What's new

Indian soldiers in Singapore revolt in support of the Turks

Well, that explains all the crimes they committed on non-white peoples.
For non-whites as us. The British are the Nazi but the history books are written by them. Soon this will change.

The dilemma of Germans was their ancient ancestors had no history and referred as barbarians by Romans. So, stealing the word Aryan and turning Aryan race as the master of civilizations particularly Vedic culture in India, they could claim themselves as a superior race and sense of pride. (In short they had only their white skin to feel pride about), and it also perfectly served British interests to make North and South Indians fight each other.
 
If North Indians and European language are similar, you mean British could fabricate an entire fake theory to make North and South Indians hate each other for British colonial interests in India. :girl_wacko:


You are making strawman so as to demolish them later. North Indians and South Indians do not hate each other on racial basis.

Hardcore periyar freaks have converted to Christianity and hate Hindus professionally ( Kancha illaiah ).


BTW, AIT/AMT is most logical explanation of anthropological diversity in India. Only other explanation to that diversity is OIT cuckoo theory which has no scientific basis and is geographically impossible. AIT at least is rooted in linguistics.

Indian national character does not depend on race, neither does it have a Bhumiputera character. What negative effect could AIT/AMT have on India as a nation?
 

ok, so existence of IE languages proves there was an Aryan invasion and subjugation of Dravidian race. I never knew mere existence of a language family can prove this much detail.

BTW British told us Aryan invaded India in 1500BC, destroyed Indus valley civilization of Dravidians and wrote Rigveda in 1200BC, but one of the river Saraswati mentioned in Rigveda dried in 2000BC by carbon dating the dried riverbed. Enough to expose the British colonial propaganda.

You are making strawman so as to demolish them later. North Indians and South Indians do not hate each other on racial basis.

Hardcore periyar freaks have converted to Christianity and hate Hindus professionally ( Kancha illaiah ).


BTW, AIT/AMT is most logical explanation of anthropological diversity in India. Only other explanation to that diversity is OIT cuckoo theory which has no scientific basis and is geographically impossible. AIT at least is rooted in linguistics.

Indian national character does not depend on race, neither does it have a Bhumiputera character. What negative effect could AIT/AMT have on India as a nation?

i never say NI and SI hate each other but British intention was to make them fight but indians were deep into Hinduism to shield themselves. moreover, i am no supporter OIT and AIT, btw vedic culture was continuous since the Mehrgarh settlements of 7000BC, so there was no Aryan migration in 1500BC.

Date range (BCE) Phase Era
7000-5500 Mehrgarh I (aceramic Neolithic) Early Food Producing Era
5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (ceramic Neolithic) Regionalisation Era
5500-2600
3300-2600
Early Harappan
3300-2800 Harappan 1 (Ravi Phase)
2800-2600 Harappan 2 (Kot Diji Phase, Nausharo I, Mehrgarh VII)
2600-1900 Mature Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) Integration Era
2600-2450 Harappan 3A (Nausharo II)
2450-2200 Harappan 3B
2200-1900 Harappan 3C
1900-1300 Late Harappan (Cemetery H); Ochre Coloured Pottery Localisation Era
1900-1700 Harappan 4
1700-1300 Harappan 5
1300-300 Painted Gray Ware, Northern Black Polished Ware (Iron Age) Indo-Gangetic Tradition
 
Last edited:
ok, so existence of IE languages proves there was an Aryan invasion and subjugation of Dravidian race. I never knew mere existence of a language family can prove this much detail.

BTW British told us Aryan invaded India in 1500BC, destroyed Indus valley civilization of Dravidians and wrote Rigveda in 1200BC, but one of the river Saraswati mentioned in Rigveda dried in 2000BC by carbon dating the dried riverbed. Enough to expose the British colonial propaganda.



i never say NI and SI hate each other but British intention was to make them fight but indians were deep into Hinduism to shield themselves. moreover, i am no supporter OIT and AIT, btw vedic culture was continuous since the Mehrgarh settlements of 7000BC, so there was no Aryan migration in 1500BC.

Date range (BCE) Phase Era
7000-5500 Mehrgarh I (aceramic Neolithic) Early Food Producing Era
5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (ceramic Neolithic) Regionalisation Era
5500-2600
3300-2600
Early Harappan
3300-2800 Harappan 1 (Ravi Phase)
2800-2600 Harappan 2 (Kot Diji Phase, Nausharo I, Mehrgarh VII)
2600-1900 Mature Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) Integration Era
2600-2450 Harappan 3A (Nausharo II)
2450-2200 Harappan 3B
2200-1900 Harappan 3C
1900-1300 Late Harappan (Cemetery H); Ochre Coloured Pottery Localisation Era
1900-1700 Harappan 4
1700-1300 Harappan 5
1300-300 Painted Gray Ware, Northern Black Polished Ware (Iron Age) Indo-Gangetic Tradition

Nah, blue eyed, blonde haired Aryans MUST have civilized us, it makes sense. It's not like people of completely different genetic backgrounds can speak the same language. There is no way an Oriental or Black can learn English cause they have no Aryan in them.
 
God forbid a war between India and some muslim state breaks out, how do we know our muslims will not jump ship and attack us?
That's why you cannot afford to have a war with Pakistan. Specially a full scale invasion type war
 
Nah, blue eyed, blonde haired Aryans MUST have civilized us, it makes sense. It's not like people of completely different genetic backgrounds can speak the same language. There is no way an Oriental or Black can learn English cause they have no Aryan in them.

Good for you to integrate with your angrez fellas in Caneda.
 
You should change the title of this thread from Indian to Great Sons of Indus Civilisation who mutinied in support of the ottomans.

And the support for the Turks continued even after the abolishment of the Caliphate, we just love Turks although we can't explain why.
 
They were given orders to fight the Ottomans yet they didn't because Ottomans are muslims. To you guys Islam is paramount. God forbid a war between India and some muslim state breaks out, how do we know our muslims will not jump ship and attack us?

this article showed me in simple words: good indians helped us.. be thankfull.. than you came with your hate and it turned to:

good muslim indians helped us wich ended in founding pakistan many of them are left in india.. bad non muslim indians would never support us..

so in the end I have now wishes that muslim indians should get a own country because of the bad indians who are seperating them.. what have you done? :D
 
That's why you cannot afford to have a war with Pakistan. Specially a full scale invasion type war

You have already fought a number of unsuccessful wars with India. :girl_wacko:

But India has still a very big Islamic population. How many millions I don't know.

Most of the British Indian army Indians soldiers came from North-West like Punjab, British stopped or downsized recruiting from Gangetic plains after those folks revolted and screwed the British East India Company during 1857-58 Rebellion.

The major role of Muslims from North India was mainly confined to Khilafat movement in favour of Ottoman Sultan.
 
Last edited:
You have already fought a number of unsuccessful wars with India.
Hey there intelligent shiva )Those were not full scale invasions they were like short 15-16 day wars with limited resources in use. Any long term will cost india a hindu muslim civil war in india and don,t forget there are 25 million muslims in india.
 
Now, that's indeed sound retard. The difference between Churchill and Hitler was that between Cancer and AIDS, and debating which disease would be less harmful. :girl_wacko:

The British engineered famines in central Indian and Bengal because they wanted to reduce Indian population. The viceroy of India even mentioned "Indians' tendency to overbreed" for the reason why he wouldn't send relief food. Had Brits not engineered those genocides, India's population today would be 2 billion by now.

Oh, and no famine occurred in the places which are modern day Pakistan and north-western India. Britishers were careful with the "martial races" there(Winston Churchill was a firm believer), yet they knew docile bhaiyya people can be killed and spat upon and they wouldn't raise an arm in return.

It wasn't "Indian genocide". It was "bhaiyya genocide" rather.

Karma is a b!@#. Bhaiyya people helped British Empire invade the whole sub-continent. In return Brits engineered mass famines and genocides, and labelled bhaiyyas non-martial(which still haunts the bhaiyyas today).
 
The British engineered famines in central Indian and Bengal because they wanted to reduce Indian population. The viceroy of India even mentioned "Indians' tendency to overbreed" for the reason why he wouldn't send relief food. Had Brits not engineered those genocides, India's population today would be 2 billion by now.

Oh, and no famine occurred in the places which are modern day Pakistan and north-western India. Britishers were careful with the "martial races" there(Winston Churchill was a firm believer), yet they knew docile bhaiyya people can be killed and spat upon and they wouldn't raise an arm in return.

It wasn't "Indian genocide". It was "bhaiyya genocide" rather.

Karma is a b!@#. Bhaiyya people helped British Empire invade the whole sub-continent. In return Brits engineered mass famines and genocides, and labelled bhaiyyas non-martial(which still haunts the bhaiyyas today).

are you showing your loyalty and bootlicking to your Gora masters. :girl_wacko:

Hey there intelligent shiva )Those were not full scale invasions they were like short 15-16 day wars with limited resources in use. Any long term will cost india a hindu muslim civil war in india and don,t forget there are 25 million muslims in india.

LOLwa, seems you are only left with some fantasies. :omghaha::omghaha:
 
thats a lie.. most british will disagree with you.
British govt was keen to save the colony from falling into japanese hands, not to save people.

Of course the Raj was run for Britain's benefit not India's. But being ruled by Japan would have been far worse considering how they behaved in the countries they conquered. 300 thousand were massacred in one city, Nanking, for example
sure... nobody wants to be ruled by japan...
 
are you showing your loyalty and bootlicking to your Gora masters. :girl_wacko:

Read the article again. It was mostly Punjabi musalmans(Potoharis mostly), who refused to fight the Turkish army. There was no "Indian" involved lol.

And Bhaiiyya people helped EIC invade sub-continent, and got famines and genocide in return. They were your masters.
 
this article showed me in simple words: good indians helped us.. be thankfull.. than you came with your hate and it turned to:

good muslim indians helped us wich ended in founding pakistan many of them are left in india.. bad non muslim indians would never support us..

so in the end I have now wishes that muslim indians should get a own country because of the bad indians who are seperating them.. what have you done? :D


The brits recruited mostly from what is today Pakistan... soldiers from KPK,Punjab,Sindh and Rajhistan (northern india) were their recruiting grounds...

Those Pashtuns regiments today form the Frontier Force Regiment of Pak Army... Most of the Punjabi regiments became Punjab Regiment and so on...
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom