400 Years Of The Indian Navy [Illustration]

[MST]

so you are saying that the Chola empire got that way by indians giving the locals flowers and hugs?
The Chola did exactly what the invaders of India did.
They murdered, raped and pillaged and forced their religion of Hinduism on the local population, which extinguished their indigenous culture.

what I think is weirder is again, Hindus getting so pissed at the central Asian invaders but glorifying their own.

It is prudent to separate the conquests of an empire (Chola in this case) from the spread of Indian religion and culture. Indian religion and culture were spread mainly by Scholars and merchants and not armies. Buddhism, an Indian religion spread to East Asia without any bloodshed. Hinduism in the same manner spread to South East Asia. The rulers of the Great Hindu Empires of South East Asia e.g. Khmer were not ethnic Indians but Indigenous to the land.

The Cholans as part of their conquest fought and won many wars but it was not a religious war like the Islamic armies fought. It was a conquest to expand their territory and get more colonies. Their conquest was more like the British conquest of India. The Islamic invasion of India was done to to convert India to Islam and destroy its indigenous culture. Just like they did in Persia. so both are different.

There is a reason why there is no infatuation of being Indian in East and South East Asia unlike wannabe Arabs in South Asia.

 

[Nan Yang]

It is these bombastic claims and mis-information that only discredit Indians more. Keep it up.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Prince Vijaya lands in Sri Lanka.

Emperor Ashoka sends his daughter to Sri Lanka.

 

[Rusty]

It is prudent to separate the conquests of an empire (Chola in this case) from the spread of Indian religion and culture. Indian religion and culture were spread mainly by Scholars and merchants and not armies. Buddhism, an Indian religion spread to East Asia without any bloodshed. Hinduism in the same manner spread to South East Asia. The rulers of the Great Hindu Empires of South East Asia e.g. Khmer were not ethnic Indians but Indigenous to the land.

The Cholans as part of their conquest fought and won many wars but it was not a religious war like the Islamic armies fought. It was a conquest to expand their territory and get more colonies. Their conquest was more like the British conquest of India. The Islamic invasion of India was done to to convert India to Islam and destroy its indigenous culture. Just like they did in Persia. so both are different.

There is a reason why there is no infatuation of being Indian in East and South East Asia unlike wannabe Arabs in South Asia.

I agree, and you must also agree that you must do the same with "Islamic invasion"
The central Asians who came to India did not come as part of a religious army. They came for the same reasons as the Chola went to South East Asia. These people did not one day say "Hey, I am perfectly comfortable here, but why don't I go and invade India and force Islam on them"
This is classic Hindu logic.
And the conversion of Indians to Islam did not fully take off until the Sufi arrived. these people were scholars, spiritualists, what have you and they are the ones who we Revere the most as they did not come with any army and were the most effective in showing us Islam.

and who on earth would want to be Indian?
I have never in my life met anyone who said "hey, I wish I was Indian because Hindu culture is so amazing"
The problem is simply that insecure Hindus can't handle the fact that a portion of the population did not want to follow their faith and all the social trappings, so to make themselves feel better they project such nonsense on to them.

 

[MST]

I agree, and you must also agree that you must do the same with "Islamic invasion"
The central Asians who came to India did not come as part of a religious army. They came for the same reasons as the Chola went to South East Asia. These people did not one day say "Hey, I am perfectly comfortable here, but why don't I go and invade India and force Islam on them"
This is classic Hindu logic.
And the conversion of Indians to Islam did not fully take off until the Sufi arrived. these people were scholars, spiritualists, what have you and they are the ones who we Revere the most as they did not come with any army and were the most effective in showing us Islam.

and who on earth would want to be Indian?
I have never in my life met anyone who said "hey, I wish I was Indian because Hindu culture is so amazing"
The problem is simply that insecure Hindus can't handle the fact that a portion of the population did not want to follow their faith and all the social trappings, so to make themselves feel better they project such nonsense on to them.

I can't fully agree on this one. Though as you rightly pointed out Sufism has a big role to play in conversion at the same time Islamic Invasion had an implicit goal of conversion of the population, including by sword. Two religions that have used this more than others are Christianity (example South America) and Islam. The discrimination based on religion by rulers is well documented.

 

[Rusty]

I can't fully agree on this one. Though as you rightly pointed out Sufism has a big role to play in conversion at the same time Islamic Invasion had an implicit goal of conversion of the population, including by sword. Two religions that have used this more than others are Christianity (example South America) and Islam. The discrimination based on religion by rulers is well documented.

if that was the case then why is 80+ % of India still Hindu?
Muslims have ruled India for 800 years and how come they failed to force you people to convert?

To give you perspective, the Spanish forced the Muslims of Spain to convert, die, or flea in less than 100 years.

Given all of this you have to come to one of 2 conclusions. 1. Either the Muslims were bad at following through with their own major goals, which would make them basically minor goals at best.
or 2. All this is nonsense

 

[MST]

if that was the case then why is 80+ % of India still Hindu?
Muslims have ruled India for 800 years and how come they failed to force you people to convert?

To give you perspective, the Spanish forced the Muslims of Spain to convert, die, or flea in less than 100 years.

Given all of this you have to come to one of 2 conclusions. 1. Either the Muslims were bad at following through with their own major goals, which would make them basically minor goals at best.
or 2. All this is nonsense

Percentage of Hindus in Indian Subcontinent is less than 60%. The 80% is only in India. You have to Include population in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well if you are counting.

I don't know much about history of Spain so can't comment but at a high level the example you have given doesn't apply to India. Since the Spanish were Christians before the Islamic invasion of Spain so this means they converted back to their native religion. A better example would be to find out the percentage increase in Muslims after the Islamic Invasion of Spain.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

I know this is off topic but I am really curious.
Indians get all hot and bothered by the fact that central Asians invaded India
Yet they are so proud of invading other countries and imposing their religion on them.
What gives?

I was wondering when some Indophobic pervert would bring this accusation in this thread, and not so surprisingly it happens to be you.

Here are kingdoms invaded by Chola empire by date of existence/ presence of Indic culture.

kingdom of Srivijaya (modern day Indonesia) - earliest record of existence - 683 AD

Srivijaya

kingdom of Champa (modern day South Vietnam) - around 380 to 413 AD

History_of_Champa

Khmer Empire - 802 AD

Khmer_Empire

The Chola invasions took place in the 10th century.

So unless you some evidence that Indian empires had the ability to travel back in time and force their culture/religion upon these South-East Asian Kingdoms prior to 10th century , your failed attempt reeks of Indophobic verbal diarrhoea plus inferiority complex attributed to identity crisis.

 

[Rusty]

Percentage of Hindus in Indian Subcontinent is less than 60%. The 80% is only in India. You have to Include population in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well if you are counting.

I don't know much about history of Spain so can't comment but at a high level the example you have given doesn't apply to India. Since the Spanish were Christians before the Islamic invasion of Spain so this means they converted back to their native religion. A better example would be to find out the percentage increase in Muslims after the Islamic Invasion of Spain.

okay 60%
that is still more than 800 million Hindus in modern times.
Does this negate my point?
of course not
If what you said was true then there would be 0% Hindus like there are 0% Muslims in spain

I was wondering when some Indophobic pervert would bring this accusation in this thread, and not so surprisingly it happens to be you.

Here are kingdoms invaded by Chola empire by date of existence/ presence of Indic culture.

kingdom of Srivijaya (modern day Indonesia) - earliest record of existence - 683 AD

Srivijaya

kingdom of Champa (modern day South Vietnam) - around 380 to 413 AD

History_of_Champa

Khmer Empire - 802 AD

Khmer_Empire

The Chola invasions took place in the 10th century.

So unless you some evidence that Indian empires had the ability to travel back in time and force their culture/religion upon these South-East Asian Kingdoms prior to 10th century , your failed attempt reeks of Indophobic verbal diarrhoea plus inferiority complex attributed to identity crisis.

calm down man, it is your country that is full of perverts if you know what I mean.

So let me get this straight, it's okay to invade, rape and pillage as long as you don't convert the people?
or is it Okay to convert the people before you conquer them?
Either way, to make sense of this you need a Phd in Hindu logic.

Hindus like to play the victim card when it them who is invaded, but when they are the ones invading then the victim card gets buried.

I don't really care who or what India invaded, I am just having a good laugh at the mental gymnastics you people have to do to justify all this.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

calm down man, it is your country that is full of perverts if you know what I mean.

Lewd experiences on visit to India

So let me get this straight, it's okay to invade, rape and pillage as long as you don't convert the people?
or is it Okay to convert the people before you conquer them?
Either way, to make sense of this you need a Phd in Hindu logic.

Looks like the Hinduphobic infested mind of your couldn't comprehend my post.

You have no evidence or proof that South-East Asians were converted forcefully or willfully to Hinduism post or prior to Chola invasions.

Neither do you have any proof for atrocities/iconoclasm/pillage committed by Cholas during these invasions.

Hindus like to play the victim card when it them who is invaded, but when they are the ones invading then the victim card gets buried.

Every mass murder in history tries to justify his atrocities by blaming the victims

In this case we seem to have a Hinduphobic pervert being gleeful over events of religious persecution/extermination and subtly trying to justify it.

I don't really care who or what India invaded, I am just having a good laugh at the mental gymnastics you people have to do to justify all this.

You mean getting humiliated here is turning you on

 

[MST]

okay 60%
that is still more than 800 million Hindus in modern times.
Does this negate my point?
of course not
If what you said was true then there would be 0% Hindus like there are 0% Muslims in spain

Again I already said that the Spain example does not apply to India. The example of Spain would have applied had India (the modern day one) expelled or converted all the remaining Muslims back to their native religion (Hinduism/Buddhism) after 1947. That didn't happen did it.

Also please don't try to connect this to right and wrongs and be defensive about it. Right and Wrong (based on how the conversion took place) is defined by the society that judges it. And every society have their own lens to look at it. I prefer to look at it in an unbiased manner as a student of History. I would suggest you to do the same.

Has there been any evidence in East Asia (China & Japan) or South East Asia of mass rape, destruction, killings by Hindus? As Syama pointed Hinduism was there way way before the Chola invasion. Hence I said in the beginning that Cholan invasion was more of expansion and acquiring Colonies and not spread of religion.

You can accuse Hinduism of many ills (as defined by our society) but in generally (there were exception e.g. maybe Sung Empire though no concrete evidence are there) forced conversions by sword is not one of them.

 

[Type 052D]

Again I already said that the Spain example does not apply to India. The example of Spain would have applied had India (the modern day one) expelled or converted all the remaining Muslims back to their native religion (Hinduism/Buddhism) after 1947. That didn't happen did it.

Also please don't try to connect this to right and wrongs and be defensive about it. Right and Wrong (based on how the conversion took place) is defined by the society that judges it. And every society have their own lens to look at it. I prefer to look at it in an unbiased manner as a student of History. I would suggest you to do the same.

Has there been any evidence in East Asia (China & Japan) or South East Asia of mass rape, destruction, killings by Hindus? As Syama pointed Hinduism was there way way before the Chola invasion. Hence I said in the beginning that Cholan invasion was more of expansion and acquiring Colonies and not spread of religion.

You can accuse Hinduism of many ills (as defined by our society) but in generally (there were exception e.g. maybe Sung Empire though no concrete evidence are there) forced conversions by sword is not one of them.

We crushed the Arabs at the Battle of Talas river (715AD)

 

[Lyrical Mockery]

I know this is off topic but I am really curious.
Indians get all hot and bothered by the fact that central Asians invaded India
Yet they are so proud of invading other countries and imposing their religion on them.
What gives?

Indians never invading other nations isn't all that true. I see a lot of similarity between the script of south india and SE Asia. Moreover, Indian influence (hindu/buddhist) is clearly evident. Infact, the name Singapore has Indian origins. At that time such huge cultural influence was not possible if not supported by military conquests. (Spread of Buddhism is perhaps an exception)

BTW, before 1947 PN too was a part of this 400 year old navy. Pakistani Navy too has a legit claim on this history.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

We crushed the Arabs at the Battle of Talas river (715AD)

????????????

Wasn't Battle_of_Talas a defeat for Tang Dynasty? leading to loss of Chinese influence over central Asia.

Battle_of_Talas

 

[for truth]

It is these bombastic claims and mis-information that only discredit Indians more. Keep it up.

aren't you the same loser who once had opened a thread showing Indian aircraft carrier using a farm tractor, well well, you are the same one.

It would better if you can just shut your mouth, you displayed your extraordinary dumbness back then, don't do it here again,