What's new

Akbar's fort symbol of subjugation of Hindus,want the imposing structure to be replaced : VHP

Who cares if they were vassals or not? If China right after WW2 actually took over Japan and made them a vassal, they revolted with opportunist Chinese and ended up taking China all to themselves they're Chinese? It's the same exact thing.

Or the many times Hans had the Koreans or Vietnamese as a vassal, and they ended up taking over China, they're not occupiers. Give me a break.

Go on playing dumb, WW2 is 1940's, not 16th century. The fact is, Manchu called themselves Chinese empire. Muslim conquerors like Mughals never called theirs Hindu kingdom, they imposed their system on Hindu. There's no parallel with draw with Chinese empire. There wasn't even a centralized Indian empire back then.
 
.
Mughal never was Indian, Muslim conquer India subcontinent build all kind mosque to worship their Allah and not build temple to worship Hindu god.
 
.
Some Indians are becoming too emotional over being invaded and subjugated, which is understandable. As for Muslim invaders, they were far from spreading Islam but rather general looting and mass murder. You think you had it hard? Mongols destroyed many Islamic empires, sacked Baghdad. Since then the Islamic world never really recovered fully. Timur was a Muslim who killed more Muslims then Non-Muslims. He was interested in rebuilding Genghis Khan's empire with as much bloodshed as possible. Afghan and Turkic rulers who invaded India were more busy in looting temples then doing anything for Islam.

Obviously we can't deny what Muslims rulers did horrible crimes in India, they used Islam whenever it was necessary to subjugate Hindus. But as I said earlier they didn't give a damn about Islam or religion. Like any other invaders they were more interested pillaging.
 
.
Go on playing dumb, WW2 is 1940's, not 16th century. The fact is, Manchu called themselves Chinese empire. Muslim conquerors like Mughals never called theirs Hindu kingdom, they imposed on Hindu. There's no parallel with draw with Chinese empire.

I gave you a scenario that's exactly the same. I dont care if its 20th or 2nd AD.

Who cares if they were vassals or not? If China right after WW2 actually took over Japan and made them a vassal, they revolted with opportunist Chinese and ended up taking China all to themselves, they're Chinese and not occupiers? It's the same exact thing.

Or the many times Hans had the Koreans or Vietnamese as a vassal, and they ended up taking over China, they're not occupiers? Give me a break
.

If a small minority of Japanese were ruling China right now in that context, they're not occupiers? Same exact thing.

Chinese are nationalistic, just like the Hans then were ethnocentric. It would be viewed as an occupation.

Anyways, I have to go sleep. I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
.
Some Indians are becoming too emotional over being invaded and subjugated, which is understandable. As for Muslim invaders, they were far from spreading Islam but rather general looting and mass murder. You think you had it hard? Mongols destroyed many Islamic empires, sacked Baghdad. Since then the Islamic world never really recovered fully. Timur was a Muslim who killed more Muslims then Non-Muslims. He was interested in rebuilding Genghis Khan's empire with as much bloodshed as possible. Afghan and Turkic rulers who invaded India were more busy in looting temples then doing anything for Islam.

Obviously we can't deny what Muslims rulers did horrible crimes in India, they used Islam whenever it was necessary to subjugate Hindus. But as I said earlier they didn't give a damn about Islam or religion. Like any other invaders they were more interested pillaging.

Do you know who a Ghazi is ?
 
.
I gave you a scenario that's exactly the same. I dont care if its 20th or 2nd AD.

If a small minority of Japanese were ruling China right now in that context, they're not occupiers? Same exact thing.

Chinese are nationalistic, just like the Hans then were ethnocentric. It would be viewed as an occupation.

Anyways, I have to go sleep. I'll leave it at that.


If you can't differentiate 2nd AD with 20th, you shouldn't be talking history. Historical events cannot be constructed based on modern day scenarios. How long are you going to play dumb?????

If Japanese rule China right now, they wouldn't called themselves Chinese empire if they are nationalistic, like you said. Dumbo, You've totally contradicted your own argument!!
 
Last edited:
.
Go on playing dumb, WW2 is 1940's, not 16th century. The fact is, Manchu called themselves Chinese empire. Muslim conquerors like Mughals never called theirs Hindu kingdom, they imposed their system on Hindu. There's no parallel with draw with Chinese empire. There wasn't even a centralized Indian empire back then.
They called it Hindustan.
 
. .
poor and desperate attempt to justify your brutal and killer ancestors but failed.


What if I told You that majority of the victims of these ( Chib ) raids were wealthy Hindu traders & Credit givers ???
'Lakhanwal' had the misfortune of being an affluent village of Dancers & Singers & was raided over half a dozen times.

'Bhagowal' another village with a sizeable but very powerful Hindu population of traders suffered a same fate.

The chief of 'Mota' a major village who was a Muslim had brought over Labana Sikhs from as far as Sialkot & settled them in a nearby locality called ' Tanda ' for protection against these raids.Again this village had a big Hindu population of merchant traders.

My own maternal clan had their houses & havelis built on a raised ground with water wells & another amenities inside the boundary walls. The whole community was Muslim since the chief among them had parted with his non Muslim clan members & financially was far better off than any 1 in his surroundings . They were lucky as they had the financial resources & Unity to thank for & hence never had to face a raid. Heck they even got away with killing a few of these lot for stopping over at 1 of their water holes.
Nearly all the villages that were raided had a mixed population of Hindus & Muslims. These fellas didn't come down from the mountains just to steal cattle & grain. They were after hard currency & gold more than any thing else.

Now you can make it an ethnic or religious or whatever bull crap issue that you want to make of it to satisfy ur egos & bias. But our ancestors did the right thing though with a typical lazy attitude.
 
.
What if I told You that majority of the victims of these ( Chib ) raids were wealthy Hindu traders & Credit givers ???
'Lakhanwal' had the misfortune of being an affluent village of Dancers & Singers & was raided over half a dozen times.

'Bhagowal' another village with a sizeable but very powerful Hindu population of traders suffered a same fate.

The chief of 'Mota' a major village who was a Muslim had brought over Labana Sikhs from as far as Sialkot & settled them in a nearby locality called ' Tanda ' for protection against these raids.Again this village had a big Hindu population of merchant traders.

My own maternal clan had their houses & havelis built on a raised ground with water wells & another amenities inside the boundary walls. The whole community was Muslim since the chief among them had parted with his non Muslim clan members & financially was far better off than any 1 in his surroundings . They were lucky as they had the financial resources & Unity to thank for & hence never had to face a raid. Heck they even got away with killing a few of these lot for stopping over at 1 of their water holes.
Nearly all the villages that were raided had a mixed population of Hindus & Muslims. These fellas didn't come down from the mountains just to steal cattle & grain. They were after hard currency & gold more than any thing else.

Now you can make it an ethnic or religious or whatever bull crap issue that you want to make of it to satisfy ur egos & bias. But our ancestors did the right thing though with a typical lazy attitude.
Thanks for replying with so much details. This can be exceptional case.but most of the time Muslim invaders massacred hindus because of religion. They were intolerant towards other religions. That's fact.
 
.
U are most welcome
& I agree that a lot of injustice has happened in the name of my religion But the Indian subcontinent was at the mercy of Invaders from Central Asia, long before the advent of Islam & it's political exploitation.
There is no concept of a King or prince in ISLAM but we still have them in abundance.
I have no doubt in my mind that invasions of Indian subcontinent would have continued regardless of ISLAM being an eminent ideology in Central Asia.
 
.
Hindustan is a name for Hindu region where they were different kingdoms and empires.
Bro,you know nothing about history.
Hindustan is derived from the Modern Persian word Hindū. In Old Persian, the region beyond the Indus River was referred to as Hinduš (the Iranic equivalent of SanskritSindhu[3]), hence Modern Persian Hind, Hindū. This combined with the Persian suffix -stān (meaning literally "place", and having the same origin as the English word "stand") results in Hindustan, "land of the Hindus". By about 1st century BC, the term "Hein-tu" was used by Chinese, for referring to North Indian people.[4][5] The term came into common use under the rule of the Mughals who referred to their dominion, centered on Delhi, as 'Hindustan'.
Geographic area
The term "Hindustan" has been historically applied to the Gangetic Plain of North India, between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas[ and the Indus river basin in Pakistan.[7]

Further, it may pertain to numerous aspects belonging to three geographical areas: the Indus River basin during medieval times, or a region in northern India, east and south of the Yamunariver, between the Vindhya mountains and the Himalayas where Hindustani language is spoken.
People
Main article: Hindustani people
In one its current usages is among Hindustani speakers in India, the term 'Hindustani' refers to an Indian, irrespective of religious affiliation. Among non-Hindustani speakers e.g. Bengali-speakers, "Hindustani" is sometimes used to describe persons who are from the upper Ganges.

Hindustani is sometimes used as an ethnic term applied to South Asia (e.g., a Surinamese man with roots in South Asia might describe his ethnicity by saying he is Hindustani). For example,Hindoestanen is a Dutch word used to describe people of South Asian origin, in Netherlands and Suriname.

In Pakistan, the term 'Hindustani' was also infrequently used to refer to Urdu-speaking people in Karachi and Hyderabad, Sindh, who migrated from India during the partition of 1947.[citation needed] However, these people are now commonly referred to as Muhajirs. As well, within Pakistan, the term "Hindustan" is sometimes used as a synonym for the modern-day Republic of India.

Language[edit]
Main article: Hindustani language
Hindustani is also used to refer to the Hindustani language, which derives from the Khariboli dialect of Western Uttar Pradesh, Southern Uttarakhand and Delhi areas.

If you can't differentiate 2nd AD with 20th, you shouldn't be talking history. Historical events cannot be constructed based on modern day scenarios. How long are you going to play dumb?????

If Japanese rule China right now, they wouldn't called themselves Chinese empire if they are nationalistic, but Manchu did. You've just contradict your own argument!!
Is there any empire who call them Chinese empire?.
dynamic-chinese-dynasty-map.gif
 
.
Bro,you know nothing about history.
Hindustan is derived from the Modern Persian word Hindū. In Old Persian, the region beyond the Indus River was referred to as Hinduš (the Iranic equivalent of SanskritSindhu[3]), hence Modern Persian Hind, Hindū. This combined with the Persian suffix -stān (meaning literally "place", and having the same origin as the English word "stand") results in Hindustan, "land of the Hindus". By about 1st century BC, the term "Hein-tu" was used by Chinese, for referring to North Indian people.[4][5] The term came into common use under the rule of the Mughals who referred to their dominion, centered on Delhi, as 'Hindustan'.
Geographic area
The term "Hindustan" has been historically applied to the Gangetic Plain of North India, between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas[ and the Indus river basin in Pakistan.[7]

Further, it may pertain to numerous aspects belonging to three geographical areas: the Indus River basin during medieval times, or a region in northern India, east and south of the Yamunariver, between the Vindhya mountains and the Himalayas where Hindustani language is spoken.
People
Main article: Hindustani people
In one its current usages is among Hindustani speakers in India, the term 'Hindustani' refers to an Indian, irrespective of religious affiliation. Among non-Hindustani speakers e.g. Bengali-speakers, "Hindustani" is sometimes used to describe persons who are from the upper Ganges.

Hindustani is sometimes used as an ethnic term applied to South Asia (e.g., a Surinamese man with roots in South Asia might describe his ethnicity by saying he is Hindustani). For example,Hindoestanen is a Dutch word used to describe people of South Asian origin, in Netherlands and Suriname.

In Pakistan, the term 'Hindustani' was also infrequently used to refer to Urdu-speaking people in Karachi and Hyderabad, Sindh, who migrated from India during the partition of 1947.[citation needed] However, these people are now commonly referred to as Muhajirs. As well, within Pakistan, the term "Hindustan" is sometimes used as a synonym for the modern-day Republic of India.

Language[edit]
Main article: Hindustani language
Hindustani is also used to refer to the Hindustani language, which derives from the Khariboli dialect of Western Uttar Pradesh, Southern Uttarakhand and Delhi areas.

Your source said it all. There was no centralized empire called Hindustan. It refers to a geographical area under which, each and every kingdoms had their own kings and emperors. These kingdoms only shared a loosely defined religion called Hinduism.

Is there any empire who call them Chinese empire?.
dynamic-chinese-dynasty-map.gif

The gif map you posted is the centralized Chinese empire under one emperor starting from Qin dynasty 221 BC. This mandate continued until end of Qing dynasty in 1911. China then became a republic.
The de-centralized rule was even earlier, not included in the map.
 
.
Your source said it all. There was no centralized empire called Hindustan. It refers to a geographical area under which, each and every kingdoms had their own kings and emperors. These kingdoms only shared a loosely defined religion called Hinduism.



The gif map you posted is the centralized Chinese empire under one emperor starting from Qin dynasty 221 BC. This mandate continued until end of Qing dynasty in 1911. China then became a republic.
The de-centralized rule was even earlier, not included in the map.
Then show your centralize Chinese empire map.

Qing,han,song dynasty are there and no such dynasty which called themselves Chinese empire
 
.
Then show your centralize Chinese empire map.

Centralized empire means a single political entity, centrally ruled from imperial court. Each provincial governor report direct to the imperial courts. No other kings or emperors.

Chinese empire is called Zhongguo or Middle Kingdom. Each dynasty has its own name.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom