What's new

India a Country of Hindus and of Their Descendants - Dr. Swamy

what kind of shitty logic is that ?Anyone with anything seen as "hindu thingie" will be seen as hindus while this rule does not apply for others?

Not just Hindus, any dharmics. But Abrahamics have exclusivity built in. So they of themselves reject it. The dharmics dont care and lives like peas in a pod amongst each other.

Vietnamese celebrate New Year at Hindu temple - The Times of India

See this? Buddhists worshiping in Hindu temples. They love Hinduism just like Hindus love Buddhism. So you are the Shakuni mama here trying to sow differences and spread venom.
 
Local population never caused a problem before Bin Qasim. As I said the wars were something like Mahabharata war. Start with sunrise and down with sunset. After sunset you could meet the enemy over tea. It would be in open maidan so that normal life and villagers are not troubled. No civilian property or life destruction. That was dharma yuddha within bounds of moral law. When the islamists came, India had no answer because they spread like locusts killing and destroying everything in their way. How many places and how many lives could kshatriya save. They had no concept of such enemy or war. The non-combatant civilians could not raise arms to protect themselves because they were forbidden by varna system to pick up arms.

White washing history is what the liberals did to our history. The cleaned up all the Muslim atrocities to show how the Muslims did us a favor by killing us. How Hindus were evil caste practitioners and so deserved to be killed. How Hindus were cruel and only storing wealth in temples and hence deserved to be looted. That is called as white washing.



Ashoka had a war in a battlefield where the killed were Kshatriya. Not civilians.

I am surprised that your view of history is so distorted and super-sanitized. Your view is very idealized and is a screen for caste system. So, Kashatriyas were not human? They were bred to kill and be killed. What is moral about that? It is no wonder that there was no larger sense of nationhood. Why would there be? If defending one's homeland is not an issue, then why wonder about India not having an entrenched sense of nationhood?

Ashoka's words are part of history. He clearly talked of his distress at loss of life and brutality that is inevitable result of conquering and subjugating a population. How was that dharma Yudha? If it was a 'routine' matter of killing Kashatriays, whose moral duty entailed killing and be killed, why would Ashoka be distressed? This is what ideology does to history.

The problem started with Bin Qasim, because you are taught that. Problem did not start with Greeks, or Kushans, or Huns. It started with Muslims (not Arabs - because your narrative fails to distinguish because of convenience), because Muslims are still around. Does it matter to you that Alexander was opposed by whole tribes throughout Punjab? No mention of Kashatriyas there. He had so much trouble passing through this area that his army lost heart a number of times. Conquering armies face difficulties only when a population rises to resist an invader, not when an exhaustible supply of trained men is brought to the field in a Dharmic war (as you say).

I read Mr.S.Singh saying something about Bin Qasim's army being powerful. You too brought it up. The simple fact is that wherever Muslim / Arab armies went in that era, they found divided nations and disgruntled populations. Al-Sham (Syria + Palestine + Lebanon), Iraq, Persia, Khurasan (Balochistan + Afghanistan), Central Asia, parts of Asia Minor, Armenia and beyond, Egypt, North Africa, Spain were easily conquered because the empires and kingdoms were fatigued and often (as in Spain) torn with internal dissensions. That is why far less numerous armies of motivated men were able to conquer bigger armies of disaffected people. It was quite similar in Sindh too. There was tension in Sindh between local Hindus and local Buddhists. Plus Raja Dahir does not seem to have enjoyed much support of his people. BTW, to console you and further damage your thesis, let me tell you that Umayyads quickly lost interest in Sindh after the young Bin Qasim was recalled. There was not enough revenue raised in Sindh to be worth the trouble. After a few generations, Sindh and South Punjab again had local Hindu rulers. Muslims and heretical sects (Qarmatians) kept exchanging ruler-ship with Hindus. Turks showed up a couple of hundred years later and we have a better historical sources for Turks than for Arabs. With Turks too similar scenario played out. Beyond the Kingdom of Lahore there was hardly any resistance because of dissensions and petty Rajput kingdoms fighting one another.

Superior organization, better training, better tactics, better equipment, and motivation wins the day. All else is just excuses. Nature does not tolerate weakness. What happens, does so because of Will greater than our understanding. Therefore, I have no quarrel with history. I hope you quit painting history Saffron. History is history, not fiction or art.

If varna system was a reason for failure to repel invaders, then why was it not reformed or discarded even? Failure to adapt means failure to survive. Look around yourself. Where do you see the varna system? Enslaving native genius to abhorrent caste system produced unfavorable results. Why then pine for an age that failed to survive in face of competition? Between Mahmud of Gahzni and Muhammad of Ghur there was a period of more than a century for Rajput kingdoms to reform in order to face the challenge of Turk invasions. Rajputs failed. Instead of quarreling among themselves, they could have made a strategy, pushed reforms of varna system in order to raise more men, and rallied the bulk of countrymen in order to face the challenge. They did nothing and paid the price. Turks faced little or no resistance, unlike Greeks - mainly because of varna system.

You can not make a 'Dharmic' argument here. It does not work in face of reality. You can not call the Arabs and Turks as barbaric invaders either to find a moral space, since they operated large empires, ran effective administrations, raised well-trained armies staffed by capable and educated officers. They succeeded, Rajputs failed. Rajputs were set up for failure. They failed to respond to challenges effectively and could not protect their people - which is the first and foremost duty of a ruler.

Any study of the reasons for success of Muslims (Arabs, Turks) against Rajputs would be revealing. But you would have motivation to ignore this. You might also ignore trying to find reasons why Sultanate of Delhi was able to preserve itself. Would it matter to you that Sultanate of Delhi was able to stop Mongol invasions by a combination of effective diplomacy backed by military power? Can you imagine how many lives were spared as a result? I would like to go on and talk about failure of Sultanate of Delhi in stopping Taimur's army, but my post is already too long.

So yes, Muslim rule was disadvantageous for some sections of Hindu population, but it persevered. You can not argue against success. Muslims were successful rulers and kept their rule because population largely tolerated them. Urban Hindus prospered and provided strength and support to their Kings. There is no white washing here. These are facts. You can not argue against facts.

Fascism died in 20th century, and therefore so did colonialism. We are in a different age. Why should our civilizational attitudes not change as well? Is it important to be a hostage to a motivated and biased version of history? That time is gone. Because it had to go. It had outlived its usefulness. By mixing culture, religion, history, and carrying a sense of victimhood what do Hindutvavadis hope to accomplish? Your gripes and fears are like self-fulfilling prophecies. You go on and be afraid of Muslims and Christians, and you will end up destabilizing India and dig your collective grave - so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Then you must know that man is divine right? As in God according to Hinduism. Not just man but the whole Universe is God Manifest. So nothing is unholy. Muslims are gods. Christians are gods. Everyone is god. Do you see this as an Insult of a Muslim? Or of a Christian? When a Hindu considers everything divine, there is a sense of live and let live. That becomes the essence of the Hindu culture. Then of course the concepts of Dharma comes in which is nothing but righteousness. Kindness, gentleness, art, culture, respect, all these which constitutes humanism.

You spoke about humanism earlier. How else can one be more humane than to consider everyone and everything around as divine?

People by nature disagree, quarrel, commit violence. Considering humans as divine makes a case of blasphemy out of normal working of human nature. Looked from this angle, one would loose sight of divinity and consider it lightly.

Though Sufism has a concept of Wahdat-ul-Wujood, something like Pantheism, made popular by Ibn-Arabi, the Spanish Sufi of middle ages, it has a limited scope and then only in a state of ecstasy. There is a better explanation given by Ahmad Sirhindi in his concept of Wahdat-ul-Shuhood. That is more generally applicable. All this has to do with Man's experience of his relation with divine.

What I am trying to get at is that every great religion has the concept of human divinity in some way. How we approach this depends on theology of particular religion. Hindu approach is perhaps more direct and inclusive in its application. But then it runs into problems. Despite acknowledging the latent divinity (according to Hinduism), a Brahmin must act a certain way with a Shudar. So, in a practical sense this divinity fails in creating equality, since the essence of a Shudar's divinity is from Brahma's (?) feet.

In any case, we shall be going into religion and I do not wish to do so.
 
Last edited:
India is a land for anyone who can respect the constitution and learn to think above their religion for the greater good of the nation.
 
I am surprised that your view of history is so distorted and super-sanitized. Your view is very idealized and is a screen for caste system. So, Kashatriyas were not human? They were bred to kill and be killed. What is moral about that? It is no wonder that there was no larger sense of nationhood. Why would there be? If defending one's homeland is not an issue, then why wonder about India not having an entrenched sense of nationhood?

imagesCAD6C5DY.jpg


This is Vedanta which is the summarization of the Vedas. The human body is not differently designed from the cosmos. The human society is not to be differently designed either. It follows the same patterns. So like you have the human body with cells (let us take it as the basic unit) which have the same cell constituents but still are differentiated to do different functions, so was the caste system. Each specialized cell get together to from different organs and carry out different functions. You cannot have liver cells doing the function of the lung cells or heart cells. There are T-cells which are the fighter cells which detects threats to the human body and are dispatched to fight off infection. Not all cells can become T-cells and adopt its functions. It is is the job of only the T-cells. So the caste was nothing but differentiation by specialization. It was not to be a birth based system like it became. Like you have now, sons and daughters of actors becoming actors, of doctors becoming doctors. That is a corruption.


Now you talk of the morality of breeding a Kshatriya to kill and be killed. Is that not what all societies do? Well functioning stable societies do not have civilians carrying weapons. That is the job of the police and the military. It is the soldiers right and duty to carry weapons. To fight to defend the country even if it means being killed. Not all become soldiers. Do you find immorality in expecting the soldier to fight and die for his country? There was no concept of nation. You could move across kingdoms freely and get the work you were specialized in. Nation-states are a modern creation. There was Dharma. Which meant that no matter which king ruled over the kingdom, he would follow these same rules. So the civil society was never disturbed. The wealth of the civil society never looted. In was an honor to be a Kshatriya. The tax collected from the civil society allowed the Kshatriyas to live a comfortable life and it was not like they were only fighting all the time. There were long periods between wars which were spent in practice and training or just merriment. Kings were not mad to go to war all the time.

Ashoka's words are part of history. He clearly talked of his distress at loss of life and brutality that is inevitable result of conquering and subjugating a population. How was that dharma Yudha? If it was a 'routine' matter of killing Kashatriays, whose moral duty entailed killing and be killed, why would Ashoka be distressed? This is what ideology does to history.

No those are distortions. While there is take over of kingdoms, there is no subjugation of civilian population. The distress was only at the futility of war and the death. The death of soldiers. So it was dharma yuddha. But killing is still killing right? So it was a big war for the time and it distressed Ashoka to see the battlefield so awashed with blood. It was not routine killing. Killing is never routine. Also let us say there are disputes about who Ashoka was and the timeline given to him.


The problem started with Bin Qasim, because you are taught that. Problem did not start with Greeks, or Kushans, or Huns. It started with Muslims (not Arabs - because your narrative fails to distinguish because of convenience), because Muslims are still around. Does it matter to you that Alexander was opposed by whole tribes throughout Punjab? No mention of Kashatriyas there. He had so much trouble passing through this area that his army lost heart a number of times. Conquering armies face difficulties only when a population rises to resist an invader, not when an exhaustible supply of trained men is brought to the field in a Dharmic war (as you say).

No we are taught that it was with the Hellenistic world view that concept of war changed and that India should have changed. So while the Greeks did cause death and destruction, Alexander was defeated. It is the Kshatriyas who fought even then. Each tribe functioned or small kingdom functioned just the same with the same caste differentiation. So tribes revolting is not the civilians revolting, but the warriors of the tribe fighting it out. Why the Greeks do not matter so much is that they were contained as well as assimilated into the dharmic fold becoming castes themselves. The same happened with Kushans or the Huns. They adopted Indian traditions, gods, and become Indian people. The wounds healed. Not so with the Muslims. The memory of Muslim invasions and destruction rankled because they stayed on differentiated and continued with the same behavior until their over throw by the various kings hundreds of years later. The wounds never healed. It continued to fester because the converts also adopted the ways and behavior of the rulers and got alienated.

I read Mr.S.Singh saying something about Bin Qasim's army being powerful. You too brought it up. The simple fact is that wherever Muslim / Arab armies went in that era, they found divided nations and disgruntled populations. Al-Sham (Syria + Palestine + Lebanon), Iraq, Persia, Khurasan (Balochistan + Afghanistan), Central Asia, parts of Asia Minor, Armenia and beyond, Egypt, North Africa, Spain were easily conquered because the empires and kingdoms were fatigued and often (as in Spain) torn with internal dissensions. That is why far less numerous armies of motivated men were able to conquer bigger armies of disaffected people. It was quite similar in Sindh too. There was tension in Sindh between local Hindus and local Buddhists. Plus Raja Dahir does not seem to have enjoyed much support of his people. BTW, to console you and further damage your thesis, let me tell you that Umayyads quickly lost interest in Sindh after the young Bin Qasim was recalled. There was not enough revenue raised in Sindh to be worth the trouble. After a few generations, Sindh and South Punjab again had local Hindu rulers. Muslims and heretical sects (Qarmatians) kept exchanging ruler-ship with Hindus. Turks showed up a couple of hundred years later and we have a better historical sources for Turks than for Arabs. With Turks too similar scenario played out. Beyond the Kingdom of Lahore there was hardly any resistance because of dissensions and petty Rajput kingdoms fighting one another

That is a very convenient self-serving view. The fact of the matter is where the population has survived Muslim invasion and retained their original belief systems, there is rancor and bitterness towards Muslims. Not a sign of the good life the Muslims brought as you claim. You go to rest of SE Asia, you wont find SE Asians having bitterness or hatred towards Hindus though Hindu kingdoms were there throughout SE Asia. While the Muslims are the only ones speaking good of themselves, it is the others who are speaking good of Hindus. This is the difference.

Superior organization, better training, better tactics, better equipment, and motivation wins the day. All else is just excuses. Nature does not tolerate weakness. What happens, does so because of Will greater than our understanding. Therefore, I have no quarrel with history. I hope you quit painting history Saffron. History is history, not fiction or art.

You have your history and I have mine. I gave you the Hindutva view. You can disagree. You could say you had superior organization, better training, better tactics, better equipment, and motivation wins the day to fuel your view of Muslims as a martial race, but then they are not doing so well now for martial races are they? Hindus did pay the price for not having adapted to the changing world. They did suffer through 500 years of Muslim rule for that. But they learnt and they fought back throughout the Muslim history culminating with the Marathas taking control of the Indian land mass.

f varna system was a reason for failure to repel invaders, then why was it not reformed or discarded even? Failure to adapt means failure to survive. Look around yourself. Where do you see the varna system? Enslaving native genius to abhorrent caste system produced unfavorable results. Why then pine for an age that failed to survive in face of competition? Between Mahmud of Gahzni and Muhammad of Ghur there was a period of more than a century for Rajput kingdoms to reform in order to face the challenge of Turk invasions. Rajputs failed. Instead of quarreling among themselves, they could have made a strategy, pushed reforms of varna system in order to raise more men, and rallied the bulk of countrymen in order to face the challenge. They did nothing and paid the price. Turks faced little or no resistance, unlike Greeks - mainly because of varna system

See the above para. There was no enslavement. They were the varna. Each one was proud of his or her varna. You may as well ask a sculptor to be ashamed of being a sculptor or a doctor to be ashamed of being a doctor the way you are disparaging varna. You are talking about a people that have thousands of years of history and a way of living and a world view very different from the Muslims, you expect that to change just with Mahmud of Gahzni or Muhammad of Ghur? The Muslims have been at the receiving end of pretty bad beating for the last couple of centuries, have they changed? Push for reforms they did with Shivaji. When he led on guerrilla warfare.


You can not make a 'Dharmic' argument here. It does not work in face of reality. You can not call the Arabs and Turks as barbaric invaders either to find a moral space, since they operated large empires, ran effective administrations, raised well-trained armies staffed by capable and educated officers. They succeeded, Rajputs failed. Rajputs were set up for failure. They failed to respond to challenges effectively and could not protect their people - which is the first and foremost duty of a ruler.

Rajputs have a longer history than the Islamic empires. You are comparing a system with is many many thousand years older than your 700-800 years of empire building. They ran kingdoms, very rich ones, had well trained armies, had education systems, had everything that you talk of for longer period than the Turks or the Arabs. They were no invaders though. Within the system they lived in they did not turn their back on their people. They fought to the last man countless number of times. None of the Islamic empires were long lasting either, were they not? Was not there constant take overs with populations being run over?


Any study of the reasons for success of Muslims (Arabs, Turks) against Rajputs would be revealing. But you would have motivation to ignore this. You might also ignore trying to find reasons why Sultanate of Delhi was able to preserve itself. Would it matter to you that Sultanate of Delhi was able to stop Mongol invasions by a combination of effective diplomacy backed by military power? Can you imagine how many lives were spared as a result? I would like to go on and talk about failure of Sultanate of Delhi in stopping Taimur's army, but my post is already too long.

No, I would not ignore anything. Being Hindutva no longer means that I will stick to the old rules of warfare or not appreciate newer ones. I am all for learning from every single source there is. India should never never never again be defeated for anything if it means Armageddon, so be it. Yes, the Sultanate of Delhi stopped the Mongol invasions. Also the Sultanate of Delhi was very fond of making eunuchs out of Indian men in tens of thousands. Did they save the Indians from a fate worse than death?


So yes, Muslim rule was disadvantageous for some sections of Hindu population, but it persevered. You can not argue against success. Muslims were successful rulers and kept their rule because population largely tolerated them. Urban Hindus prospered and provided strength and support to their Kings. There is no white washing here. These are facts. You can not argue against facts.

No the population tolerated them because of varna system and for their lack of consciousness of being a nation. The Muslim ruler was just another King for them, a cruel King. The dissent here again were not organized by within the civil society, but by the Kshatriyas from other Kingdoms. The Hindus paid Jizya, did the farming, did all the works of the empire and allowed the Muslims to live in prosperity they would not know otherwise. That is why the Hindus survived.


Fascism died in 20th century, and therefore so did colonialism. We are in a different age. Why should our civilizational attitudes not change as well? Is it important to be a hostage to a motivated and biased version of history? That time is gone. Because it had to go. It had outlived its usefulness. By mixing culture, religion, history, and carrying a sense of victimhood what do Hindutvavadis hope to accomplish? Your gripes and fears are like self-fulfilling prophecies. You go on and be afraid of Muslims and Christians, and you will end up destabilizing India and dig your collective grave - so to speak

LOL. No no no. There is no grudge against the Greeks, the Huns, because they mixed up. Today I cannot differentiate who came from their bloodlines and who did not. It would not matter. They are my people. It would have been no different with the Muslims either, but for the fact that they maintained their exclusivity. They maintained their distinctness. That in itself would not have been an issue, but they also have a habit of rubbing it in. Demanding exclusivity and carrying on an attitude of being born to rule and enslave the very people they are living with is not a trait that would endear them to others now, is it? Also contempt for others that comes with believing that you are the only followers of the one right religion. Do you think the Hindutvas are cranking up fear in the fear factories without due cause or alarm?

We have learnt from History and we are not going to let History repeat.
 
People by nature disagree, quarrel, commit violence. Considering humans as divine makes a case of blasphemy out of normal working of human nature. Looked from this angle, one would loose sight of divinity and consider it lightly.

Though Sufism has a concept of Wahdat-ul-Wujood, something like Pantheism, made popular by Ibn-Arabi, the Spanish Sufi of middle ages, it has a limited scope and then only in a state of ecstasy. There is a better explanation given by Ahmad Sirhindi in his concept of Wahdat-ul-Shuhood. That is more generally applicable. All this has to do with Man's experience of his relation with divine.

What I am trying to get at is that every great religion has the concept of human divinity in some way. How we approach this depends on theology of particular religion. Hindu approach is perhaps more direct and inclusive in its application. But then it runs into problems. Despite acknowledging the latent divinity (according to Hinduism), a Brahmin must act a certain way with a Shudar. So, in a practical sense this divinity fails in creating equality, since the essence of a Shudar's divinity is from Brahma's (?) feet.

In any case, we shall be going into religion and I do not wish to do so.

Oh but our gods also disagree, quarrel, and commit violence. See the reason behind God manifesting as humans and other things was to experience life. To experience awe and magnificence of its own self. How would it experience all this without undergoing the experience of life. That is the reason creation took place. So it will be God in the form of human which will disagree, quarrel, commit violence, make love, make friends, crack jokes, treat patients. All of this is life. All of this is experience from a trillion perspectives. All of these are experiences of God. But to undergo this experience, it has to forget it is God. So that part of God which became manifest has been induced forgetfulness by God itself. Now with amnesia induced and no knowledge of our powers, we live with free will and chart out our own destinies and our own experiences without invoking supernatural powers to mitigate or militate circumstances which would invalidate the very reason for our creation.

Contrary to what you say, we do not lose sight of divinity, but become more loving and understanding of life because everything is sacred. One need not fear, but needs to love.

What you are stating of ecstasy or the yogis experiences are those times when they manage to break free of the illusion of life. Those are the small rifts, the small peeks people get when they experience unity with the cosmos. That is what the enlightened spiritual masters speak about.

No no no. Shudra just means the uneducated, the unskilled. All humans are born shudras. It is only with education that they qualify as of a higher varna. That is the original varna system. You become something out of your latent talent. Your pravruti. So a child with fighting spirit goes on to become a kshatriya. A child with interest in knowledge goes on to become a Brahmin, an educator, a scientist. This was a system of basing your worth on your social capital. As a person what was your use to the society determined the amount of liability or leniency that would be shown. A completely useless man/woman of no skill, no worth, no education, no refinement, no standing even in today's world is given a harsh deal.

The being born of god's feet is just a metaphorical phrase. Like being born with less endowment. Perhaps less IQ, less intelligence, less skilled, less healthy. Do you not wonder some people are so insanely talented and so insanely gifted and yet others are so completely deprived of any virtue at all? That is all that varna system addressed. Does it mean that anyone is less divine? Hell no. Any bad behavior you see is deviation from Dharma.
 
Keep your delusions to yourself.NE is closer to SEA or China than to mainland India in terms of people and their belief system.
Even though the names are so...... Non East Asian and some even Yindooo :(

i. Meghalaya
ii. Tripura
iii. Mizoraam
iv. Nagaland
v. Arunachal....


AND NOT

Meng A Loy
Treng Pur Aah etc etc :D


Plus SE Asia is also culturally Dharmic. Do you know that there is another Ayodhya in the world? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phra_Nakhon_Si_Ayutthaya_(city)

There are many more examples that can nuke your arguments. :P
 
Even though the names are so...... Non East Asian and some even Yindooo :(

i. Meghalaya
ii. Tripura
iii. Mizoraam
iv. Nagaland
v. Arunachal....


AND NOT

Meng A Loy
Treng Pur Aah etc etc :D


Plus SE Asia is also culturally Dharmic. Do you know that there is another Ayodhya in the world? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phra_Nakhon_Si_Ayutthaya_(city)

There are many more examples that can nuke your arguments. :P
You do realise that some of those names were proposed by outsiders?To be specific,from the mainland?Do you guys ever scratch beyond the surface?For that matter,it is far easier to find such similarities with the rest of SEA. China,especially for people of Arunachal..your so called "oh so dharmic sounding" state:-)
But as I said before,elements of one culture being found in other cultures doesn't render the latter same as the former.Most of NE isn't hindu or related to mainland.How hard is that for you to swallow?
 
You do realise that some of those names were proposed by outsiders?To be specific,from the mainland?Do you guys ever scratch beyond the surface?For that matter,it is far easier to find such similarities with the rest of SEA. China,especially for people of Arunachal..your so called "oh so dharmic sounding" state:-)
But as I said before,elements of one culture being found in other cultures doesn't render the latter same as the former.Most of NE isn't hindu or related to mainland.How hard is that for you to swallow?

Feel free to move to China since you feel so Chinese. That land is Hindu land.
 
Feel free to move to China since you feel so Chinese. That land is Hindu land.
Sorry,the land belongs to the descendants of tani group.So does the rest of NE to its natives.It isn't yours i.e,hindu land.However you are free to stay as a guest.Just purse your lips and you will be fine.:D
 
Sorry,the land belongs to the descendants of tani group.However you are free to stay as a guest.Just purse your lips and you will be fine.:D

Yeah the Tani group who are animists and Hindus :D You can move though where you can sing ching ming ling all day long.
 
Yeah the Tani group who are animists and Hindus :D You can move though where you can sing ching ming ling all day long.
Animists/atheist/agnostic..not hindus.I wonder how much you and your ilk actually know about other things in life.I do hope it is not the same as your knowledge on NE.
 
Muslims were successful rulers and kept their rule because population largely tolerated them. Urban Hindus prospered and provided strength and support to their Kings. There is no white washing here.
Actually no. Vast parts of the country always remained without central authority. There were continuous rebellions all over and the expeditions to quell them were all systematic and brutal. And this happened during the Khiljis, Lodis, Mughals etc. Also a very few number of Hindus prospered and earned royal titles and patronage under the Sultanate. But the definition of 'patronage' is important here. If I am supposed to pay a Jizya tax and then be allowed to serve as an official of the Mughal Armed Forces provided I follow something similar to the pact of Umar - I will consider myself fortunate but not an equal.

If varna system was a reason for failure to repel invaders, then why was it not reformed or discarded even? Failure to adapt means failure to survive. Look around yourself. Where do you see the varna system? Enslaving native genius to abhorrent caste system produced unfavorable results.
True.


Superior organization, better training, better tactics, better equipment, and motivation wins the day
Agreed.

There was tension in Sindh between local Hindus and local Buddhists
There is no proof for that, certainly nothing that would justify the people to swtich sides and join the invaders.

The problem started with Bin Qasim, because you are taught that.
Actually in India we are not taught about the Umayyid Invasions of Sindh at all. There is practically no mention of Qasim in stand school curricullum. :)

You do realise that some of those names were proposed by outsiders?To be specific,from the mainland?Do you guys ever scratch beyond the surface?For that matter,it is far easier to find such similarities with the rest of SEA. China,especially for people of Arunachal..your so called "oh so dharmic sounding" state:-)
But as I said before,elements of one culture being found in other cultures doesn't render the latter same as the former.Most of NE isn't hindu or related to mainland.How hard is that for you to swallow?
Comprehension skills. :(
Cultures can never be same. If two cultures are same, logically they will not be two different cultures in the first place. The word you should be looking for is 'similar'.


It is true that Naga Christian terror groups stress their proximity to Korean and Chinese culture (skipping Myanmar and a host of other cultures altogether). I can understand the reason though. In the end, you are free to believe in whatever you wish to. In two generations from now we will see who has the last laugh. :)
 
Animists/atheist/agnostic..not hindus.I wonder how much you and your ilk actually know about other things in life.I do hope it is not the same as your knowledge on NE.
Animist/atheists/agnostic is the same as Hindus. We are also animists/atheists/agnostic. I am practically all of it at the same time :D. So even I can claim to be Tani by your definition. Why do I need to know about everyone? Do you know about every Tani living there? Every evening you have your tea and biscuit with each of the Tani's. I do not even know what my neighbor's name is, why the hell would I know about every tom, dick, and harry in the world. Suffice to know they are Indians and Hindus.


It is not true. There were some failures but many successes. We learn from the mistakes but varna is indestructible.
 
Animist/atheists/agnostic is the same as Hindus. We are also animists/atheists/agnostic. I am practically all of it at the same time :D. So even I can claim to be Tani by your definition. Why do I need to know about everyone? Do you know about every Tani living there? Every evening you have your tea and biscuit with each of the Tani's. I do not even know what my neighbor's name is, why the hell would I know about every tom, dick, and harry in the world. Suffice to know they are Indians and Hindus.

It is not true. There were some failures but many successes. We learn from the mistakes but varna is indestructible.
The varna system is natural. None of us are equal. But a rigid caste system is not. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom