Saharia (present study) and Chenchu tribes, the high frequency of R1a* in Kashmiri Pandits (KPs&#8212;Brahmins) as well as Saharia (tribe) and associated phylogenetic ages supported the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins'. 

They don't explain why admixture, particularly when they themselves admit that the Brahmins are 'the founder haplogroup for the population', is discounted to arrive at this conclusion. Or why high presence of R1a1 in three-four tribes out of numerous other shall be considered as representative of the all the Indian tribes. 

The authors are also suggesting the Out of India Theory (OIT) which goes against the archeological and linguistic evidence.

I could be wrong in my assessment, but there is enough reason to wait for sometime till another paper comes out, either corroborating the research or rejecting it, before going ga ga about it.

Anyway, around the same time (Jan, 2009) that they published their paper, another paper by Zhongming Zhao et al found:


> *The results revealed that a substantial part of today's North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants*.[...] The findings of the present study provide insights into prehistoric and early historic patterns of migration into India and the evolution of Indian populations in recent history.





> *This discussion has admittedly strayed somewhat. A Mod may kindly transfer all "Aryan Invasion Theory" related posts into a separate thread. Thanks.*


Second that. Although don't know how long I will be able to contribute to this IVC debate.


----------



## faisal4pro

faisal4pro said:


> *I dont know the reason of this thread!
> This section is for Pakistan's Defense not for Mughals!
> 
> Mughals are not Pakistani at all! so dear Mods
> 
> Close this thread!*


*is there any mod?*


----------



## third eye

faisal4pro said:


> *is there any mod?*



The thread is Pak def Forums - Military History.


----------



## faisal4pro

third eye said:


> The thread is Pak def Forums - Military History.


*are people really discussing Pakistan Military History?*


----------



## third eye

faisal4pro said:


> *are people really discussing Pakistan Military History?*



We asians love to digress. I cannot see what the Aryans have to do with Mil History or Mughals.

It could have been an interesting topic though.


----------



## faisal4pro

third eye said:


> We asians love to digress. I cannot see what the Aryans have to do with Mil History or Mughals.
> 
> It could have been an interesting topic though.


*haha...lol.......*


----------



## ant80

toxic_pus said:


> Any genetical study on a large community of people, trying to determine their origin and trajectory of evolution, is always to be taken with a pinch of salt, because of immaturity of the techniques used. However these studies do provide a direction and unless proved otherwise, there is no reason why these should be dismissed by a wave of hand.
> 
> 
> No scientific discipline walks alone. It needs to be corroborated from other discipline as well. If archeological evidence, as well as biological evidence point to the same direction, it means that a theory, on which evidences are being sought, is more than likely to be correct. But if these evidences are at loggerheads with each other, then it means, that the theory needs to be revised. Thats how science works - through validation.
> 
> You seem to be a man of science. That makes it even more unfortunate that you are buying this BS.



I fully understand validation. 

Are you aware of any evidence that shows that the Aryan invasion actually occured? Archeological findings, writings or anything else like that? I don't know about the existence of any such evidence, that's why I'm asking. Please understand the skepticism of people because there have been several studies showing the white race as being "superior" to other races during the same time that the Aryan invasion theory came out. 

My opinion comes from talking to a good friend of mine, who is a Tamil geneticist in USA. She's a student, but she is well published. Though she works with fruitflies, she has looked into it and is leaning towards believing that the Aryan invasion is a myth. I myself am an fMRI expert with an engineering and genetics background, so a cursory glance suggests in the same direction, though I must emphasize that I haven't looked at this thoroughly. 

Finally, I find it absolutely abhorrent that the religious right has used this theory for its own political ends. However let's not use that to dismiss it outright. Let the geneticists prove one way or the other, which WILL happen in the next 2 decades or so.


----------



## Halaku Khan

A compilation of various papers over the years: 


-----------------------------------------------------
*The Aryan Invasion Theory is False - Genetic Evidence*

* No trace of demographic disruption in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.
* Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.
* Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and Caucasoid populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations. 

- U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.


* Migrations into India did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations. There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the caucasoid features of south Asians may best be considered pre-caucasoid  that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.


* There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.

- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.


* mtDNA haplogroup M common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is inconsistent with the general Caucasoidness of Indians. This shows, once again, that the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene. U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits. In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.
* If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against misleading interpretations based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
* The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.

- Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.



* Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the linguistically defined groups in India should be considered more autochthonous than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent. 

- Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.



* Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
* Kivisild came to the conclusion that "southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup": "Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup".[12]
* Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation. 

- Kivilsid - 2003



* Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists, i.e. of the Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an Indo-European expansion, an identification they called convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic. To them, the subcontinents genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.
* Dravidian authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus.... They found, in conclusion, overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.
* The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed. R2 is very rare in Europe.

Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006.



* The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.
* The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.
* Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions. As a result, it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools, a conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.

Sanghamitra Sahoo, T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. - 2006.



* When Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: indeed, nearly all Europeans  and by extension, many Americans  can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.

-Lluís Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates



* For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a male Aryan invasion of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.

-Stephen Oppenheimer


* A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed "no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals". Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.
* In its conclusions the study proposed "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins" as well as "the origin of R1a1* ... in the Indian subcontinent".
* S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.

- Sharma et al 2009



* "This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
* "There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."
* The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
* "Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
* The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
* "The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
* The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
* The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.

Thangaraj and Singh at a press conference.(Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India)

"Reconstructing Indian Population History"
- David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh
- 2009

*The Aryan Invasion Theory is False - Genetic Evidence (R2dnainfo)*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

ant80 said:


> I fully understand validation.


Thats a relief. Your previous post was indicating something else. 



> Are you aware of any evidence that shows that the Aryan invasion actually occured? Archeological findings, writings or anything else like that? I don't know about the existence of any such evidence, that's why I'm asking. Please understand the skepticism of people because there have been several studies showing the white race as being "superior" to other races during the same time that the Aryan invasion theory came out.


You have a whole lot of catching up to do. There was no invasion by the 'Aryans'. This started to become clear from late 50s and early 60s and finally in the mid 80s a massive archeological expedition, headed by George Dales of the University of California, confirmed that the 'invasion' theory was an erroneous conclusion drawn on too little evidence. But there is every indication that towards the end of mature Harappan and the beginning of late Harappan, somewhere between 1900 BC and 1700 BC, migration of 'Aryans' did happen. Strongest evidence comes from linguistics (and thats where you should start your catching up and not genetics) backed by recent excavations at far off sites in Russia, among other places, relating to Andronovo culture (Sintashta-Petrovka culture) and BMAC.


> My opinion comes from talking to a good friend of mine, who is a Tamil geneticist in USA. She's a student, but she is well published. Though she works with fruitflies, she has looked into it and is leaning towards believing that the Aryan invasion is a myth. I myself am an fMRI expert with an engineering and genetics background, so a cursory glance suggests in the same direction, though I must emphasize that *I haven't looked at this thoroughly*.


Then opine when you have looked at it thoroughly. And btw, what you do professionally is irrelevant. Some other day, and I would have assumed that you are trying make an argument from authority. But since I don't know you, I will give you the benefit of doubt.


> ...I find it absolutely abhorrent that the religious right has used this theory for its own political ends.


Welcome to the club



> However let's not use that to dismiss it outright. Let the geneticists prove one way or the other, which WILL happen in the next 2 decades or so.


I have serious doubt if genetics will settle this issue. There are way too many conflicting researches, most confirming the evidence at hand, and some contradicting.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> A compilation of various papers over the years:
> 
> -snip-
> 
> *The Aryan Invasion Theory is False - Genetic Evidence (R2dnainfo)*


Why do you keep repeating same thing over and over again. First, the beef is not with mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA is what we acquire from the maternal side). Geneticists are more or less unanimous that mtDNA is pretty much homogeneous among Indians. The beef is with Y-chromosome Haplogroup-R1a1 or M17, which appears to be of foreign origin. (The Russian region, which is known for Andronovo culture, records an extremely high percentage of R1a1)

Second, many of these research papers have been contradicted subsequently. (I would have loved to provide with the rejoinders, but alas, I have lost the bookmarks, and neither do I have time to google for the links).


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> Why do you keep repeating same thing over and over again. First, the beef is not with mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA is what we acquire from the maternal side). Geneticists are more or less unanimous that mtDNA is pretty much homogeneous among Indians. The beef is with Y-chromosome Haplogroup-R1a1 or M17, which appears to be of foreign origin. (The Russian region, which is known for Andronovo culture, records an extremely high percentage of R1a1)



If you look at what was written, you will find several new sources, including some which look at Y-chromosome data. 

And such a compilation has its own value, imho. Feel free to not read it if you please.



toxic_pus said:


> Second, many of these research papers have been contradicted subsequently. (I would have loved to provide with the rejoinders, but alas, I have lost the bookmarks, and neither do I have time to google for the links).



Fine, we will treat your claims as unsubstantiated for now.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> If you look at what was written, you will find several new sources, including some which look at Y-chromosome data.


I am aware of most of these researches, and I do have copies of some of those papers, although I must admit, I am a little out of touch for the last one and half year or so.


> And such a compilation has its own value, imho. Feel free to not read it if you please.


To the right wingers, of course. But to be unbiased one is needed to provide the rejoinders as well. There is always two side to a story.

However, 5 bucks say you don't even have a clue what these researches talk about, or about the methodology they adopted, or the debate it sparked, or where and why the disagreements lie, or where they agree. 

For example, earlier you had posted a research published in 2009, by Sharma et al, which would have us believe that some breakthrough has been made. Once I got to go through the paper, I realised, that they were using the same set of data, which other scientists (Kivisild 2000, 2003; Codaux 2004) had used to come to one conclusion, while they chose to conclude something else, without so much as giving an adequate explanation. 

Quote mining will take you only so far. Instead of copy-pasting, try to have your own opinion. 


> Fine, we will treat your claims as unsubstantiated for now.


You are more than welcome, if fool's paradise is your residential address.


----------



## Halaku Khan

*Some background:* Y-chromosomes are tend to remain unchanged from father to son, whereas mtDNA tend to remain unchanged from mother to daughter. However, the process is not perfect, and mutations tend to occur over a period of time. Here is a good explanation:



> Furthermore the historical sequence of these mutations can also be inferred. For example, if a set of ten Y chromosomes (derived from ten different men) contains a mutation, A, but only five of these chromosomes contain a second mutation, B, it must be the case that mutation B occurred after mutation A. Furthermore all ten men who carry the chromosome with mutation A are the direct male line descendants of the same man who was the first person to carry this mutation. The first man to carry mutation B was also a direct male line descendant of this man, but is also the direct male line ancestor of all men carrying mutation B. Series of mutations such as this form molecular lineages. Furthermore each mutation defines a set of specific Y chromosomes called a haplogroup.
> 
> Haplogroup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




*It appears that the key to the puzzle is diversity of of the haplogroups, for two reasons:*

1. Diversity within a tribe or caste indicates how long back the genetic input into that tribe or caste occured. 

2. Diversity also determines the direction of migrations: The migration must have happened from regions of higher diversity to regions of lower diversity.

Here is some further information from diversity studies:



> The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,00015,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history.
> 
> Source: *Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists*





> Sahoo (2006) argued from Y-chromosomal data against any major influx into the Indian subcontinent from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family. On the R1a populations of North India, he noted that "one should expect to observe dramatically lower genetic variation among Indian R1a lineages. In fact, the opposite is true: the STR haplotype diversity on the background of R1a in Central Asia (and also in Eastern Europe) has already been shown to be lower than that in India . Rather, the high incidence of R1* and R1a throughout Central Asian and East European populations (without R2 and R* in most cases) is more parsimoniously explained by gene flow in the opposite direction, possibly with an early founder effect in South or West Asia"
> 
> Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians.
> 
> Source: *Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


----------



## Halaku Khan

My dear fellow, I would urge you not to fly off the handle and make personal remarks. Nobody is preventing anybody from posting varying points of view.



toxic_pus said:


> To the right wingers, of course. But to be unbiased one is needed to provide the rejoinders as well. There is always two side to a story.
> 
> However, 5 bucks say you don't even have a clue what these researches talk about, or about the methodology they adopted, or the debate it sparked, or where and why the disagreements lie, or where they agree.
> 
> You are more than welcome, if fool's paradise is your residential address.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> It appears that the key to the puzzle is _diversity_ of of the haplogroups, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Diversity within a tribe or caste indicates how long back the genetic input into that tribe or caste occured.
> 
> 2. Diversity also determines the direction of migrations: The migration must have happened from regions of higher diversity to regions of lower diversity.


Not necessarily. And that is precisely what I meant by 'immaturity of techniques'. Sengupta et al. bases their conclusion on these two factors and also another one. They have assumed that mutation rate is slow. There is evidence, that this is not necessarily true. The diversity can also be explained as a reason of multiple founders. 

For example, Watkins et. al. argue that:


> Genetic data from Y-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal STRs are in accord with historical accounts of northwest to southeast population movements in India. The influence of ancient and historical population movements and caste social structure can be detected and replicated in South Indian caste populations from two different geographic regions.


That is why I am so skeptical that 'Aryan' influence can be explained adequately via genetics.

My apologies if I have been rude.


----------



## eastwatch

Halaku Khan said:


> That article relies on the Aryan invasion/migration theory, which has now been discredited by modern genetic studies. See The peopling of India - Pragati


You cannot just discard Aryas, think of the word ARYABARTA in old Hindu scriptures. North India was called Arybarta, and this word was not coined by a British or a German. Whether they came from the central asia or through west asia is a matter of debate. But, just because there is a debate on the matter, it is not a good logic to refuse the main content of an article.

Issue here is the caste infested Hinduism, where the Brahmins wielded too much of power that they used to persecue the local Bangali Budhists. Bengal was more Budhist than it was Hindu. Until the end of Pal Dynasty, Budhism remained strong here. But after its demise in 1095 by Vijay SENA, State patronage for Budhism was revised to the patronage of Hinduism. Obviously, the caste system was incorporated in it. During the next hundred years until the arrival of Turkic Muslims in 1203, Brahmanism had been fully restored in Bengal.

However, this was not accepted by the Budhists of Bengal. During many centuries of Budhist teaching many high caste and low caste Hindus accepted this religion, which was not infested with a caste system. These people were forced to accept a lower place in the Hindu society during the Sena rule of more than a hundred years.

When the Muslims migrated to Bengal, these people welcomed the adventurers. I have read a poem written in those days that appreciates these foreign Muslims as their saviours. In the long run, many of these Budhists accepted Islam, which also does not believe in the JAT PAT system. 

In old days, a lower caste Hindu was not even allowed to visit a temple, he was not even allowed to hear the Sanskrit MANTRA read by those Hindu Brahmins. A Sudra would have been killed by pouring MOLTEN LEAD in their ears for a simple offence like that, such was the harsh punishment. The Sudras were taught since their childhood to be content with their lives as SUDRA, because if they do so they would be re-born in a higher caste next time.

Sudras were fully illiterate, therefore, they were not enlightened. For them to accept their present faith as SUDRAS was the best way to go to paradise. They had been totured into such a corner by the Brahmins that they had no alternative vision which can change their fate. How they can change their religion when they were just a dumb group of people forced into believing in superstitions? 

They used to think, probably the presnt day Sudras too, that the Brahmins can destroy everything by blowing out fire from their mouths. Can someone think that these were the people most ripe to change their religion? Only the enlightened ones have the inner knowledge to understand the difference between a bad and a good religion. 

This is why there established a BRAHMA SAMAJ in India during the British Raj, which was composed of the most learned families of the Hindu society. Rabindranath Thakur's family was one of them. Do you know, that this family had been branded as 'PIRALI' (Pir Ali) Brahmin and was made the social outcaste in the Hindu society? Why? Because one of their ancestors had shown the audacity of accepting the invitation of one Muslim Pir named Ali during the Muslim period. This Tagore family could not even marry their daughters off to any Brahmin family. So, they used to adopt a Brahmin child from a poor family and then marry off one of their daughters with him at adulthood.

In an atmosphere like this when the Hindu society was ready to discard Hindus to protect the Hindu religion, one can expect the gradual conversion of enlightened people to a different faith where they do not have to bear such inhuman stigma and insult by the religious leaders. I must note one thing here. Muslims were more worriors than administrators. Law and Defence departments were under the Muslims, but all other govt Departments were either captured by the educated Hindus or Budhists.

Many of these govt servants also ultimately accepted Islam. Can an illiterate person, Brahmin or Sudra, can hold such a position? Since they were literate, therefore, it is a certainty that they were the higher caste people, and not Sudras, who were not allowed to get education.

So, it is preposterous to think that the educated Budhists or the higher caste educated Hindus did not accept Islam, but the illiterate Sudras accepted it. It was just the opposite. I know many Muslim families near my ancestral village with family titles of Thakur, Pal, Biswas, Singh and some others. My question is if Sudras had accepted Islam in Bengal, then why it is that there are so many Sudras among the Hindu Bangalis and why there is almost no Budhists among the Bangalis? 

After the Turkish Muslim migration to Bengal, the Budhists here flocked to that faith. This Muslim group became so strong a core that not only that they were the dominating force in the eastern part of india, but also that these Muslims resisted Delhi subjugation for many centuries. At one time, they even took over Delhi under the leadership of Sher Shah Suri.

The truth is, all the Budhists and many of the high caste Hindus in Bengal had accepted Islam and the Sudras remained in their old religion, where they are still suffering at the hands of so-called high caste Hindus. What a religion is this Hinduism? When all other religions try to unite people under one banner, Hinduism is the only religion that makes divisions among themselves, creates barriers and teaches to hate each other.


----------



## Khajur

eastwatch said:


> You cannot just discard Aryas, think of the word ARYABARTA in old Hindu scriptures. North India was called Arybarta, and this word was not coined by a British or a German. Whether they came from the central asia or through west asia is a matter of debate. But, just because there is a debate on the matter, it is not a good logic to refuse the main content of an article.
> 
> Issue here is the caste infested Hinduism, where the Brahmins wielded too much of power that they used to persecue the local Bangali Budhists. Bengal was more Budhist than it was Hindu. Until the end of Pal Dynasty, Budhism remained strong here. But after its demise in 1095 by Vijay SEN, State patronage for Budhism was revised to the patronage of Hinduism. Obviously, the caste system was incorporated in it. During the next hundred years until the arrival of Turkic Muslims in 1203, Brahmanism had been fully restored in Bengal.
> 
> However, this was not accepted by the Budhists of Bengal. During many centuries of Budhist teaching many high caste and low caste Hindus accepted this religion, which was not infested with a caste system. These people were forced to accept a lower place in the Hindu society during the Sena rule of more than a hundred years.
> 
> When the Muslims migrated, these people welcomed the adventurers. I have read a poem written in those days that appreciates these foreign Muslims as their saviours. In the long run, many of these Budhists accepted Islam, which also does not believe in the JAT PAT system.
> 
> In old days, a lower caste Hindu was not even allowed to visit a temple, he was not even allowed to hear the Sanskrit MANTRA read by those Hindu Brahmins. A Sudra would have been killed by pouring MOLTEN LEAD in their ears for a simple offence like that, such was the harsh punishment. The Sudras were taught since their childhood to be content with their lives as SUDRA, because if they do so they would be re-born in a higher caste next time.
> 
> Sudras were fully illiterate, therefore, they were not enlightened. For them to accept their present faith as SUDRAS was the best way to go to paradise. They had been totured into such a corner by the Brahmins that they had no alternate vision which can change their fate. How they can change their religion when they were just a dumb group of people forced into believing in superstitions?
> 
> They used to think, probably the presnt day Sudras too, that the Brahmins can destroy everything by blowing out fire from their mouths. Can someone think that these were the people most ripe to change their religion? Only the enlightened ones have the inner knowledge to understand the difference between a bad and a good religion.
> 
> This is why there was a BRAHMA SAMAJ in India during the British Raj, which was composed of the most learned families of the Hindu society. Rabindranath Thakur's family was one of them. Do you know, that this family had been branded as 'PIRALI' (Pir Ali) Brahman and were made the social outcaste in the Hindu society? Why? Because one of their ancestors had shown the audacity of accepting the invitation of one Muslim Pir named Ali during the Muslim period. This Tagore family could not even marry their daughters to any Brahman family.
> 
> In an atmosphere like this when the Hindu society was ready to discard Hindus to protect the Hindu religion, one can expect the gradual conversion of enlightened people to a different faith where they do not have to bear such inhuman stigma and insult by the religious leaders. I must note one thing here. Muslims were more worriors than administrators. Law and Defence departments were under the Muslims, but all other govt Departments were either captured by the Hindus or by the Budhists.
> 
> Many of these govt servants also ultimately accepted Islam. Were these people illiterate? Or, an illiterate person, Brahmin or Sudra, can hold such a position? Since they were literate, therefore, it is a certainty that they were the higher caste people, and not Sudras. Because, Sudras were all illiterate.
> 
> So, it is preposterous to think that the educated Budhists or the higher caste Hindus did not accept Islam, but the illiterate Sudras accepted it. It was just the opposite. I know many Muslim families near my ancestral village with family titles of Thakur, Pal, Biswas, Singh and some others. My question is if Sudras had accepted Islam in Bengal, then why it is that there are so many Sudras among the Hindu Bangalis and why there is almost no Budhists among the Bangalis?
> 
> After the Turkish Muslim migration to Bengal, the Budhists here flocked to that faith. This Muslim group became so strong a core that not only that they were the dominating force in the eastern part of india, but also that these Muslims resisted Delhi subjugation for many centuries. At one time, they even took over Delhi under the leadership of Sher Shah Suri.
> 
> *The truth is, all the Budhists and many of the high caste Hindus in Bengal had accepted Islam and the Sudras remained in their old religion, where they are still suffering at the hands of so-called high caste Hindus. What a religion is this Hinduism? When all other religions try to unite people under one banner, Hinduism is the only religion that makes divisions among themselves, creates barriers and teaches to hate each other*.



wow...as usual u have amazed us with ur sense of humour. and deep penchant for fiction... 

One hand u say all buddists happlily(??) accepted islam ...But u never explained by why left their many centuri old traditional way of Buddism to become muslims...what were the compelling reasons behind it??

Again where are all the signs Buddist monastery and stupas gone in Banladesh??
Who destroyed them??
Dont tell us another story how Buddists choose burn them down themselves before taking islamic vows.

If they were presecuated by hindus after the fal of pala dynasty...they should've continued with their old Buddist ways after they muslim invaders or as *u called adventurers?? *

*No,u are suggesting those buddist who were supposedly presecuted by hindus,but still managed to keep their religion alive all the while.... choosed merrily to join a totally new alien religion clalled islam as soon as muslims appearded in the scene....*

On other hand u suggest even higher caste hindus also converted to islam ...why??But sudras who have been presecuted for ever by hindus neither choose to become Buddist nor converted to islam...

Leaving aside ur stupid pinhead snide remarks about Sanatana hindu dharma...a way life for more than 80 crores people around world that remain unhinged for last several thousand years practiced in same traditional way generation after generation aganist myriads challenges ...i would suggest u not try to manufacture history as u'll only gonna fail miserably and also it would reflect how ur culture, upbringing and religion failed to Inculcate a thirst for knowledge,fairness or simple decency like respecting others religion.


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> They have assumed that mutation rate is slow. There is evidence, that this is not necessarily true.


They have referred to a reputable and highly cited paper to estimate the mutation rate. If someone challenges that, we can certainly look at the validity of that challenge.



> The diversity can also be explained as a reason of multiple founders.


That can be resolved by looking at the haplogroup tree. By looking at the oldest node present in a population, and by looking at its descendants, one can put a lower bound on how many mutations have occurred in that population.

And of course, there is the important issue of relative diversities of the alleged source population and the alleged recipient population.

Added later: First, determine which is the source population and which is the recipient population based on relative diversity. Once that is done, look at the oldest nodes in the haplogroup tree of the recipient population which are not present in the source population. That ought to give an estimate for the time of migration.



> That is why I am so skeptical that 'Aryan' influence can be explained adequately via genetics.


We shall see, we shall see.



> My apologies if I have been rude.


No problem, man. Take it easy.


----------



## eastwatch

Khajur said:


> wow...as usual u have amazed us with ur sense of humour. and deep penchant for fiction...
> 
> One hand u say all buddists happlily(??) accepted islam ...But u never explained by why left their many centuri old traditional way of Buddism to become muslims...what were the compelling reasons behind it??
> 
> Again where are all the signs Buddist monastery and stupas gone in Banladesh??
> Who destroyed them??
> Dont tell us another story how Buddists choose burn them down themselves before taking islamic vows.
> 
> If they were presecuated by hindus after the fal of pala dynasty...they should've continued with their old Buddist ways after they muslim invaders or as *u called adventurers?? *
> 
> *No,u are suggesting those buddist who were supposedly presecuted by hindus,but still managed to keep their religion alive all the while.... choosed merrily to join a totally new alien religion clalled islam as soon as muslims appearded in the scene....*
> 
> On other hand u suggest even higher caste hindus also converted to islam ...why??But sudras who have been presecuted for ever by hindus neither choose to become Buddist nor converted to islam...
> 
> Leaving aside ur stupid pinhead snide remarks about Sanatana hindu dharma...a way life for more than 80 crores people around world that remain unhinged for last several thousand years practiced in same traditional way generation after generation aganist myriads challenges ...i would suggest u not try to manufacture history as u'll only gonna fail miserably and also it would reflect how ur culture, upbringing and religion failed to Inculcate a thirst for knowledge,fairness or simple decency like respecting others religion.


Hi mister, a person needs a lot of time and energy to write a post. But, with your light talking you are sending it to your HINDU garbage. Don'T do it for the sake of history. If you have nothing positive to write, then do not write. If you have something that I can learn from, then write, but do not send your rubbish. So, this is the level of your Indian education!

This is how you teach your children to talk in a class room! Not to learn, but only to argue with their teachers? It is no wonder, the Hindu India remains a JAT PAT infested country of social ills, where a person is not seen as a human, but is seen in the light of his complexion and caste.


----------



## Halaku Khan

The word "Arya" means "noble" - there is nothing in Sanskrit literature to suggest that it refers to settlers from elsewhere.

There is the concept of the Varnas - but the Varnas are not supposed to be hereditary. They refer to evolutionary status. A person is a Shudra, a Vaishya, a Kshatriya or a Brahmana depending on whether his principal goal in life is *Kaama* (sensual desire), *Artha* (prosperity), *Dharma* (natural righteousness) or *Moksha* (enlightenment). Each soul is supposed to through a process of evolution over many incarnations, before reaching perfection. It's not that somebody is a Brahmana because his father is a Brahmana.

Now, in practice, there may have been various social evils in say 600 BC, the time of the Buddha. Buddhism has to be seen as a movement for purification and renewal in society - there have been several such movements in Sanatana Dharma over the millenia. However, the fundamentals of Buddhism are fully in harmony with the fundamentals of Sanatana Dharma (i.e. the Upanishads or the Advaita philosophy). 





eastwatch said:


> You cannot just discard Aryas, think of the word ARYABARTA in old Hindu scriptures. North India was called Arybarta, and this word was not coined by a British or a German. Whether they came from the central asia or through west asia is a matter of debate. But, just because there is a debate on the matter, it is not a good logic to refuse the main content of an article.
> 
> Issue here is the caste infested Hinduism, where the Brahmins wielded too much of power that they used to persecue the local Bangali Budhists. Bengal was more Budhist than it was Hindu. Until the end of Pal Dynasty, Budhism remained strong here. But after its demise in 1095 by Vijay SEN, State patronage for Budhism was revised to the patronage of Hinduism. Obviously, the caste system was incorporated in it. During the next hundred years until the arrival of Turkic Muslims in 1203, Brahmanism had been fully restored in Bengal.
> 
> However, this was not accepted by the Budhists of Bengal. During many centuries of Budhist teaching many high caste and low caste Hindus accepted this religion, which was not infested with a caste system. These people were forced to accept a lower place in the Hindu society during the Sena rule of more than a hundred years.
> 
> When the Muslims migrated, these people welcomed the adventurers. I have read a poem written in those days that appreciates these foreign Muslims as their saviours. In the long run, many of these Budhists accepted Islam, which also does not believe in the JAT PAT system.
> 
> In old days, a lower caste Hindu was not even allowed to visit a temple, he was not even allowed to hear the Sanskrit MANTRA read by those Hindu Brahmins. A Sudra would have been killed by pouring MOLTEN LEAD in their ears for a simple offence like that, such was the harsh punishment. The Sudras were taught since their childhood to be content with their lives as SUDRA, because if they do so they would be re-born in a higher caste next time.
> 
> Sudras were fully illiterate, therefore, they were not enlightened. For them to accept their present faith as SUDRAS was the best way to go to paradise. They had been totured into such a corner by the Brahmins that they had no alternate vision which can change their fate. How they can change their religion when they were just a dumb group of people forced into believing in superstitions?
> 
> They used to think, probably the presnt day Sudras too, that the Brahmins can destroy everything by blowing out fire from their mouths. Can someone think that these were the people most ripe to change their religion? Only the enlightened ones have the inner knowledge to understand the difference between a bad and a good religion.
> 
> This is why there was a BRAHMA SAMAJ in India during the British Raj, which was composed of the most learned families of the Hindu society. Rabindranath Thakur's family was one of them. Do you know, that this family had been branded as 'PIRALI' (Pir Ali) Brahman and were made the social outcaste in the Hindu society? Why? Because one of their ancestors had shown the audacity of accepting the invitation of one Muslim Pir named Ali during the Muslim period. This Tagore family could not even marry their daughters to any Brahman family.
> 
> In an atmosphere like this when the Hindu society was ready to discard Hindus to protect the Hindu religion, one can expect the gradual conversion of enlightened people to a different faith where they do not have to bear such inhuman stigma and insult by the religious leaders. I must note one thing here. Muslims were more worriors than administrators. Law and Defence departments were under the Muslims, but all other govt Departments were either captured by the Hindus or by the Budhists.
> 
> Many of these govt servants also ultimately accepted Islam. Were these people illiterate? Or, an illiterate person, Brahmin or Sudra, can hold such a position? Since they were literate, therefore, it is a certainty that they were the higher caste people, and not Sudras. Because, Sudras were all illiterate.
> 
> So, it is preposterous to think that the educated Budhists or the higher caste Hindus did not accept Islam, but the illiterate Sudras accepted it. It was just the opposite. I know many Muslim families near my ancestral village with family titles of Thakur, Pal, Biswas, Singh and some others. My question is if Sudras had accepted Islam in Bengal, then why it is that there are so many Sudras among the Hindu Bangalis and why there is almost no Budhists among the Bangalis?
> 
> After the Turkish Muslim migration to Bengal, the Budhists here flocked to that faith. This Muslim group became so strong a core that not only that they were the dominating force in the eastern part of india, but also that these Muslims resisted Delhi subjugation for many centuries. At one time, they even took over Delhi under the leadership of Sher Shah Suri.
> 
> The truth is, all the Budhists and many of the high caste Hindus in Bengal had accepted Islam and the Sudras remained in their old religion, where they are still suffering at the hands of so-called high caste Hindus. What a religion is this Hinduism? When all other religions try to unite people under one banner, Hinduism is the only religion that makes divisions among themselves, creates barriers and teaches to hate each other.


----------



## Khajur

eastwatch said:


> Hi mister, a person needs a lot of time and energy to write a post. But, with your light taliking you are sending it to your HINDU garbage. DOn'T do it for the sake of history. If you have nothing positive to writ, then do not write. If you have something that I can learn from, then write, but do not send your rubbish. So, this is the level of your Indian education! This is how you teach your children to talk in a class room!



My rubbish is far more rational than ur false propaganda ****!

Do u ever back up ur claims??

Show me one credible source that says all Buddists of Bengal converted to islam ...yaa just by kicking off age old religion of Buddism, as soon muslim invaders appeared in the scene...why??because they suffered at the hands of high caste hindus before that...


----------



## eastwatch

Khajur said:


> My rubbish is far more rational than ur false propaganda ****!
> 
> Do u ever back up ur claims??
> 
> Show me one credible source that says all Buddists of Bengal converted to islam ...yaa just by kicking off age old religion of Buddism, as soon muslim invaders appeared in the scene...why??because they suffered at the hands of high caste hindus before that...


Give me proper reasons and proofs to establish anything else than what I have stated about the Muslims of Bengal. It is better not be oversmart without knowing history of a particular region or a people. Where from do you think the Muslims of Bengal then came from, certainly not from AASMAN. 

If you believe that the local Bangali Hindus accepted Islam under COMPULSION, even then is it not more logical to think that the high caste people, and not the Sudras were forced to convert? So, come with logic next time. Historical events are past things and nothing can change these events. So, we should see history in its proper perspective. 

To know about the immigration of foreign Muslims in Bengal, read the books named HAQIQAT-I-MUSALMAN-I-BANGAL, BAHARISTAN-I-GAEBI etc. This foreign group plus the Budhists and also the enlightened Hindus who took Islam became the core of Bangali Muslims. For more information, you may read history books written by many highly educated Bangali Hindu historians during British period. They never tried to hide a fact, whether it went against or in favour of Hindus. But, to do so you may have to learn Bengali first.


----------



## ice_man

Nemesis said:


> That's probably because you - *yes you*, please don't generalize your entire populace - suffer from an acute case of inferiority complex. That mixed with brainwashing and reading half-baked history has led to your delusions.



inferiority my A*S!!!! LOOK MAN its simple no matter what you say we DON'T want to associate ourselves with you....but what i don't get is that why do YOU guys so badly want to believe we are the same as you!!! i mean why does it bother you so much!!! 

for me i don't want to associate anything of mine with india!!! actually its the indians that try to tell the world that we are similar IT MUST BE because PAKISTANIS are better looking!!

before you say ohhhh we got good looking people....well look at the ratio man out a population of a BILLION!!! you have a few good looking people....stroll down the roads of bombay or delhi & try noticing who is good looking very few & far apart....

our ratio in 170 million is better!!!

I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE....good for you...let it go! why do you so badly want us to be you...I GUESS U are the one with INFERIORITY COMPLEX!


----------



## Khajur

> Give me proper reasons and proofs to establish anything else than what I have stated about the Muslims of Bengal. It is better not be oversmart without knowing history of a particular region or a people. Where from do you think the Muslims of Bengal then came from, certainly not from AASMAN.


Every religion in the world be it islam,christianity or Buddism thrived and got mass acceptance only when they got patronage from the ruling elite of that period of time ...e,g christianity suffered for centuries long persecution ,but only when some Emperor accepted christianity ,it became the state religion...so was true for islam and we know how it spread from Arabia...Mahmoud himself had to fight wars and later followers also had to win battles to extended more terrritories under islam part of Jihad...*Even Buddism got more following only when kings and ruling dynasties started to believe in Buddha's principles and they promoted Buddism in even far away places like East Asia and Srilanka...*

Similarly on the other hand, many religions were reduced to oblivion with time..e,g Judaism,Parsis disappeared as they lost to invaders and particularly jainism india died out as the royal patronage cease to exist.

*When i say royal patronage it means both violent and peaceful approch adopted and that those were employed generation after geneations to promota certain religion.*

I'll not mention the case Hinduism here...because sanatana hindu dharma is a way of life from thousands of years.. antcient spiritual way to reach out to god...any indian origin religion e,g Buddism and jainism were never existed separate religions ,as different philosophies that coexisted along with many other prominient divisions under the umbrella of sanatana hindu dharma...and caste system existed in Buddism too ,though only implictly because simple non materialistic life Buddist life.



> If you believe that the locals accepted Islam under COMPULSION, *even then is it not more logical to think that they had forced the high caste people, and not the Sudras*? So, come with logic next time. Historical events are past things and nothing can change these events. So, we should see history in its proper perspective.



Yes, they did force...even the high caste people to join isalm
Isnt that what u urself were trying to say in ur other post....

Read again what wrote:


> *So, it is preposterous to think that the educated Budhists or the higher caste Hindus did not accept Islam, but the illiterate Sudras accepted it*. It was just the opposite. I know many Muslim families near my ancestral village with family *titles of Thakur, Pal, Biswas, Singh and some others*. My question is if *Sudras had accepted Islam in Bengal, then why it is that there are so many Sudras among the Hindu Bangalis and why there is almost no Budhists among the Bangalis*?



Now u are just going round and round with ur wild theories to ur original claim that Bengali Buddists turned to Islam because they suffered at the hands of high caste hindus .*Thats what we are debating about ,arent we?? ...until u keep shifting the goal posts *. 

Fact remains...Buddists of Bengal or even some hindus for that matter turned to islam not because of any special reasons like upper class persecution of hindus ...*but for the more common reasons,methods and similar circumstance that made other people turned to islam in other parts around the world.Islam survided Bengal because of several hundreds yrs of muslim rule and surely would've disappeard from Bengal like it happened Spain and in other parts of Europe where Crusaders wiped out all signs of Islam once they recaptured spain after centuries of islamic rule,had it not been the case of such prolong muslim rule *. 

Even the whole of undivided india were known as an islamic domain and official language was Farsi everywhere, even in Bengal (not Bengali)due to the muslim rule of india until its powere receded by 1700 and the British took over in india 1800s

Back to ur post, more over only a part of Bengal became muslim majority ...*rest of the Bengali both hindus and Buddists who too came back to regular hindu life as the Buddists monasteries were disappeared with rising on islamic rule in Bengal, without state patronage*.*To say that all Buddists converted to islam just plain stupid and as usual part of ur propaganda **** that spit aganist india because its a hindu nation for u.*


----------



## EjazR

Here is a link by a Tibitean Buddhist scholar about the interaction of Islamic and Buddhist cultures before the Mongol invasions. This person is the aide of the Dalai Lama and his work is based on Buddhist scrolls and manuscripts.
The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire
Some Common Features of Islam and Buddhism: A Conversation with Snjezana Akpinar and Alex Berzin

The main blow that came to Buddhists in Afghanistan and present-day Pakistan was from the Mongol invasions of Chengiz Khan and Halaku Khan who destroyed temples and mosques alike and killed thousands of people. These people were not muslims. Before that Buddhists had monasteries all the way in Afghanistan and Central Asia as well.

The interesting part is that these conquerors of muslims actually converted to Islam in their second generation which eventually had a civilizing affect on them. (That basically disproves again that Islam spread by force, why would the conquerors accept the defeated people's religion by force?) Then you have the ASEAN region - Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei - where the largest Muslim population in the world exists, which Muslim army went there?

If you notice muslim ethnicities around the world, they are mostly natives, so sub-continent muslims share their genetic traits mostly with their Hindu and Sikh neighbors. ASEAN or Chinese muslims share their traits with their Chinese neighbors. And similar examples in other parts of the world.

Compare that to European expansion which completely annihilated the local Australian or American indigenous populations. The local people there now share the same anglo saxon or Caucasian ethnicity as their European counterparts. That shows how it would look like if only force was used to expand

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TopCat

Khajur said:


> Every religion in the world be it islam,christianity or Buddism thrived and got mass acceptance only when they got patronage from the ruling elite of that period of time ...e,g christianity suffered for centuries long persecution ,but only when some Emperor accepted christianity ,it became the state religion...so was true for islam and we know how it spread from Arabia...Mahmoud himself had to fight wars and later followers also had to win battles to extended more terrritories under islam part of Jihad...*Even Buddism got more following only when kings and ruling dynasties started to believe in Buddha's principles and they promoted Buddism in even far away places like East Asia and Srilanka...*
> 
> Similarly on the other hand, many religions were reduced to oblivion with time..e,g Judaism,Parsis disappeared as they lost to invaders and particularly jainism india died out as the royal patronage cease to exist.
> 
> *When i say royal patronage it means both violent and peaceful approch adopted and that those were employed generation after geneations to promota certain religion.*
> 
> I'll not mention the case Hinduism here...because sanatana hindu dharma is a way of life from thousands of years.. antcient spiritual way to reach out to god...any indian origin religion e,g Buddism and jainism were never existed separate religions ,as different philosophies that coexisted along with many other prominient divisions under the umbrella of sanatana hindu dharma...and caste system existed in Buddism too ,though only implictly because simple non materialistic life Buddist life.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they did force...even the high caste people to join isalm
> Isnt that what u urself were trying to say in ur other post....
> 
> Read again what wrote:
> 
> 
> Now u are just going round and round with ur wild theories to ur original claim that Bengali Buddists turned to Islam because they suffered at the hands of high caste hindus .*Thats what we are debating about ,arent we?? ...until u keep shifting the goal posts *.
> 
> Fact remains...Buddists of Bengal or even some hindus for that matter turned to islam not because of any special reasons like upper class persecution of hindus ...*but for the more common reasons,methods and similar circumstance that made other people turned to islam in other parts around the world.Islam survided Bengal because of several hundreds yrs of muslim rule and surely would've disappeard from Bengal like it happened Spain and in other parts of Europe where Crusaders wiped out all signs of Islam once they recaptured spain after centuries of islamic rule,had it not been the case of such prolong muslim rule *.
> 
> Even the whole of undivided india were known as an islamic domain and official language was Farsi everywhere, even in Bengal (not Bengali)due to the muslim rule of india until its powere receded by 1700 and the British took over in india 1800s
> 
> Back to ur post, more over only a part of Bengal became muslim majority ...*rest of the Bengali both hindus and Buddists who too came back to regular hindu life as the Buddists monasteries were disappeared with rising on islamic rule in Bengal, without state patronage*.*To say that all Buddists converted to islam just plain stupid and as usual part of ur propaganda **** that spit aganist india because its a hindu nation for u.*



You put a lot of effort for this post without really coming back to the original point. Why on earth the whole India remained as Hindu except Bengal under the same kind of catalyst like Muslim rule, force conversion, lure conversion so on and so on? 
You contradict on the point that Buddhist did not convert but gone back to Hinduism because muslim destroyed all the monestaries but you fail to accept the same logic that Buddhist coverted to Islam becase of social injustice done to them through labeling them as lower caste. Why do they want to go back to Hinduism as a lower caste whereas they ruled bengal for thousand year as a higher caste?

Regarding spain and europe, you missed the point that muslim did not convert back to the christianity rather they had to migrate. Even except western europe Islam did survive in Europe and still thriving.

This is just to straighten the fact.


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch

*Khajur* has a very valid point. If Buddhists could withstand and survive the 'tyranny' of Brahminism for centuries, and not convert to Hinduism which would have relieved them from the tyranny, why then would they suddenly convert en mass to Islam, when Islam was replacing Brahminism - the perpetrators of tyranny.

Through out you have insinuated that the lower castes were tortured. Wouldn't that lead the lower castes to covert? But strangely you are saying that the upper caste (the perpetrators), converted, while the lower caste (the tortured) continued to retain their religion.

Things are not adding up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

ice_man said:


> inferiority my A*S!!!! LOOK MAN its simple no matter what you say we DON'T want to associate ourselves with you....but what i don't get is that why do YOU guys so badly want to believe we are the same as you!!! i mean why does it bother you so much!!!
> 
> *for me i don't want to associate anything of mine with india!!! actually its the indians that try to tell the world that we are similar IT MUST BE because PAKISTANIS are better looking!!*
> 
> before you say ohhhh we got good looking people....well look at the ratio man out a population of a BILLION!!! you have a few good looking people....stroll down the roads of bombay or delhi & try noticing who is good looking very few & far apart....
> 
> our ratio in 170 million is better!!!
> 
> I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE....good for you...let it go! why do you so badly want us to be you...I GUESS U are the one with INFERIORITY COMPLEX!



No, not exactly ....there is not much difference between pakistan especially its most populous states pakistani punjab and sindh province... and just next door neighbour across the borders in Punjab,Rajastan,Gujart and most of north india in terms of racial profile based on scientific fact .I guess u hold some faith on scientific analysis.


*Now we can understand that u'll never accept this simple fact which the whole world can figure out easily, because its going to negate the foundamental aspects on the basis of which ur country was created and india got partitioned in the first place . U have to repeat this false impression propagated during partition...usually get more vocal support from slightly distant pathan section of pakistan...so as to remind, explain and justify partition among ur own citizens.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TopCat

toxic_pus said:


> eastwatch
> 
> *Khajur* has a very valid point. If Buddhists could withstand and survive the 'tyranny' of Brahminism for centuries, and not convert to Hinduism which would have relieved them from the tyranny, why then would they suddenly convert en mass to Islam, when Islam was replacing Brahminism - the perpetrators of tyranny.
> 
> Through out you have insinuated that the lower castes were tortured. Wouldn't that lead the lower castes to covert? But strangely you are saying that the upper caste (the perpetrators), converted, while the lower caste (the tortured) continued to retain their religion.
> 
> Things are not adding up.




Lower caste did convert. Specially the fisher men (Mleccha that you call them) who got converted in high numbers. They did not convert because of tyranny of Bhramins but to get out of caste system. I dont think Sudras converted in large numbers as till this day all the sudra reamined as Hindu in bangladesh. Specially shoe shiner, cleaners etc. In eastwatch's post he clearly explained why a sudra not qualify for a conversion.

There may be debate for the reason of Buddhist conversion but mostly all the remaining Buddhist did convert to Islam. That just change the equation in Bengal and made this a Muslim majority.


----------



## toxic_pus

iajdani said:


> Lower caste did convert. Specially the fisher men (Mleccha that you call them) who got converted in high numbers. They did not convert because of tyranny of Bhramins but to get out of caste system. I dont think Sudras converted in large numbers as till this day all the sudra reamined as Hindu in bangladesh. Specially shoe shiner, cleaners etc. In eastwatch's post he clearly explained why a sudra not qualify for a conversion.
> 
> There may be debate for the reason of Buddhist conversion but mostly all the remaining Buddhist did convert to Islam. That just change the equation in Bengal and made this a Muslim majority.


First, 'Mleccha' means someone who doesn't follow the vedic codes. The Muslims, the Christians etc. would be that. The word you are looking for is 'Meccho', a bengali word for fisher man and fish seller.

Second, shoe shiners, coblers and fishermen were all Sudras. What you do not know is, caste system is not just about 'verna' but is also about 'jati'. 

Third, the 'caste system' is what referred to by eastwatch as tools of 'tyranny'. Wanting 'to get out of caste system' would be same as trying to run away from the 'tyranny of Brahmins'.

Fourth, unfortunately, eastwatch has made cuckoo of a post, as usual. It is clear, like you, he is at loggerheads with the fact that in spite of all the 'Brahminical tyranny' and advent of Islam, which had the potential of freeing them from such 'tyranny' how come the lower castes continued to exist in such vast number. Ergo, they were not 'enlightened' enough to convert to Islam. Suddenly 'tyranny', which led the Buddhists to convert, is no longer a factor. Typical eastwatch-esque attempt to shoehorn bizarre theories to match the reality.

His theories still don't add up.


----------



## TopCat

toxic_pus said:


> First, 'Mleccha' means someone who doesn't follow the vedic codes. The Muslims, the Christians etc. would be that. The word you are looking for is 'Meccho', a bengali word for fisher man and fish seller.


Thanks for the tips.


> Second, shoe shiners, coblers and fishermen were all Sudras. What you do not know is, caste system is not just about 'verna' but is also about 'jati'.


Ohh i knew they are of low cast but did not know they were sudras. What is the connotation on Verna and Jati with regards to cast system? I am just confused. Does that mean some cast with some Jat is different than same cast with different jat?


> Third, the 'caste system' is what referred to by eastwatch as tools of 'tyranny'. Wanting 'to get out of caste system' would be same as trying to run away from the 'tyranny of Brahmins'.
> 
> Fourth, unfortunately, eastwatch has made cuckoo of a post, as usual. It is clear, like you, he is at loggerheads with the fact that in spite of all the 'Brahminical tyranny' and advent of Islam, which had the potential of freeing them from such 'tyranny' how come the lower castes continued to exist in such vast number. Ergo, they were not 'enlightened' enough to convert to Islam. Suddenly 'tyranny', which led the Buddhists to convert, is no longer a factor. Typical eastwatch-esque attempt to shoehorn bizarre theories to match the reality.
> 
> His theories still don't add up.



Its not all black and white. There must always be a grey area. All the factors mentioned by you and us may worked for the conversion of large number of people in Bengal. The buddist factor, the muslim migration factor, low cast factor, economic factor all might added up to the large scale conversion. My point was that Buddhist played a significant role in the whole process as they were the largest number by the end of Pala dynasty.
Bhraminical tyranny or we could better say, tyranny by the stronger over the weaker was always there in India. There were also a counter force to that worked all along the history.


----------



## moving_ahead

wat so ever mughal got the right reward during jange azadi 1857 due to wat they did during their ruling days over india.
AKBAR if u mention indicates the stupidity And THE cream of MUGHALS AROGANCE SO THE RIGHT RESULT THEY DESERVED AFTER THEY WERE CHOPED OFF BY ENEMIES OF ISLAM....
AURANGZEB IF U ASK IT NOT FULLY BUT SOMEHOW HE DID SERVED A BIT FOR MUSLIMS OF INDIA.SO HE GOT SOME HONOUR IN HEARTS OF UMMAH....


----------



## eastwatch

iajdani said:


> Lower caste did convert. Specially the fisher men (Mleccha that you call them) who got converted in high numbers. They did not convert because of tyranny of Bhramins but to get out of caste system. I dont think Sudras converted in large numbers as till this day all the sudra reamined as Hindu in bangladesh. Specially shoe shiner, cleaners etc. In eastwatch's post he clearly explained why a sudra not qualify for a conversion.
> 
> There may be debate for the reason of Buddhist conversion but mostly all the remaining Buddhist did convert to Islam. That just change the equation in Bengal and made this a Muslim majority.


I suggest you read a book named 'Caste Dynamics in Hindu Society' written by an Indian (I forgot his/her name) to know that the fishermen are not MLECCHO. They are called 'JOLIYO KOIBORTO, ' in Bangla. And Koiborto is equivalent to Kayostho. Only Bengal caste system is different from other Hindu caste systems. Bangali Hindus do not have KHATRIO (as we say). They have Brahmin, Kayostha or Koiborto, Baissho and Sudra.

Please note that Budhist conversion was not the only cause of Muslim majority in Bengal. We have to understand that since 1203, there were much immigration of Muslims from Afghanistan and central asia as well as arabia and Persia. They spread to different parts of Hindustan, but many also immigrated to Bengal. 

Also note that Muslim population did not gain majority from the very beginning. Even in the 1870 population census, Muslims were not in majority, but gained majority gradually. This phenomenon can be compared with the population figures of BD and Pakistan. In 1971, BD had about 75 million people and Pakistan had about 65 million. But now, the BD population is 145 to 150 million, whereas Pakistani population is 160 million.

Due to various social reasons, Muslim birth (birth - death) rates in Bengal were more than the Hindu birth rates for many centuries, which has also contributed to gain a majority for the Bangali Muslims. It can, therefore, be said that there was less conversion than the present majority suggests, but the Muslim numbers grew at a higher rate than the Hindu neighbours for many centuries.


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> For example, earlier you had posted a research published in 2009, by Sharma et al, which would have us believe that some breakthrough has been made. Once I got to go through the paper, I realised, that they were using the same set of data, which other scientists (Kivisild 2000, 2003; Codaux 2004) had used to come to one conclusion, while they chose to conclude something else, without so much as giving an adequate explanation.



Actually, they not only used existing data but also collected fresh data. And they have an extensive discussion of how they analyzed the data and drew their conclusions.



> It was interesting to find that by adding information regarding
> the frequency and diversity of R1a1* from different population
> groups of North India (Information from North Indian population
> groups was scanty in earlier publications from India.) to the
> pooled data from different published sources, a clearer picture
> emerged, with overlapping high frequency and molecular diversity
> of R1a1* within India.





> Further, the average diversity of the R1a1* haplogroup in Central
> Asians, Europeans and Indians was also calculated. The highest
> diversity of 0.52 (for both sampling and stochastic processes
> s.d. = 0.32) was observed in Indians when compared with Europeans
> (0.40, s.d. = 0.27) and Central Asians (0.32, s.d. = 0.23).





> The Indian haplotypes were observed to be the most diverse, and haplotypes spanning Central Asia and Eurasia, along with some Indian regional haplotypes, seemed to be derived as a subset of this diversity.


----------



## toxic_pus

iajdani said:


> Thanks for the tips.


Welcome.


> Ohh i knew they are of low cast but did not know they were sudras. What is the connotation on Verna and Jati with regards to cast system? I am just confused. Does that mean some cast with some Jat is different than same cast with different jat?


&#8216;Verna&#8217; means colour, while &#8216;jati&#8217; means &#8211; for want of a better word &#8211; tribe or community. Todays caste system is more &#8216;jati&#8217; oriented than &#8216;verna&#8217;. &#8216;Verna&#8217; is like hierarchical rankings, much the same way as economic hierarchy works &#8211; the rich occupies the higher mantle, the middle class occupies the middle, while the poor occupies the lowest rung. &#8216;Jati&#8217; on the other hand works, much the same way as ethnicity works, although the system of &#8216;jati&#8217; is far more complicated than &#8216;ethnicity&#8217;. A combination of these two system, constitute of todays &#8216;caste system&#8217;. For deeper understanding read Andre Beteille.

Caste system in Bengal is slightly different from the Northern India. In Bengal, there were only two castes &#8211; the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins (the concept of shudras wasn&#8217;t explicitly present). 

The non-Brahmins had numerous sub-castes and these were grouped as upper, middle and lower castes. Upper non-Brahmin caste consisted of Kayastha &#8211; the record keepers or clerks (e.g. Ghosh, Bose, Mitra etc.), Vaidya &#8211; the medicine makers or doctors (e.g. Dasgupta, Sengupta etc.), Tantuvaya &#8211; the weavers, Karmakara &#8211; the ironsmiths etc. The middle non-Brahmins caste consisted of Rajaka &#8211; the washer men, Svarnakara &#8211; the goldsmiths, *Dhivara &#8211; the fish traders, Jalika &#8211; the fisher men* [I stand corrected]etc. The lower non-Brahmin caste, or if one so pleases, the Shudras, consisted of Candala &#8211; those who cremated the dead, Carmakara &#8211; those who worked with leather etc. There two more castes which fell nowhere, although they were considered as equivalent to lower non-Brahmin caste &#8211; the Mlecchas and the Vaishnavs (People of all caste could become Vaishnavs and they had no caste system within themselves. However, since, mostly the lower caste non-Brahmins became Vaishnavs, the entire sect came to be considered as lower caste non-Brahmins). The Khastrya and Vaisya castes are virtually absent. However Burmans claim to be descendent of the Burmana dynasty of Bengal rulers and hence Khastriyas, while some jewellery makers claim to be Vaisyas. But they are few and far between.

Each of these castes and sub-castes has their own stories (myth or folk tale) of their origin. Accordingly, Kayasthas claim to be Khastriyas. Vaidyas claim themselves to be Brahmins and wear the same sacred thread that Brahmins wear. Svarnakaras claim to be Vaisyas etc.

Then there are &#8216;gotras&#8217;. 


> Its not all black and white. There must always be a grey area. All the factors mentioned by you and us may worked for the conversion of large number of people in Bengal. The buddist factor, the muslim migration factor, low cast factor, economic factor all might added up to the large scale conversion. My point was that Buddhist played a significant role in the whole process as they were the largest number by the end of Pala dynasty.
> Bhraminical tyranny or we could better say, tyranny by the stronger over the weaker was always there in India. There were also a counter force to that worked all along the history.


The extent of muslim presence in todays Bengal can't be explained by occasional conversions of Hindus or Buddhists in the past. The real reason, which has been touched upon by *eastwatch* in post #274, is intermingling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch said:


> I suggest you read a book named 'Caste Dynamics in Hindu Society' written by an Indian (I forgot his/her name) to know that the fishermen are not MLECCHO. They are called 'JOLIYO KOIBORTO, ' in Bangla. And Koiborto is equivalent to Kayostho. Only Bengal caste system is different from other Hindu caste systems. Bangali Hindus do not have KHATRIO (as we say). They have Brahmin, Kayostha or Koiborto, Baissho and Sudra.


See above


> Please note that Budhist conversion was not the only cause of Muslim majority in Bengal. We have to understand that since 1203, there were much immigration of Muslims from Afghanistan and central asia as well as arabia and Persia. They spread to different parts of Hindustan, but many also immigrated to Bengal.
> 
> Also note that Muslim population did not gain majority from the very beginning. Even in the 1870 population census, Muslims were not in majority, but gained majority gradually. This phenomenon can be compared with the population figures of BD and Pakistan. In 1971, BD had about 75 million people and Pakistan had about 65 million. But now, the BD population is 145 to 150 million, whereas Pakistani population is 160 million.
> 
> Due to various social reasons, Muslim birth (birth - death) rates in Bengal were more than the Hindu birth rates for many centuries, which has also contributed to gain a majority for the Bangali Muslims. It can, therefore, be said that there was less conversion than the present majority suggests, but the Muslim numbers grew at a higher rate than the Hindu neighbours for many centuries.


Finally. Good to see you coming around.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> Actually, they not only used existing data but also collected fresh data. And they have an extensive discussion of how they analyzed the data and drew their conclusions.


Yes I am aware of that. But the manner in which their work was presented, can be highly misleading to an untrained eye. The claim was that:


> A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, *collated information for 2809 Indians* (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes)



EDIT: It appears that their own samples amounted to a mere 621. Anyway, thats not the problem. Research is based on the shoulders of other researches. 

Also, if R1a1 originated in India, then why R1b is so rare, almost absent in India.


----------



## eastwatch

Halaku Khan said:


> The word "Arya" means "noble" - there is nothing in Sanskrit literature to suggest that it refers to settlers from elsewhere.
> 
> There is the concept of the Varnas - but the Varnas are not supposed to be hereditary. They refer to evolutionary status. A person is a Shudra, a Vaishya, a Kshatriya or a Brahmana depending on whether his principal goal in life is *Kaama* (sensual desire), *Artha* (prosperity), *Dharma* (natural righteousness) or *Moksha* (enlightenment). Each soul is supposed to through a process of evolution over many incarnations, before reaching perfection. It's not that somebody is a Brahmana because his father is a Brahmana.
> 
> Now, in practice, there may have been various social evils in say 600 BC, the time of the Buddha. Buddhism has to be seen as a movement for purification and renewal in society - there have been several such movements in Sanatana Dharma over the millenia. However, the fundamentals of Buddhism are fully in harmony with the fundamentals of Sanatana Dharma (i.e. the Upanishads or the Advaita philosophy).


I know the word ARYA has the meaning of noble. And the meaning of Islam is 'PEACE.' By teaching me the irrelevant meaning of a word, I hope you are not trying to disprove that the the Hindus used to call their land 'ARYAVARTA' 30 centuries before the arrival of British colonialists or that German whose name I forgot.

You are writing what your religion should have been, but I am taliking about what your religion is in practice, and how your JAT PAT system has created disparities among the same and equal human beings. Unfortunately, your society is still avoiding to humanize it by discarding the caste system.


----------



## manishmaithani

eastwatch said:


> I know the word ARYA has the meaning of noble. And the meaning of Islam is 'PEACE.' By teaching me the irrelevant meaning of a word, I hope you are not trying to disprove that the the Hindus used to call their land 'ARYAVARTA' 30 centuries before the arrival of British colonialists or that German whose name I forgot.
> 
> You are writing what your religion should have been, but I am taliking about what your religion is in practice, and how your JAT PAT system has created disparities among the same and equal human beings. Unfortunately, your society is still avoiding to humanize it by discarding the caste system.



I Have read your many post and i think you have very vast knowledge of indian history.many people of india realy dont know much about history of india, might be because of diversity of india.
Indian called themselves as *Aryan* wheather its muslim or hindu.
But when we come onto religeus point, suddenly people mind always changed like "muslim is better than hindu" and "hindu is better than muslim".
We always forget to respect other religeon people.Hindu facing castism since 1000 year but time is changing very fastly because people getting education, i think history will change again.

On the other hand sometime if i was not able to clear my views to other people ,i started to blame other religeous that every religeon has same problem as" Shiya and Sunni" and "catholik and Protesnt"

I am not blaming now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

manishmaithani said:


> I Have read your many post and i think you have very vast knowledge of indian history.many people of india realy dont know much about history of india, might be because of diversity of india.
> Indian called themselves as *Aryan* wheather its muslim or hindu.
> But when we come onto religeus point, suddenly people mind always changed like "muslim is better than hindu" and "hindu is better than muslim".
> We always forget to respect other religeon people.Hindu facing castism since 1000 year but time is changing very fastly because people getting education, i think history will change again.
> 
> On the other hand sometime if i was not unable to clear my views to other people ,i started to blame other religeous that every religeon has same problem as" Shiya and Sunni" and "catholik and Protesnt"
> 
> I am not blaming now.


Thank you for your open mindedness. This thread is about the Mughals, but somehow it derailed partially to a subject, although not very irrelevant, of how Muslims became a majority in the eastern India. However, the points I wrote are not to spread hate against the Hindus. I tried to tell only the truths. 

I personally detastes the way of Muslim Talibanism. Similarly, I also dislike Hindu JAT PAT system. It was never the intention of Bhagwan to degrade a of human group by imposing a repressive religious system on them. All these are man-made. All the religious groups must try to get rid of repression. I very much hope, your wish to get the Hindu society rid of divisions will be realized someday.

Muslim divisions of Shiya and Sunni is purely political. But, no Shiya or a Sunni will ever castigate the other group as lower than his own group. So, it is not a caste system, although there is a division of thinking on historical events. Shiya has a long term grievance that Hazrat Ali, the cousine and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammed (SAW), was not made the Khalifa of Muslim world after the death of Prophet (SAW).

Since the Muslims cannot go back by 1500 years, therefore, there is no way the decision of that time can be reversed. So, unless the Shiyas change their orthodox thinking and learn to live in the present world , and have a flexible mind, the Sunni-Shiya divide will not go away.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

ice_man said:


> inferiority my A*S!!!! LOOK MAN its simple no matter what you say we DON'T want to associate ourselves with you....but what i don't get is that why do YOU guys so badly want to believe we are the same as you!!! i mean why does it bother you so much!!!
> 
> for me i don't want to associate anything of mine with india!!! actually its the indians that try to tell the world that we are similar IT MUST BE because PAKISTANIS are better looking!!
> 
> before you say ohhhh we got good looking people....well look at the ratio man out a population of a BILLION!!! you have a few good looking people....stroll down the roads of bombay or delhi & try noticing who is good looking very few & far apart....
> 
> our ratio in 170 million is better!!!
> 
> I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE....good for you...let it go! why do you so badly want us to be you...I GUESS U are the one with INFERIORITY COMPLEX!


Yes, Indian Muslims seem to me also a better looking group of people than the Hindus. It is because of infusion of foreign Muslim bloods from central asian region during the Muslim period. But, this thread is not about this issue.


----------



## arihant

eastwatch said:


> Yes, Indian Muslims seem to me also a better looking group of people than the Hindus. It is because of infusion of foreign Muslim bloods from central asian region during the Muslim period. But, this thread is not about this issue.



I thought you mean, few BD looking better to attack India then other BD..


----------



## eastwatch

toxic_pus said:


> Each of these castes and sub-castes has their own stories (myth or folk tale) of their origin. Accordingly, Kayasthas claim to be Khastriyas. Vaidyas claim themselves to be Brahmins and wear the same sacred thread that Brahmins wear. Svarnakaras claim to be Vaisyas etc.


Thanks for all the posts you have been writing. I am a late joiner and I have not read all your posts, but I read your current posts. I have found many Indians are highly educated and there are much to learn from them. You are also amazing, although your nickname here in this forum gives a different impression.

The Bangali Hindu caste relationship that you have written is to the point. This is also what I have read in some other research books. By the way, as far as I have read somewhere that Vaidyas were basically from the Brahmin caste, who became Ayurbedic doctors/Kabiraj in Bengal. In ancient Bengal, a Brahmin was not supposed to eat or drink anything from the hands of a lower caste Hindu. So, an educated group from the Brahmins came out to take up medicine. 

This medical profession became the family occupation of that group of Brahmins. In the course of time, this group became completely detached from the main job of a Brahmin, that is, Puja and some related works, and started to be called as Vaidyas. But, genetically they are from the Brahmin caste.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

eastwatch said:


> I know the word ARYA has the meaning of noble. And the meaning of Islam is 'PEACE.' By teaching me the irrelevant meaning of a word, I hope you are not trying to disprove that the the Hindus used to call their land 'ARYAVARTA' 30 centuries before the arrival of British colonialists or that German whose name I forgot.
> 
> You are writing what your religion should have been, but I am taliking about what your religion is in practice, and how your JAT PAT system has created disparities among the same and equal human beings. Unfortunately, your society is still avoiding to humanize it by discarding the caste system.



Aryavarta? So what? "The abode of the noble" is how you would translate it.

I was talking about the fundamental doctrines of Sanatana Dharma.

Which society is perfect? Indian society may not be perfect, but there are Indians who are trying to address the imperfections. 

I could have talked about imperfections of Islamic societies. Or I could have discussed the the behavior of the Prophet of Islam, authentically quoting from the Sahih Hadith. Tales of torture, rape, kidnapping, enslavement and murder. If you want to go there, we will.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> Also, if R1a1 originated in India, then why R1b is so rare, almost absent in India.



That may indicate that R1b split off from R1 somewhere outside South Asia.


----------



## EjazR

*Taj city marks Akbar&#8217;s birthday with nostalgia*

Agra, Oct 15 (IANS) Wishing Mughal emperor Akbar happy birthday Thursday, a clutch of local conservationists got together here to recall his contribution to the enrichment of Hindustani culture and his secular concepts. They said Agra would have been a different place had he been alive.

While the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) perhaps forgot all about it, the Braj Mandal Heritage Conservation Society made it a point to mark the occasion. After all, it was in Agra that Akbar had spent many years of his life.

Conservation Society president Surendra Sharma, claiming to speak on behalf of Akbar, read out a decree listing what all needed to be done to restore the Taj city&#8217;s lost glory and historical importance.

Had Akbar been alive, we &#8220;would not have been helpless spectators to the torturous killing of the city&#8217;s lifeline Yamuna&#8221;, Surendra Sharma said.

Historian Ramesh Chandra Sharma said: &#8220;Akbar&#8217;s experiments in governance, his ideas relating to coexistence and mutual tolerance of each other&#8217;s faith and recognition of talents like the nine jewels, have to be seen as part of a rich legacy he left behind.&#8221;

Akbar&#8217;s commitment to freedom of expression and respect for contrary views should be taken note of by the fundamentalists, Sharma added.

Akbar, a popular ruler of his time, was known for his intellectual contribution and advocacy of a composite culture through his Din-e-Ilahi, a concept that is of relevance in the present context of terrorism and religious intolerance, said retired wing commander H.S. Sisodia.

Other rulers like Shah Jahan were famed more for their architectural ideas whereas he is widely considered the greatest of the Mughal emperors and has been christened &#8220;Akbar the Great&#8221;, Sisodia said.

Talking about the sad state of urban planning in Agra, speakers accused government agencies of destroying the ethos of this Mughal city.

V.P. Singh said politicians of all hues were hell bent on rampaging the grand Mughal city with Quixotic ideas that had resulted in haphazard planning.

Eco-activist Ravi Singh said the historical monuments in Agra city were in a bad shape. &#8220;The conservational efforts were poor. While developing new areas, no care was taken to ensure that the new structures were compatible with the Mughal ethos of this city,&#8221; Singh said.

Others said Akbar&#8217;s tomb in Sikandra and the Agra Fort needed urgent conservational efforts. They also suggested that the city be made home to a Mughal museum and special arrangements be made for tourists to experience authentic Mughlai cuisine.

A 10-point charter of demands relating to infrastructure development and improvement in civic amenities was presented as a &#8216;firman&#8217; or decree from Akbar for implementation by the district authorities.


----------



## Halaku Khan

Halaku Khan said:


> That may indicate that R1b split off from R1 somewhere outside South Asia.



It is interesting that the ancestral haplogroup R* is found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia - Spain, Greece, Lebanon (particularly the Druze community), Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and India, but not in Arabia. 

(The star after a haplogroup refers to pure haplogroup, not including descendants)

Also interesting is the fact that R* seems to be absent from the Russian Steppes, the alleged homeland of the Aryans.

R1*, which descended from R*, is also found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia (excluding Arabia). 

R1b is high in western Europe, with highest percentage in Spain. 

R1* also seems to be absent from the steppes, the supposed Aryan homeland.

R2, descended from R*, is found predominantly in India. R2 is found in all castes and regions of India. It tends to correlate strongly with R1a1. R2 and R1a1 are either high together or low together.

As far as I know, the only known significant pure R1a* population is in the Saharia tribe of Central India (some 22% of Saharias).

Pure R1a1* is at its highest amongst the upper castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal. However, it is also found in Central Asia and Europe. The diversity of R1a1 is highest in India.

*So the picture that emerges is as follows:* R* and its descendant R1* first spread across southern Eurasia, from Spain to India. In Spain, R1b branched off from R1*. In India, R1a* branched off from R1*. Also in India, R2 branched off from R*. Later, R1a1* further branched off from R1a*. This may have happened some 20,000 - 25,000 years ago.

Some of these R1a1 people migrated northwards from South Asia to Central Asia and Europe. That explains how you have R1a1 over there, but not R* or R1* or R1a*.

Incidentally, this also indicates that the higher castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal are the descendants of the original R* and R1* migrants into India. In fact many of India's castes and tribes are also descendants of the same original R* and R1* people. Indeed, Indian Brahmins are around 35% R1a1, whereas Shudras are about 22% R1a1.

There is also another major group in India, which are the ancestral south Indians (ASI's). The ancestral north Indians (ANIs), i.e. the R and R1 people, migrated into India along southern Eurasia, whereas the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea. Most Indian people are mixtures of ASI's and ANI's - generally, the share of each group is 40-60%. There are a few isolated communities (such as the Andaman Islands people), who are pure ASI's, with no ANI ancestry.


----------



## eastwatch

toxic_pus said:


> eastwatch
> 
> *Khajur* has a very valid point. If Buddhists could withstand and survive the 'tyranny' of Brahminism for centuries, and not convert to Hinduism which would have relieved them from the tyranny, why then would they suddenly convert en mass to Islam, when Islam was replacing Brahminism - the perpetrators of tyranny.
> 
> Through out you have insinuated that the lower castes were tortured. Wouldn't that lead the lower castes to covert? But strangely you are saying that the upper caste (the perpetrators), converted, while the lower caste (the tortured) continued to retain their religion.
> 
> Things are not adding up.


You have missed one part of historical chronology. Budhists were dominant in Bengal until the demise of Pal Dynasty in 1095. When Hemanta Sena of SENA dynasty took over the reign of Bengal in 1095, he and his descendents, including Raja Laxman Sena, discarded the patronage of Budhism. Instead, they all patronized Hinduism with all its ingredients that also include the caste system. 

With State patronage, Brahmins became again dominant both socially and politically. The Rajas brought many Brahmin families from north Hindustan. All these Brahmins together imposed their will on the Budhists, who were educated, to come back to the Hindu fold, but at the lowest rung of its caste system. Budhists were tormented by the tyranies of Hindu Brahmins for more than a hundred years.

The Afghan Turkic invasion and their first migration happened in 1203. This was the starting point for these educated Budhists to embrace Islam and strengthen the hold of Muslim power in the eastern part of Hindustan in a way that Hindus remained subdued until the British rule started effectively after the Battle of Buxar in 1764.


----------



## toxic_pus

Halaku Khan said:


> It is interesting that the ancestral haplogroup R* is found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia - Spain, Greece, Lebanon (particularly the Druze community), Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and India, but not in Arabia.
> 
> (The star after a haplogroup refers to pure haplogroup, not including descendants) _[As far as I know, it means non-mutated Haplogroup]_
> 
> Also interesting is the fact that R* seems to be absent from the Russian Steppes, the alleged homeland of the Aryans.
> 
> R1*, which descended from R*, is also found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia (excluding Arabia).
> 
> R1b is high in western Europe, with highest percentage in Spain.
> 
> R1* also seems to be absent from the steppes, the supposed Aryan homeland.
> 
> R2, descended from R*, is found predominantly in India. R2 is found in all castes and regions of India. It tends to correlate strongly with R1a1. R2 and R1a1 are either high together or low together.
> 
> As far as I know, the only known significant pure R1a* population is in the Saharia tribe of Central India (some 22% of Saharias).
> 
> Pure R1a1* is at its highest amongst the upper castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal. However, it is also found in Central Asia and Europe. The diversity of R1a1 is highest in India.
> 
> *So the picture that emerges is as follows:* R* and its descendant R1* first spread across southern Eurasia, from Spain to India. In Spain, R1b branched off from R1*. In India, R1a* branched off from R1*. Also in India, R2 branched off from R*. Later, R1a1* further branched off from R1a*. This may have happened some 20,000 - 25,000 years ago.
> 
> Some of these R1a1 people migrated northwards from South Asia to Central Asia and Europe. That explains how you have R1a1 over there, but not R* or R1* or R1a*.
> 
> Incidentally, this also indicates that the higher castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal are the descendants of the original R* and R1* migrants into India. In fact many of India's castes and tribes are also descendants of the same original R* and R1* people. Indeed, Indian Brahmins are around 35% R1a1, whereas Shudras are about 22% R1a1.
> 
> There is also another major group in India, which are the ancestral south Indians (ASI's). The ancestral north Indians (ANIs), i.e. the R and R1 people, migrated into India along southern Eurasia, whereas the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea. Most Indian people are mixtures of ASI's and ANI's - generally, the share of each group is 40-60%. There are a few isolated communities (such as the Andaman Islands people), who are pure ASI's, with no ANI ancestry.



This is getting a tad boring and a whole lot tiresome.

First, R* and R1* are extremely rare, because they represent nil mutation. Very few people on earth have those. Because of the general rarity of any non-muted Haplo type, the absence of such non-muted Haplo doesnt imply that the initial Haplo type was absent in a particular region, neither does it imply that it was present. That would be like proving a negative. 

Second, if R* has subclades, then it is no longer R*, but R. Presence of R* means that mutation stopped for some reason and would logically constitute a separate tree, as far as that non-mutated haplogroup is concerned. In other words, anybody carrying the subclades of R, is sure as hell, not a member of R* branch. Presence of subclades and also the un-mutated haplogroup, also doesnt mean, in anyway, that the mutation of un-mutated haplogroup happened in that region. It may also mean that both the subclades and the un-muted haplogroup had arrived separately. 

Third, there is no evidence that R1b had originated in Europe, let alone Spain. On the other hand, the generally accepted theory, as of now, is that it had entered Europe at the end of Ice Age. During the Ice Age population carrying R1 got separated into two distinct groups. One, later developed into R1b and entered Europe, while the other, developed into R1a and entered South Asia (but thats what we are debating, arent we?). Incidentally, R1b is found in abundance (almost rising to 90%) in Western France and Ireland (in some places it reaches to 100%) as well. It is found in Central Asia as well. 

Fourth, R1 may not have originated around 20-25 kya (thousand years ago), as you have proposed. Karafet et al. (2008) suggest that R1 may have originated circa 18.5 kya. 

As with the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea, it is speculation, unless you back that up with research, that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal that is accepted by majority of scientists as decently reliable. 

The above scenario, that you have presented, is way too simplistic, not to mention anachronistic and is based on a very wrong premise that since un-muted haplogroup is not detected in a region, its subclades must have then migrated from somewhere. 

Given the paucity of evidence, the idea, that people carrying the Haplogroup R1a1 migrated to Central Asia and it neighbouring regions, is just a leap of faith. Additionally, if indeed the migration had happened north-westerly from India, it would fly straight into the face of archeological and linguistic evidences, which, as of now are the only tangible evidences in hand.


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch said:


> ...your nickname here in this forum gives a different impression.


Thats the idea



> The Bangali Hindu caste relationship that you have written is to the point. This is also what I have read in some other research books. By the way, as far as I have read somewhere that Vaidyas were basically from the Brahmin caste, who became Ayurbedic doctors/Kabiraj in Bengal. In ancient Bengal, a Brahmin was not supposed to eat or drink anything from the hands of a lower caste Hindu. So, an educated group from the Brahmins came out to take up medicine.
> 
> This medical profession became the family occupation of that group of Brahmins. In the course of time, this group became completely detached from the main job of a Brahmin, that is, Puja and some related works, and started to be called as Vaidyas. But, genetically they are from the Brahmin caste.


Thats what I referred to as folk tale of origination. Nobody knows what is true.


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch said:


> The Afghan Turkic invasion and their first migration happened in 1203. This was the starting point for these educated Budhists to embrace Islam and strengthen the hold of Muslim power in the eastern part of Hindustan in a way that Hindus remained subdued until the British rule started effectively after the Battle of Buxar in 1764.


You are basically saying that the Buddhists cut their nose to spite the face. Can you cite any Buddhist literature that indicates such an attitude. 

The reason why Buddhism started to wane in India was of course due to lack of royal patronage. But there was another reason for this. The philosophical difference between Buddhism and Hinduism became almost blurred, after Adi Shankarachrya inculcated within the folds of Hinduism, many aspects of Buddhism. By the time Sharkaracharya appeared, Buddhism was already weakened due to severe in-fighting. That made Shankaracharya's job even easier. Buddism, however continued to survive in pockets, like in Bengal, primarily because of royal patronage. Once this ceased, Buddhism virtually came to cease as well. 

Buddhism, never really survived in Bengal till 1200 AD, for the Buddhists to convert to Islam. Of course, pockets may have existed, but there hadn't been any mass 'voluntary' conversion to Islam.


----------



## eastwatch

toxic_pus said:


> You are basically saying that the Buddhists cut their nose to spite the face. Can you cite any Buddhist literature that indicates such an attitude.
> 
> The reason why Buddhism started to wane in India was of course due to lack of royal patronage. But there was another reason for this. The philosophical difference between Buddhism and Hinduism became almost blurred, after Adi Shankarachrya inculcated within the folds of Hinduism, many aspects of Buddhism. By the time Sharkaracharya appeared, Buddhism was already weakened due to severe in-fighting. That made Shankaracharya's job even easier. Buddism, however continued to survive in pockets, like in Bengal, primarily because of royal patronage. Once this ceased, Buddhism virtually came to cease as well.
> 
> Buddhism, never really survived in Bengal till 1200 AD, for the Buddhists to convert to Islam. Of course, pockets may have existed, but there hadn't been any mass 'voluntary' conversion to Islam.



I have read one poem written in old days that described Muslims as the saviors of Budhist in Bengal. Neither I can remember nor do I have a book that has printed the poem. Philosophical thought apart, there were decfinitely conversions, but can you cite a document that says about a forced conversion?

Forced conversion is a new theory proposed by people like Bankim Chandra Chatterjy during British Raj. If Bankim is true, then all the Hindus would have been force converted to Islam. Bankim would then also have a different name. 

In reality, even conversion was not in the scale that the present day population figures indicate. There are other reasons for the increase in Muslim population.


----------



## Halaku Khan

toxic_pus said:


> This is getting a tad boring and a whole lot tiresome.


You have the option of not reading and not replying. But if you choose to reply, kindly stick to the point.



> First, R* and R1* are extremely rare, because they represent nil mutation.


They are both mutations of the most recent common ancestor.



> Very few people on earth have those. Because of the general rarity of any non-muted Haplo type, the absence of such non-muted Haplo doesnt imply that the initial Haplo type was absent in a particular region, neither does it imply that it was present. That would be like proving a negative.


When a haplogroup is at 20% plus in one population, and at undetectable levels in another, it is significant. 

Nevertheless, more data is always welcome. 



> Second, if R* has subclades, then it is no longer R*, but R.


If there is a *, it means you are referring to the node itself - otherwise it means you're referring to the subtree of descendants. I thought that was clear in my post.



> Presence of R* means that mutation stopped for some reason and would logically constitute a separate tree, as far as that non-mutated haplogroup is concerned.


It doesn't mean the mutation stopped, it means that the subesquent mutations did not happen in the paternal ancestry of the concerned individual.



> In other words, anybody carrying the subclades of R, is sure as hell, not a member of R* branch. Presence of subclades and also the un-mutated haplogroup, also doesnt mean, in anyway, that the mutation of un-mutated haplogroup happened in that region. It may also mean that both the subclades and the un-muted haplogroup had arrived separately.



All this is elementary. 



> Third, there is no evidence that R1b had originated in Europe, let alone Spain. On the other hand, the generally accepted theory, as of now, is that it had entered Europe at the end of Ice Age. During the Ice Age population carrying R1 got separated into two distinct groups. One, later developed into R1b and entered Europe ... Incidentally, R1b is found in abundance (almost rising to 90%) in Western France and Ireland (in some places it reaches to 100%) as well. It is found in Central Asia as well.


What is the evidence that R1b did not branch off from R1 inside Europe? Here is the R1b distribution: 









> ... while the other, developed into R1a and entered South Asia (but thats what we are debating, arent we?).


Yes, origin of R1a and R1a1 are key questions.



> Fourth, R1 may not have originated around 20-25 kya (thousand years ago), as you have proposed. Karafet et al. (2008) suggest that R1 may have originated circa 18.5 kya.


I just gave a ball-park figure. It's not a core issue here.



> As with the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea, it is speculation, unless you back that up with research, that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal that is accepted by majority of scientists as decently reliable.


Yes, it is speculation. Some of them certainly were sea-faring, since they ended up on the Andamans. It would be interesting to look at links with the natives of Taiwan, Madagascar, the Pacific Islanders and the Australian Aborigines.



> The above scenario, that you have presented, is way too simplistic, not to mention anachronistic and is based on a very wrong premise that since un-muted haplogroup is not detected in a region, its subclades must have then migrated from somewhere.


If R* and R1* and R1a* are all present in location A, and if someone nevertheless claims that the origin of R1a1 is elsewhere in location B, where the former three are all absent, then he'd better have a good argument for that. 

And in our case we have a lot of other supporting evidence, described in the many cited references. 

For example, the R2 haplogroup, which which is largely confined to South Asia. It is correlated with R1a1 in India, but is absent from the alleged Aryan homelands. 

If it came with the Aryans, how come it's absent from the alleged Aryan homelands, and in the other locations where the Aryans are supposed to have gone, such as Europe? If it evolved from R separately, then how come the correlation with R1a1?

The simplest explanation is that both R2 and R1a1 evolved in parallel, in India, from R* and R1* (via R1a*) respectively. 



> Given the paucity of evidence, the idea, that people carrying the Haplogroup R1a1 migrated to Central Asia and it neighbouring regions, is just a leap of faith. Additionally, if indeed the migration had happened north-westerly from India, it would fly straight into the face of archeological and linguistic evidences, which, as of now are the only tangible evidences in hand.



Actually, the AIT was advanced by Max Muller and William Jones based on their unscientific biblical beliefs. It has now morphed into an Aryan Migration Theory and people are trying to save it. The so-called archeological and linguistic evidence is heavily disputed.


----------



## TopCat

eastwatch said:


> I have read one poem written in old days that described Muslims as the saviors of Budhist in Bengal. Neither I can remember nor do I have a book that has printed the poem. Philosophical thought apart, there were decfinitely conversions, but can you cite a document that says about a forced conversion?
> 
> Forced conversion is a new theory proposed by people like Bankim Chandra Chatterjy during British Raj. If Bankim is true, then all the Hindus would have been force converted to Islam. Bankim would then also have a different name.
> 
> In reality, even conversion was not in the scale that the present day population figures indicate. There are other reasons for the increase in Muslim population.



Well I even saw in some papers written by controversial hindus where they claimed that only Buddhist and some sudras did convert in Bengal and not a single one was Hindus.
You will not find a single hindu who will ever admit that any Bhramin got converted by the teaching of Islam.


----------



## TopCat

Halaku Khan said:


> You have the option of not reading and not replying. Bit if you choose to reply, kindly stick to the point.
> 
> 
> They are both mutations of the most recent common ancestor.
> 
> 
> When a haplogroup is at 20% plus in one population, and at undetectable levels in another, it is significant.
> 
> Nevertheless, more data is always welcome.
> 
> 
> If there is a *, it means you are referring to the node itself - otherwise it means you're referring to the subtree of descendants. I thought that was clear in my post.
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean the mutation stopped, it means that the subesquent mutations did not happen in the paternal ancestry of the concerned individual.
> 
> 
> 
> All this is elementary.
> 
> 
> What is the evidence that R1b did not branch off from R1 inside Europe? Here is the R1b distribution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, origin of R1a and R1a1 are key questions.
> 
> 
> I just gave a ball-park figure. It's not a core issue here.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is speculation. Some of them certainly were sea-faring, since they ended up on the Andamans. It would be interesting to look at links with the natives of Taiwan, Madagascar, the Pacific Islanders and the Australian Aborigines.
> 
> 
> If R* and R1* and R1a* are all present in location A, and if someone nevertheless claims that the origin of R1a1* is elesewhere in location B, where the former three are all absent, then he'd better have a good argument for that.
> 
> And in our case we have a lot of other supporting evidence, described in the many cited references.
> 
> For example, the R2 haplogroup, which which is largely confined to South Asia. It is highly correlated with R1a1 in India, but is absent from the alleged Aryan homelands.
> 
> If it came with the Aryans, how come it's absent from the Aryan homelands, and in the other locations such as Europe, where the Aryans are supposed to have gone? If it evolved from R separately, then how come the close correlation with R1a1?
> 
> The simplest explanation is that R1a1 and R2 both evolved in parallel, in India, from R1 (via R1a) and R respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the AIT was advanced by Max Muller and William Jones based on their unscientific biblical beliefs. It has now morphed into an Aryan Migration Theory and people are trying to save it. The so-called archeological and linguistic evidence is heavily disputed.



This looks funny now. Does that mean african first came to India and evolved in two separate race (or by that paper, same race with different skin tone) and one race never tried to get out of India and other martial race conquered the whole world including the whole europe later gone all the way to America by boat with columbus.
That will kill all the theory of anthropology so far taught or discovered.


----------



## ice_man

Khajur said:


> No, not exactly ....there is not much difference between pakistan especially its most populous states pakistani punjab and sindh province... and just next door neighbour across the borders in Punjab,Rajastan,Gujart and most of north india in terms of racial profile based on scientific fact .I guess u hold some faith on scientific analysis.
> 
> 
> *Now we can understand that u'll never accept this simple fact which the whole world can figure out easily, because its going to negate the foundamental aspects on the basis of which ur country was created and india got partitioned in the first place . U have to repeat this false impression propagated during partition...usually get more vocal support from slightly distant pathan section of pakistan...so as to remind, explain and justify partition among ur own citizens.*



well firstly your very own BJP blue eyed boy JASWANT SINGH cleared out who was wrong in the partition...so parition i guess is a reality get over it accept it!!! its been 60 years! and hell if you wanna go on ranting about partition nonsense then i guess no point arguing....

as for LOOKS....WELL we have a larger population of whitish skinned people..... colour eyed people....that my friend is a fact.....

and like i say that indians are OBSESSED with trying to be as good looking as us hence the whole debate about you are one of us we are the same!!! hell no!!! 

partition was necessary so leave it out!


----------



## sensenreason

The DNA mumbo bumbo basically suggests that there might not have been an aryan invasion. Whether right or wrong, what is surely true is that all these are still theories without clinching proof.So if you wish to feel nice about your ancestry and fit the theory that fits your beliefs,then just go ahead and put your faith in them...but scientifically the jury is still out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TopCat

ice_man said:


> well firstly your very own BJP blue eyed boy JASWANT SINGH cleared out who was wrong in the partition...so parition i guess is a reality get over it accept it!!! its been 60 years! and hell if you wanna go on ranting about partition nonsense then i guess no point arguing....
> 
> *as for LOOKS....WELL we have a larger population of whitish skinned people..... colour eyed people....that my friend is a fact.....*
> 
> and like i say that indians are OBSESSED with trying to be as good looking as us hence the whole debate about you are one of us we are the same!!! hell no!!!
> 
> partition was necessary so leave it out!



Thats funny too.. I know girls with darker skin will make you upside down too... 
Ohh could you post your picture????
.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

iajdani said:


> Thats funny too.. I know girls with darker skin will make you upside down too...
> Ohh could you post your picture????
> .


By the way, did Akber marry any dark-skinned woman? How many wives did he have and how many children from his wives and concubines? As far as I know, Rajput Jodha was not married to him, but to one of his sons. Was it Jahangir? Which story is correct? People have already derailed this thread. Can someone answer these questions and then correct the thread?


----------

