What's new

China ramps up pressure over Kashmir

Ok, I admit it wasn't 1000 year muslim rule it was almost 1200 years of muslim rule starting from 711AD to 1857 AD.
What do you say to that, How are you going to deny your slavery, Read some history books


Time to put yr wet dreams in place once and for all do you even know what the word 'Rule' means?


Last time i checked and according to all history books apart from the crap u read the Maratha Empire ruled India from 1674 to 1818

Vijayanagara Empire 1336–1646 CE


Not to mention the Sikh empire your old masters or u forgot Lahore was under Sikh rule :agree: Sikh Empire 1799 to 1849



Learn some facts first!
 
.
Something like this? good read, thats what you need to show the world:tup: :D
India?s Superpower Delusions | OPEN Magazine

That's a good article. :tup:

If China doesn't see itself as a future superpower, how on EARTH can India claim to be one, when they are SO far behind...

Just read the international media, and what is their picture of India? The last notable article I read on the international media about India, was the mess of the CWGs. No record-breaking construction works, nothing to say on any matter that involves the P5+1 or any such major world issues...
 
.
Do you even know what you are talking about.Muslims ruled Pakistan for around 1200 years and not India .The first Muslim to rule Delhi was Ghori and he entered India on 1192 A.D .Do remember that after the conquest of Sindh the Muslims had to wait for another 400 years to enter India.I suggest you read about the Battle of Rajasthan where the Arabs were thrashed mercilessly.It is there on wikipedia and other sites. They tried many times and failed. Moreover at no point of time did Muslims rule the whole of the nation.By 1857 the Mughal empire was finished which makes the so called "Muslim rule" to around 700 or so years.

Moreover i don't find any link between the topic and "Muslim rule".past won't help to resolve the problems in the present and the future.

Ok, So now you people are saying pakistan is always separate from Bharat, Thats good
When muslims arabs entered sindh it was ruled by a repressive Hindu kingdom who were ruling a majority buddhist population, the same goes for multan, The arabs destryed those kingdoms. Hinduism is a gangetic religion, it is not native to indus valley, It is most likely those Hindu kings came from bharat, So they are included in timeline, Plus wikipedia has no credibility, Plus Arabs never went to Rajhastan, They came to pakistan to free people of sindh not to attack rajhastan.

True Ghori was the first muslim to spread islam in Bharat, But you have to take into account those hindu kingdom also in slavery
 
. .
Ok, So now you people are saying pakistan is always separate from Bharat, Thats good
When muslims arabs entered sindh it was ruled by a repressive Hindu kingdom who were ruling a majority buddhist population, the same goes for multan, The arabs destryed those kingdoms. Hinduism is a gangetic religion, it is not native to indus valley, It is most likely those Hindu kings came from bharat, So they are included in timeline, Plus wikipedia has no credibility, Plus Arabs never went to Rajhastan, They came to pakistan to free people of sindh not to attack rajhastan.

True Ghori was the first muslim to spread islam in Bharat, But you have to take into account those hindu kingdom also in slavery


Hinduism is a gangetic religion
another retarded statement but i expect nothing else the word hindu is derived from the word sindu it is a alien concept word given by the persians. Our dharma is Sanātana Dharma thats why u find even Shiva statues in Siberia and in modern day Pakistan :agree:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1762181/posts

Ancient Vishnu idol found in Russian town
 
.
Ok, So now you people are saying pakistan is always separate from Bharat, Thats good
When muslims arabs entered sindh it was ruled by a repressive Hindu kingdom who were ruling a majority buddhist population, the same goes for multan, The arabs destryed those kingdoms. Hinduism is a gangetic religion, it is not native to indus valley, It is most likely those Hindu kings came from bharat, So they are included in timeline, Plus wikipedia has no credibility, Plus Arabs never went to Rajhastan, They came to pakistan to free people of sindh not to attack rajhastan.

True Ghori was the first muslim to spread islam in Bharat, But you have to take into account those hindu kingdom also in slavery

See this is exactly the problem with you .You are not willing to accept anything that shows the Muslim invaders in a bad light.The Battle of Rajasthan is recorded in history and you have no clue about it.I feel sorry for you since you have been taught only partial history.


Battle of Rajasthan
Date 738 CE
Location Rajasthan, India
Result Decisive Hindu Rajput victory
Territorial
changes Arab expansion checked and contained to Sindh
Belligerents
Hindu Rajputs Umayyad Caliphs
The Battle of Rajasthan is a battle (or series of battles) where the Hindu Rajput clans defeated the Muslim Arab invaders in 738 CE. While all sources (Hindu and Muslim) agree on the broad outline of the conflict and the result, there is no detailed information on the actual battle/s. There is also no indication of the exact places where these battles were fought——what is clear is that the final battle took place somewhere on the borders of modern Sindh-Rajasthan. Following their defeat the remnants of the Arab army fled to the other bank of the River Indus."

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan
 
.
Why do you people always fight like a girl and stab us from behind, they bla and ttp are pakistanis who r funded by bharat, we pakistanis never use this shoddy tactic of brainwashing bhartis to fight bhartis, We fight like men, Yes we send 10 pakistanis teenagers to take all of bharat for a ride for 72 hours, we send pakistani forces in kargil whenever we feel like,

Why dont you send a bharti agent in balochistan lets see what happens

Ya we know how much brave you are. Some proofs
1-You send those 10 guys and then dont accept that they are yours.(Ajmal Kasab)
2-You send your army troops to fight in kargil but dont accept the fact. Even didn't recognize the sacrifices of your own soldiers for more than 10 yrs.

Kudos to you.:pakistan:

Don't you think there are plenty of bhartis agent all over baluchistan and afghanistan responsible for blasts in whole of Pak??????
Most on the other side of the border believe so.
 
Last edited:
.
Ok, So now you people are saying pakistan is always separate from Bharat, Thats good
When muslims arabs entered sindh it was ruled by a repressive Hindu kingdom who were ruling a majority buddhist population, the same goes for multan, The arabs destryed those kingdoms. Hinduism is a gangetic religion, it is not native to indus valley, It is most likely those Hindu kings came from bharat, So they are included in timeline, Plus wikipedia has no credibility, Plus Arabs never went to Rajhastan, They came to pakistan to free people of sindh not to attack rajhastan.

True Ghori was the first muslim to spread islam in Bharat, But you have to take into account those hindu kingdom also in slavery

Vo ho hold on .You are the guys who say so and not us.
 
.
Time to put yr wet dreams in place once and for all do you even know what the word 'Rule' means?


Last time i checked and according to all history books apart from the crap u read the Maratha Empire ruled India from 1674 to 1818

Vijayanagara Empire 1336–1646 CE


Not to mention the Sikh empire your old masters or u forgot Lahore was under Sikh rule :agree: Sikh Empire 1799 to 1849



Learn some facts first!

This is not what historians say, Delhi is the tradition capital of Hindustan, Whoever rules Delhi rules Bharat, Why are you bringing South india, It was never included in Hindustan, Hindustan includes north and central india,

Shivaji fighters were guerrilla fighters who according to congress would today be classified as terrorists, They used to attack mughal from mountains never face to face,

About sikhs, they were neither invaders nor bhartis, they were pakistani born and were pakistani, I know you bharti sikhs claim ranjith empire as invader and as indian empire but the truth is no one in pakistan even knows his name, his mere 40 year terror rule in lahore and 10 in year in peshawar doesn't qualifies it to be given a legendary status, He was only able to be successfull because his army was made up of 50% muslim, While all muslim empire never had hindus in majority in army
 
.
See this is exactly the problem with you .You are not willing to accept anything that shows the Muslim invaders in a bad light.The Battle of Rajasthan is recorded in history and you have no clue about it.I feel sorry for you since you have been taught only partial history.


Battle of Rajasthan
Date 738 CE
Location Rajasthan, India
Result Decisive Hindu Rajput victory
Territorial
changes Arab expansion checked and contained to Sindh
Belligerents
Hindu Rajputs Umayyad Caliphs
The Battle of Rajasthan is a battle (or series of battles) where the Hindu Rajput clans defeated the Muslim Arab invaders in 738 CE. While all sources (Hindu and Muslim) agree on the broad outline of the conflict and the result, there is no detailed information on the actual battle/s. There is also no indication of the exact places where these battles were fought——what is clear is that the final battle took place somewhere on the borders of modern Sindh-Rajasthan. Following their defeat the remnants of the Arab army fled to the other bank of the River Indus."

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan

mate i have dozens of history books on bharat and not a single book says anything about battle of rajhastan
 
.
This is not what historians say, Delhi is the tradition capital of Hindustan, Whoever rules Delhi rules Bharat, Why are you bringing South india, It was never included in Hindustan, Hindustan includes north and central india,

Shivaji fighters were guerrilla fighters who according to congress would today be classified as terrorists, They used to attack mughal from mountains never face to face,

About sikhs, they were neither invaders nor bhartis, they were pakistani born and were pakistani, I know you bharti sikhs claim ranjith empire as invader and as indian empire but the truth is no one in pakistan even knows his name, his mere 40 year terror rule in lahore and 10 in year in peshawar doesn't qualifies it to be given a legendary status, He was only able to be successfull because his army was made up of 50% muslim, While all muslim empire never had hindus in majority in army

Shivaji is a national hero u walley :hitwall: watch yr mouth and im talking about empires in India just like you mentioned your bullshit claim of the muslim 1000 yrs rule in Bharat i was showing you facts proving othetwise btw there was no land called Pakistan b4 1947 so those Sikhs were not Pakistani! the word never existed duh
 
.
Bharat illegaly occupied kashmir which was muslim majority, According to Two nation theory the muslim majority states would go to pakistan, Bharat treacherously occupied kashmir by showing a fake article of accession to UN.

Did you ever go to school?
 
.
He achieved the re-establishment of Maratha rule on their homeland after being ruled and dominated by various Muslim dynasties for few hundred years. He established a competent and progressive civil rule with the help of well regulated and disciplined military and well structured administrative organizations. The prevalent practices of treating women as war booty, destruction of religious monuments, slavery and forceful religious conversions were firmly opposed under his administration. Shivaji was a religious Hindu, and showed respect toward other religions. He also innovated rules of military engagement of that era. He pioneered "Shiva sutra" or Ganimi Kava (guerrilla tactics), which leveraged strategic factors like demographics, speed, surprise and focused attack to defeat his bigger and more powerful enemies.


Shivaji was more of a man than the coward evil mughals and history books know it



Shivaji allowed his subjects freedom of religion and opposed forced conversion. The first thing Shivaji did after a conquest was to promulgate protection of mosques and Muslim tombs.

He commanded the respect and fealty of the Muslims under his command by his fair treatment of his friends as well as enemies.Kafi Khan, the Mughal historian and Bernier, a French traveler, spoke highly of his religious policy. He also brought back converts like Netaji Palkar and Bajaji in to Hinduism. He prohibited slavery in his kingdom. Shivaji Maharaj applied a humane and liberal policy to the women of his state. There are many instances in folklore which describe Shivaji's respect for women, irrespective of their religion, nationality, or creed.
 
.

Hinduism is a gangetic religion
another retarded statement but i expect nothing else the word hindu is derived from the word sindu it is a alien concept word given by the persians. Our dharma is Sanātana Dharma thats why u find even Shiva statues in Siberia and in modern day Pakistan :agree:


Ancient Vishnu idol found in Russian town

Ancient Vishnu idol found in Russian town

I know sindhi in dari becomes hindu
The word hindu was always a secular term, According to most iranian history books not Bharati history books, Hindu means black, When sassanid empire occupied Sindh in 2nd century they encountered a lot of black people, so they named the region hindustan.

One thing is for certain the word hindustan was given only to sindh, it was only applied to bharat when arabs invaded sindh.

The so called shiv statues you are talking are found everywhere in the world it is found in wales, here in australia but we get your point you want to declare every ancient religion as hinduism, Accrording to Most hindu scholars say hinduism developed out of brahminism in 8th century AD, this is the reason you find few few hindu architecture only few centuries old, Can you name any hindu temple which is 2000 years old
 
.
mate i have dozens of history books on bharat and not a single book says anything about battle of rajhastan

Buddy even i have many history books some of them written by British and American authors and all of them mentioned the Battle.If you don't want to believe this then i cannot argue with you further.Remember the battle has been recorded by both sides .Sorry to burst the bubble buddy but Muslim armies did face humiliating defeats .
 
.
Back
Top Bottom