Any questions Regarding India

[angeldust]

Well, the thing being spread is that Islam converted many with the sword! Those who did not convert were killed! 900 M were not killed....Speaks for its own self!

Could equally well speak for the fact that the 900 million fought, resisted, and then pushed back and absorbed.

Sorry did not get this bit!

Well, all humans are Muslim to start with. Islam is the oldest faith. And adam and eve were Muslim. Created by Allah. And all she had for her lower privates was a fig leaf. Bossoms unfettered by later Islamic morality (prudishness?).

So either Islam was not around when man was magically created.

Or the prudishness was a recent after-thought. And maybe man-made?

 

[Ticker]

The point is that you could not phrase it without using Pakistan yourself, so why expect more from others than you can deliver yourself?

Sir,

That was the question. And you are asking me the same question I asked you gentlemen.

Why is it that whenever a question about India is asked, instead of answering and explaining the Indian position, Indian posters answer it by narrating identical things or other non-related things happening in Pakistan. They counter the question by quoting Pakistan.

And you are blaming me for asking the question.

It is your thread - and you answer questions about India. Not through a counter question quoting Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I am afraid that these statements are high on emotion and low on fact.

Please refer to the Indian Independence Act. You will find very clearly that this political entity is the legal heir and successor to the British Crown Colony, and Pakistan was separated out from it, not created at the same time jointly. That Crown Colony was set up in 1858, by the Government of India Act, 1858, and replaced the British East India Company in all aspects, including it's tenancies and sovereignty alike.

If you wish, I can walk you back through the chain governing the successive states back to antiquity. I can also explain to you the continuity of administrative measures from centuries ago until the present day.

It is better not to intrude into these matters without sufficient information. Please take that as sincere advice, not as a put-down. You will find on reflection that it is good advice.

 

[Ticker]

Fascinating.

Perhaps you would permit some of us, the agnostics and atheists, to do without the Cosmic Sacrifice that was the origin of the universe, and just stay with Darwin?

Sir, I respect all faiths, Darwin's theory, atheism etc etc, however different my personal belief may be. I try to educate myself on all such beliefs and theories. It is indeed fascinating, just reading what you all write and indeed your perspective.

Yes, indeed, that can happen, but it depends on the context. Your inference does not hold true where there is no cross reference.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir,

That was the question. And you are asking me the same question I asked you gentlemen.

Why is it that whenever a question about India is asked, instead of answering and explaining the Indian position, Indian posters answer it by narrating identical things or other non-related things happening in Pakistan. They counter the question by quoting Pakistan.

And you are blaming me for asking the question.

It is your thread - and you answer questions about India. Not through a counter question quoting Pakistan.

I merely pointed out a bad habit afflicting both sides, you included. I do answer questions about India with the facts and information. My comment was not an answer to a question, it was an observation on what I felt was a dangerously flawed and fallacious observation. It is up to you to take note of my comment in a positive spirit or to fight it every inch of the way.

 

[abhishekgoel80]

you really don't read what you post do you? this is from your own link :

A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks’ account in particular cannot be trusted,9Irfan Habib and Mohibbul Hasan argues that these early British authors had a strong vested interest in presenting Tipu Sultan as a tyrant from whom the British had "liberated" Mysore.10 This assessment is echoed by Brittlebank in her recent work where she writes that Wilks and Kirkpatrick must be used with particular care as both authors had taken part in the wars against Tipu Sultan and were closely connected to the administrations of Lord Cornwallis and Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley.

secondly:

Employment of Hindus

Tipu Sultan's treasurer was Krishna Rao, Shamaiya Iyengar was his Minister of Post and Police, his brother Ranga Iyengar was also an officer, and Purnaiya held the very important post of "Mir Asaf". Moolchand and Sujan Rai were his chief agents at the Mughal court, and his chief "Peshkar", Suba Rao, was also a Hindu.

thirdly:

The incumbent Shankaracharya petitioned Tipu Sultan for help. A bunch of about 30 letters written in Kannada, which were exchanged between Tipu Sultan's court and the SringeriShankaracharya were discovered in 1916 by the Director of Archaeology in Mysore. Tipu Sultan expressed his indignation and grief at the news of the raid, and wrote:

"People who have sinned against such a holy place are sure to suffer the consequences of their misdeeds at no distant date in this Kali age in accordance with the verse: "Hasadbhih kriyate karma ruladbhir-anubhuyate" (People do [evil] deeds smilingly but suffer the consequences crying)."


& LASTLY:

In light of this and other events, B.A. Saletare has described Tipu Sultan as a defender of the Hindu dharma, who also patronized other temples including one at Melkote, for which he issued a Kannada decree that the Shrivaishnava invocatory verses there should be recited in the traditional form. The temple at Melkote still has gold and silver vessels with inscriptions indicating that they were presented by the Sultan. Tipu Sultan also presented four silver cups to the Lakshmikanta Temple at Kalale.24 Tipu Sultan does seem to have repossessed unauthorised grants of land made to Brahmins and temples, but those which had proper sanads were not. It was a normal practice for any ruler, Muslim or Hindu, on his accession or on the conquest of new territory. There is such evidence as grant deeds, and correspondence between his court and temples, and his having donated jewellery and deeded land grants to several temples, which some claim he was compelled to do in order to make alliances with Hindu rulers.

Did I say any where that he did not employed Hindus. I told that this article will give you insights. It is well researched article where many of his activities are brought about. You asked whether he killed hindus or not I gave you a link according to which he sanctioned killing of Hindus and christians. He also employed hindus and at other time gave grants to temples.

In all it shows that his policy keep changing with time. In all his rule was typical of a feudal lord who acts on seeing short term gains.

 

[Ticker]

I am afraid that these statements are high on emotion and low on fact.

Please refer to the Indian Independence Act. You will find very clearly that this political entity is the legal heir and successor to the British Crown Colony, and Pakistan was separated out from it, not created at the same time jointly. That Crown Colony was set up in 1858, by the Government of India Act, 1858, and replaced the British East India Company in all aspects, including it's tenancies and sovereignty alike.

If you wish, I can walk you back through the chain governing the successive states back to antiquity. I can also explain to you the continuity of administrative measures from centuries ago until the present day.

It is better not to intrude into these matters without sufficient information. Please take that as sincere advice, not as a put-down. You will find on reflection that it is good advice.

Sir, in the contemporary sense of existing international laws on how the global governance order needs to be maintained – all this is perfectly understood. I know the details of how it happened, what the Partition Council discussions were and how Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Mountbatten decided after receipt of UN judgment and how the judgment at the UN was reached at. This is not what I am going into – which as I said relates to international law and edicts thereof in order to govern the nation state based world.

I am talking about history, not to mention that certain historical aspects were taken into account in the UN and thereafter as well.

The history states it clearly, as per the archeological findings so far and other studies conducted by numerous archeologists and historians over a period of time, including various aspects emerging out of varied current scientific researches, that IVC had a particular geographical emanation and a particular spread.

This identifies clearly that the current Pakistan was the geographical emanation of IVC. Majority of the original habitants of this area are the original IVC people – however changed over a period of time they maybe.

That, there was some indication of migration to Southern portion of current India is also a fact.

Without lengthening the post, otherwise few will read it, I will state again, what I stated numerous times before;

We, the Pakistanis are the current scions of IVC and are also the holders of cradle of IVC. We don’t know what our religion was about 7000 BCE till we embraced Hindu way of life. Thereafter, we embraced Buddhism. And now, we are Muslims.

Therefore, not only that we are the scions of IVC, we also are representatives of Muslim civilization.

What’s wrong with this.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Claiming India to be 65 years old is just like saying Pakistan came into existence in 1971.

So, IVC being in Pakistan can stop us claiming IVC or Uttar Pradesh being in India stopped Pakistanis claiming Urdu languages or Islamic culture from India. You have Muhajirs, we have Punjabis and Sindhis.

To be perfectly honest, neither country can claim the IVC as its legacy, other than in very broad terms. There is no direct link between that and today's culture, of places around and about their principal conurbations, or any direct link which can be proved - this is one step lesser - between the people who built that culture and the people who live there now. The bulk of the evidence shows that they may well have been swept away by the numbers of invasions that the lands in question witnessed. On the other hand, some may have survived and their genes may be present in the present local populace: the possibility cannot be ruled out. Even likelier, however, is the possibility of a wide dispersion, with a significant possibility of some survivors having ended up in the trans-Yamuna region (this is conceivable only in the case of fugitives from the northern cities, Harappa included. It may be that elements of Harappan culture were injected into the mainstream culture of the Gangetic plain this way, and that through the central role of the residents of this plain in disseminating the post-Vedic culture through the rest of north India, then through west, south and east India, those elements of Harappan culture may have entered the mainstream culture of the nine Indian river valleys and the few plateaus that constituted the core of cultural India.

It is difficult to account for any other way that the shadowy hints of later icons and artifacts could have entered the mainstream - if they did enter the mainstream.

Pakistan may take legitimate pride in their guardianship of this incredible efflorescence, and India likewise for sites found on its territory.it is sad, but there is no justification for either claiming closer links, far less from claiming active differentiational benefits and gifts.

 

[Ticker]

I merely pointed out a bad habit afflicting both sides, you included. I do answer questions about India with the facts and information. My comment was not an answer to a question, it was an observation on what I felt was a dangerously flawed and fallacious observation. It is up to you to take note of my comment in a positive spirit or to fight it every inch of the way.

I respect your views. And I am not fighting any inch of any way. I am just explaining my perspective and my belief, which may be different than yours. That's all.

 

[doublemaster]

Could equally well speak for the fact that the 900 million fought, resisted, and then pushed back and absorbed.



Well, all humans are Muslim to start with. Islam is the oldest faith. And adam and eve were Muslim. Created by Allah. And all she had for her lower privates was a fig leaf. Bossoms unfettered by later Islamic morality (prudishness?).

So either Islam was not around when man was magically created.

Or the prudishness was a recent after-thought. And maybe man-made?

Still being discussed about islam and spreading with sword?

“I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of Hussein, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

You need honest mind to understand this.

Moghal Kings or rulers spread Islam forcefully in India? Its impossible because i dont think they had any love towards Islam to begin with. I dont know any of so called muslim rulers worked as evangelists. They ruled for sooo muny years, but did nothing to spread the message of quran. They did not even translate quran to local lauguages. Did they? I dont know any thing like that.

There is a difference btw "moghal invaders" who did nothing to spread islam but look at the common citizens who did this and check the result. For this you need to compare India and Indonesia.

There is no reason to treat Moghals as Heros of Islam or Heroes of Pakistan in the same way there is no reason for any Indians to hate them for invading todays "India" when no one represented "India".

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for a neutral observer to appreciate either the moderation of manner that your proclaimed lack of hate accompanies, and the possible manner that a feeling of hatred might evoke.

I can't see a difference. It is the same hostility and caviling, the same single-minded quest for weaknesses or vulnerabilities, the same refusal to recognize that a cultural legacy is far too diffused to be linked tightly to one set or another of people, whatever their grouping, religious, linguistic or ethnic.

A request for information does not contain so many accusing words and phrases. Many questions are framed like criminal charge sheets. PDF does not amount to the academic world. It is not worth my while to wade through innuendo and slighting remarks to put across what information I have, or to prove my point. If anybody doesn't want to learn the facts, or what the opinions of individuals are, there is no need to enter into long discussions which take significant pieces of my leisure hours.

Drop the damn' thing then, and go home with your prejudices.

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.

Isn't that nice? Where our bigots use their faith and belief in proclaiming certain dubious conclusions, they are promptly asked to resolve these by the light of pure reason, and to display the support that they might have received from approved international sources. But when there is legislative proof, acts are cited, the decisions of international bodies is marshaled to support argument, it then becomes a matter of faith: now the gora courts don't matter any longer, foreign experts don't matter any longer, and it is a self-declaration of history and th facts proclaimed by history, as seen by an interested party.

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.

Bull Crap.

I don't agree with some out of place gora making pronouncements about my history.

Unfortunately, this exactly mirrors the point of view of Rig Vedic, Bhairava and KS, to name only three. There are other, less intelligent and articulate, more Neanderthal exponents, but it really saddens me to see one more person join the crowd of the faith-oriented analyst.

 

[nForce]

@nForce

Which is the civilization current India represents.

All the civilizations that were present in the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Ticker]

Unfortunately, it is difficult for a neutral observer to appreciate either the moderation of manner that your proclaimed lack of hate accompanies, and the possible manner that a feeling of hatred might evoke.

I can't see a difference. It is the same hostility and caviling, the same single-minded quest for weaknesses or vulnerabilities, the same refusal to recognize that a cultural legacy is far too diffused to be linked tightly to one set or another of people, whatever their grouping, religious, linguistic or ethnic.

A request for information does not contain so many accusing words and phrases. Many questions are framed like criminal charge sheets. PDF does not amount to the academic world. It is not worth my while to wade through innuendo and slighting remarks to put across what information I have, or to prove my point. If anybody doesn't want to learn the facts, or what the opinions of individuals are, there is no need to enter into long discussions which take significant pieces of my leisure hours.

Drop the damn' thing then, and go home with your prejudices.

There are different ways of explaining things to bullies, to young school boys, to young educated elite and the approach is different towards intellectuals.

I know, you being an intellectual do feel frustrated.

sir, I don't have what you term as prejudices.

All the civilizations that were present in the Indian subcontinent.

And what are these .... please explain.

 

[ice_man]

Did I say any where that he did not employed Hindus. I told that this article will give you insights. It is well researched article where many of his activities are brought about. You asked whether he killed hindus or not I gave you a link according to which he sanctioned killing of Hindus and christians. He also employed hindus and at other time gave grants to temples.
In all it shows that his policy keep changing with time. In all his rule was typical of a feudal lord who acts on seeing short term gains.

ok and how many hindu rajas mahrajas gave money to mosques compared to TIPU who gave grants to temples and protected a temple from invasion?

well researched how did you come to that conclusion when clearly it says that things said AGAINST him were written by british who fought against him and hence it is disputed that they had other motives!

after alll this let us for a minute assume just assume you are correct and he "killed" hindus. however, he also protected their temples & gave them jobs in high posts such as minister of treasury!

given the time he lived in won't you call him a very lenient and liberal leader compared to other rulers of his time???? you can't judge him given the morality of today! clearly blacks were considered lower class till 20th century! & hindus considered "achut" & kachra classes lower compared to brahmin.

given the harsh times he lived in it clearly can be said he was truly an enlightened despot of his time. for giving freedom to all his subjects and have a "diverse cabinet" of ministers!

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

There is some elastic grammar and vocabulary floating around here.

What has been stated is that Pakistan emanated out of the IVC. On the other hand, there is nothing tangible that other parts of Indian civilisation emanated from.

I don't know how to react to this. It is one of those displays of mean-minded looking for possible weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

Both cultures, side by side, are so similar that an outsider can hardly make them apart. Yet one has quasi-divine descent, the other is base-born. This is an interesting tack. I see only envy and malice.

Almost all north Indian culture began with the Painted Grey Ware culture. These are associated with the spread along the Ganges valley of the Vedic and post-Vedic culture. All subsequent cultural development links back to this, except the independent and vigorous culture of the Deccan, and the culture which prevailed east of Gaya, across the estuaries of the Ganges and across into the Arakan hills as well as into the Brahmaputra valley.

This is a good point to start.