What's new

Any questions Regarding India

Nothing is delusion, Bharat, India or Hind all are ancient names.

The current India is not ancient and is only 65 years old. You guys recently celebrated you 65th independence day.

The place what current India traverses does have many historical locations.

But no civilization emanated from current India.

You people are just those people whose ancestors lived there before you.
 
If I may Sir, why did you prefer to call it India.



That is why he is no longer the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

I thought you knew.

Look up the discussions on Pakistan's application to be considered a founding member of the United Nations as the successor of British India, and the grounds for its refusal.

So, your logic being. :blink:


Incorrect reason, and equally incorrect response.
 
Sigh! I wrote soo much and all you got was that?

I told you the meanings of the words and you want to go into depth? You people are funny! When I go into depth you tell it is too much details write in simple English when I do that you want details? Complex people!

I do not like your lack of patience or even wanting to understand anything...If a person wanted to learn they would listen if they don't understand they would say so! Mocking comes into use when you are just trolling! How do you Adam was not following Islam? Did he tell you?

Like I said Submitting to the will of GOD is Islam...NO a Hindu can not practice Islam because when he says beghwan he remembers pictures of RAM, KRISHNA, GANESH and whosoever! He imagines! But if he says a god without shape, that is what our religion stands on!

Unlike Mahbarat I don't think I CAN come up with those types of stories! You can believe and bow to Hanuman and ganesh but it is difficult to swallow Islam existed way before?

Islam back then was submitting to GOD...I mean Adam and Hawa were sent to earth, they prayed, fasted (in our book it is written that everyone fasted and some Hindus fast too, Christians... Essence is the same!) Oh wait, Hinduism doesn't fall in the Abrahamic religions maybe that's why the huge denial syndrome?!

Aren't you using a lot of words to say that you don't really understand what Hinduism is, and are too lazy to find out?
 
I don't need to google, I know what I know.

By no stretch of imagination, current India is a successor of the India or Hind or Hindustan that was.

The current India is a new country merely 65 years old and cannot claim the glory of what the old India was.

Contrarily, we the current Pakistanis, can claim to be the scions of Indus Valley Civilization as we currently also hold the cradle of IVC.

You can keep the dilli ki sarkar and remain happy.



No it doesn't mean that. It means much more and you know it.

If you don't want to digest it, the choice is yours.

You really don't need to put your imagination through all those contortions. It's a legal point, and was argued, and lost, on Pakistan's behalf by her most eminent (non-Muslim) jurist in her history, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan.

You also need to remember political India, cultural India and geographical India are each distinct.
 
India and Pakistan both got their independence together in Aug 1947 from the British. Before the British the Muslims were the rulers and before them, in the contemporary history, South Asia or sub-continent just had numerous independence principalities and no India.

It is funny how unseemly your delusions are at times.

It is funny how delusional your history is most of the time.

Before the British, it was the Marathas and Sikhs, besides smaller Muslim principalities.

During the period of Muslim rule of Delhi, not Muslim rule of India, there were three kings who ruled over more than the Gangetic plain - Alauddin Khalji, Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Aurangzeb.

During the earlier period of rule other than by Muslims, there were these many kings who ruled over more than the Gangetic plain - Ashoka the Maurya, Kharavela, Samudra Gupta, Lalitaditya and the Cholas, as well as regional powers such as the Satavahanas, the Chalukyas, the Maukharis, the Hoysalas, the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the Palas, the Rastrakutas. Each of these regional powers was as big as the Delhi Sultanate, or the Mughal Empire other than under Aurangzeb.

I can understand you people hating Hindus and Buddhists and Jains - you seem to go through life looking for things to hate - but why do you hate their history so much that you know nothing about it?
 
@ice man
5. Tipu did not take land or riches from Hindus and give them to Muslims.

Muslim bias was blatantly evident, especially in the matter of taxation policy. "Muslimswere exempted from all taxes. Even those who were converted to Islamic faith were alsoallowed the same concessions," says Gopal Rao. In the case of employment, Hindus wereeliminated to the maximum extent possible.

"Kozhikode was then a centre of Brahmins. There were around 7000 Namboodiri housesof which more than 2000 houses were destroyed by Tipu Sultan in Kozhikode alone.Sultan did not spare even children and women. Menfolk escaped to forests andneighbouring principalities. Mappilas increased many fold (due to forcible conversion)."During the military regime of Tipu Sultan, Hindus were forcibly circumcised andconverted to Muhammadan faith. As a result the number of Nairs and Brahmins declinedsubstantially."

Tipu had committed a variety of atrocities on the Hindus in Malabar - barbarous mass-killing, wholesale forcible circumcision and conversion, and widespread destruction andplunder of Hindu temples.

Besides, he also wanted to establish Islamic rule in the country; to achieve that he had tofirst defeat the British. For this purpose, Tipu Sultan solicited the assistance of Muslimcountries like Persia, Afghanistan and Turkey. It is true that Tipu did not harm the Rajaof Cochin or anyone for that matter who surrendered and pledged loyalty to him. But howdoes that make him a friend of Hindus?

'In a deliberately designed taxation scheme, the religious prejudice of Tipu Sultan becamequite clear. His co-religionists, Muslims, were exempted from house tax, commodity taxand also the levy on other items of household use. Those who were converted toMuhammadanism, were also given similar tax exemptions. He had even made provisionsfor the education of their children.

The atrocities committed by Tipu Sultan in Bidnur in North Karnataka during and afterits capture by him, were most barbarous and beyond description. Ayaz Khan who wasKammaran Nambiar from Chirackal Kingdom before his forcible conversion to Islam byHyder Ali Khan, had been appointed as Governor of Bidnur. Tipu Sultan was jealous of and opposed to Ayaz Khan from the very beginning because Hyder Ali Khan hadconsidered the latter more intelligent and smart. When Ayaz Khan learnt that Tipu Sultanwas scheming to kill him secretly, he escaped to Bombay with plenty of gold. Tipu

Sultan came to Bednur and forcibly converted its entire population to Islam. The peopleaccepted Islam for the sake of their lives.

After the capture of Mangalore, thousands of Christians were also forcibly sent toSreerangapatanam where all of them were circumcised and converted to Islam.

A small army of 2000 Nairs of Kadathanadu resisted the invasion of the huge army of Tipu Sultan from a fortress in Kuttipuram for a few weeks. They were reduced tostarvation and death. Tipu Sultan entered the fort and offered to spare their lives,provided they accepted conversion to Islam. The unfortunate lot of 2000 Nairs were thenforced to eat beef after being converted to Islamic faith, at the end of usual religious ritualof mass circumcision. All the members of one branch of Parappanad Royal Family wereforcibly converted to Muhammadan faith except for one or two who escaped from theclutches of Tipu Sultan's army. Similarly, one Thiruppad belonging to Nilamboor RoyalFamily was also forcibly abducted and converted to Islam. Thereafter, it was reportedthat further conversions of Hindus were attempted through those converts. In the end,when the Kolathiri Raja surrendered and paid tribute, Tipu Sultan got him treacherouslykilled without any specific reason, dragged his dead body tied to the feet of an elephantthrough the streets, and finally hanged him from a tree-top to show his Islamic contemptfor Hindu Rajas

Tipu Sultan succeeded in mass killing, converting lakhs of Hindus to Islamicfaith, driving thousands out of their traditional homes, and finally making the restextremely poor. Many Hindus belonging to lower castes accepted conversion to Islamunder duress. However, many others, especially the Thiyyas, fled to Tellicherry andMahe for safety.

Tippu Sultan Villain Or Hero
 
The current India is not ancient and is only 65 years old. You guys recently celebrated you 65th independence day.

The place what current India traverses does have many historical locations.

But no civilization emanated from current India.

You people are just those people whose ancestors lived there before you.

How can any civilisation emanate from current India? It has to pass for anything to emanate from it, right?
 
It is funny how delusional your history is most of the time.

Before the British, it was the Marathas and Sikhs, besides smaller Muslim principalities.

During the period of Muslim rule of Delhi, not Muslim rule of India, there were three kings who ruled over more than the Gangetic plain - Alauddin Khalji, Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Aurangzeb.

During the earlier period of rule other than by Muslims, there were these many kings who ruled over more than the Gangetic plain - Ashoka the Maurya, Kharavela, Samudra Gupta, Lalitaditya and the Cholas, as well as regional powers such as the Satavahanas, the Chalukyas, the Maukharis, the Hoysalas, the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the Palas, the Rastrakutas. Each of these regional powers was as big as the Delhi Sultanate, or the Mughal Empire other than under Aurangzeb.

I can understand you people hating Hindus and Buddhists and Jains - you seem to go through life looking for things to hate - but why do you hate their history so much that you know nothing about it?

This is incorrect and I strongly denounce such frivolous pronouncements. Yes this is frivolous indeed.

I don't hate Hindus or Jains or Buddhists. Yes there would be Pakistanis who do that and there would be more Hindus who hate Muslims and Pakistanis.

Yet the historical facts remain and can not be changed. You guys can go to the gora court in UN and they would agree to whatever they want to. But they can not change the history and the facts for all to see.

Except for the great Mauryan Empire no other empire ruled India in the manner. And irrespective of others rulers that you have mentioned, none ruled India as the Muslims did, either collectively or separately. And during, the collective and separate rule of Muslims, the Hindu rule was minimal, and this is a fact.

The current India can not and does not have the right to proclaim to be the old India. Let me just show you why - this what generally current India is out of the Mauryan Empire, which it claims to be its own - it is not.

8003838764_ca9560d943_b.jpg


THIS Above article Concludes that India stand as a successor state to British India and retains the International personality of India along all the rights and obligations

While Pakistan will be regarded as having broken off from the existing state and forming a completely new state

Bull Crap.

I don't agree with some out of place gora making pronouncements about my history.
 
How can any civilisation emanate from current India? It has to pass for anything to emanate from it, right?

Well Sir,

I am the scion of Indus Valley Civilization. I am also the holder of the cradle of Indus Valley Civilization. I am also Muslim, therefore I also represent Muslim civilization.

What does India represent - a place where people live whose ancestors also lived there before them.
 
THIS Above article Concludes that India stand as a successor state to British India and retains the International personality of India along all the rights and obligations

While Pakistan will be regarded as having broken off from the existing state and forming a completely new state

To be honest indian mindset is funny as hell considering herself the successor of british raj..... :tdown:
 
The current India is not ancient and is only 65 years old. You guys recently celebrated you 65th independence day.
Agreed on the point that the current India is 65 years old.But the history and culture of the place is thousands of years old.Anyways it is not wine and its maturity that we are talking about here.So,I really dont understand,why are we talking about whose country and culture is older.Is that some kind of parameter to measure who is better or something ?
The place what current India traverses does have many historical locations.

ehhh.. sorry.. what?
But no civilization emanated from current India.

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
-Wayne Dyer
At first I thought I will take the History 101 for you and educate you about the Nandas,Mauryas,Guptas.going down to Pallavas,Chalukyas,Cholas and finally covering Marathas,Sikhs etc.
Then I realized I will have to write an entire history book for you,a behemoth task for which neither I am qualified,and nor you deserve the effort.

See,simply put,I dont really know what kind of history you have learnt so far,but please dont burden us with your ignorance,go read a book.I will give you the author's name.Go read some books by R.C.Mazumdar.

You people are just those people whose ancestors lived there before you.

And you dropped on the face of Earth right from the sky?Or are you among those who claim their forefathers came from Arabia/UzbekistanPersia holding the hands of Muhammad-bin-Kasim,Timur,Babur etc. etc. ??
 
Back
Top Bottom