The great divide: Hindu-Muslim Relations on the Indian subcontinent

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Perfect example of following Romila Thapar and her ilk.

Not exactly familiar with her work,though heard of her name.

The broader point is as Hindus, why do you expect them to "not see" Islamic Iconoclasm, where that is what was on display since 712 AD?

Why emphasis on Islam here?

My point is as long as we are weak anyone will plunder us.

Another example is some for some parts of Europe Christianity was spread by sword.

Or what the Spanish plunderers did to the Inca culture of Peru.

It is irrelevant to say that other conquerors would also have done the same, because here in India we have had Islamic Iconoclasm unbridled.

You are asserting my point.

On the aspects of supposed "intolerance" of the Hindus on the Buddhist and Jain places of worship, care to provide some concrete examples?

I didn't mention Jain.

For Buddhist ones.

Mihirakula is remembered in contemporary Indian and Chinese histories for his cruelty and his destruction of temples and monasteries, with particular hostility towards Buddhism. He claimed to be a worshipper of Shiva.

Mihirakula

Although Mihirakula was a Hun i.e not Indian,but he was worshiper of Shiva and did rule parts of India.

You will need to prove (in your examples, whatever you may bring on the table) that economic interests of plunder and loot werent the motivating factors of the Hindu kings but religious bigotry and intolerance was.

Yes! religious bigotry was a reason,but why link it with Islam?

The kings who advocated such bigotry, though gave a religion as the excuse,their real aim was sustainable and permanent rule,which they assumed was going to possible only if the local population was Muslim.

 

[KS]

Rajputs ...on body had a power to convert us by force..and one more we r not married in other clans....

So when did Mughals become Rajputs for Rani Jodhabhai to be married to Akbar !

 

[KS]

Not exactly familiar with her work,though heard of her name.

Why emphasis on Islam here?

My point is as long as we are weak anyone will plunder us.

Another example is some for some parts of Europe Christianity was spread by sword.

Or what the Spanish plunderers did to the Inca culture of Peru.

You are asserting my point.

I didn't mention Jain.

For Buddhist ones.

Mihirakula

Although Mihirakula was a Hun i.e not Indian,but he was worshiper of Shiva and did rule parts of India.

Yes! religious bigotry was a reason,but why link it with Islam?

The kings who advocated such bigotry, though gave a religion as the excuse,their real aim was sustainable and permanent rule,which they assumed was going to possible only if the local population was Muslim.

Bomb,no one is associating Islam perse with the persecution of Hindus under the Mulsim rule.
And no one considers Akbar on th e same plane with a Aurangazeb.

But what is objectionable is the systematic distortion of history and the watering down of the crimes/persecutions unleased by some bigots like Tughlaq,Aurangazeb etc by the 'pseudo-secular',left-weening historians like Romila,Irfan and their ilk educated in JMI,JNU etc.

No one is holding the Muslims accountable for what those criminals did centuries ago --- The only demad and a fair one in that is to own your history.Accpet that the crimes were committed in the name of religion and just move on.

But when you indulge in deliberate distorting,watering down of their crimes to paint a more rosy picture of then (which is ccurrently being done) then it becomes incumbent upon us to point out that and no one is communal in doing that.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

So when did Mughals become Rajputs for Rani Jodhabhai to be married to Akbar !

those were Kachwaha Rajputs.. and the point was about the Punjabi clans.. and Rajputs and Jatts marry within their clans.. not outsude.. its a fact.. go visit Punjab and see for yourself.. and as I said.. there are always exceptions.. but they are not looked in good light within the comunity.. but otherwise.. yeh exceptions take place everyday.. many Rajputs and Jatts marry outside their clans.. but it is usually after going against their family..

 

[KS]

those were Kachwaha Rajputs.. and the point was about the Punjabi clans.. and Rajputs and Jatts marry within their clans.. not outsude.. its a fact.. go visit Punjab and see for yourself.. and as I said.. there are always exceptions.. but they are not looked in good light within the comunity.. but otherwise.. yeh exceptions take place everyday.. many Rajputs and Jatts marry outside their clans.. but it is usually after going against their family..

Woh woh just go easy buddy --- He just gave a general statement and I retorted.

Just for checking this thing I cant go to Punjab which is in the other corner of the country from where I am living now.

And regarding marrying inside their clans it is a common phenomenon in India and especially in my part of the country,so I can perfectly understand it.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

No one is holding the Muslims accountable for what those criminals did centuries ago --- The only demad and a fair one in that is to own your history.Accpet that the crimes were committed in the name of religion and just move on.

But when you indulge in deliberate distorting,watering down of their crimes to paint a more rosy picture of then (which is ccurrently being done) then it becomes incumbent upon us to point out that and no one is communal in doing that.

point is that those guys should stop crying about it.. it was a world where you either eat or be eaten... hindus were weak and they got eaten alive.. they should accept that and move on.. everytime they cry it is so pathetic.. what? they wanted whole world to be nice to them just because they had poor leadership and didnt know how to fight? no one will be apologetic for those times.. for they are long gone and such brutality was accepted in those times.. hindus are lucky they faced a weaker army than original Mongol force which invaded all of asia.. middle east and europe.. they carried out way more slaughter than anyone else.. infact mongols strategy was to do genocide whereever they go to put fear in enemies heart..

(and Karthic, seems you are from south india.. Islamic history of south is totally different.. should have no complains )

 

[KS]

ppoint is that those guys should stop crying about it.. it was a world where you either eat or be eaten... hindus were weak and they got eaten alive.. they should accept that and move on.. everytime they cry it is so pathetic.. what? they wanted whole world to be nice to them just because they had poor leadership and didnt know how to fight? no one will be apologetic for those times.. for they are long gone and such brutality was accepted in those times.. hindus are lucky they faced a weaker army than original Mongol force which invaded all of asia.. middle east and europe.. they carried out way more slaughter than anyone else.. infact mongols strategy was to do genocide whereever they go to put fear in enemies heart..

And can I dish out the same logic to those crying 'pathetically' for Gujarat or Ayodhya ?
Why dont they move on ?

(and Karthic, seems you are from south india.. Islamic history of south is totally different.. should have no complains )