What's new

"The Japanese see India as the land of Lord Buddha ,which is why they have a lot of respect for Indians"

No. There were five regions that later joined and became Bangla very late in the day.


Sri Lanka was also over-run by foreign invaders. First the rulers who came from what was not yet Bengal; second, the Tamils.


"...we in rest of south asia...."?

Just one young man who is mad because he got an exam. Just when he wasn't looking.


That's not our fault! That's the way it happened!


That's not the analogy. Nobody's claiming anything that was distinctively someone else's! Tell me one such case.
Since Sri Lanka was over run by invaders thus making it "Indian" not Ceylon, Sri Lankan
Than Hindustan is supposed to be what?
Turkic or Afghan?
Mughals are not part of Hindustan or it's history, traditions, culture?
 
Last edited:
Since someone in south India (or anyother part)started saying we Indians blah blah blah for things that happened 1000s of miles away

That's not revisionism
No, that's realism.

Where do you think the survivors of the IVC went after the fall of that culture?
What do you think has been traced to the genetic ancestry of what is known in scientific circles as ASI (Ancestral South Indian)?
They are perfectly right in claiming some legacy in the IVC. That does not mean that a farmer in the fields around Tuticorin can claim to be the direct ancestor of some IVC dwellers. Not at all. But that the survivors interbred with the hunter-gatherers from whom they had originally drawn their genetic stock is a genetic fact.
Sometimes people say things in bombastic ways. We should ignore those and focus on the facts underlying them.
 
He is among four crooks who won't debate me on Quranic verses yet consider themselves adherent Muslims. They are just ritualists mouthing some words and doing some poses who are Muslims because their family is and their local society is, not because they have understood the philosophy. If I didn't know Islam well and was living 1000 years ago in India and came to know about something called Islam by the words and deeds of these four Talibanic gentlemen I would have immediately rejected Islam.



One "hard evidence and logic" is my thousands of posts on PDF since 2014 when I joined. Another is Joe telling you that he knows me personally. Unless I am playing out a very elaborate conspiracy.



I agree that Sumeria / Iraq / etc was advanced and I do believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was peopled by those originally from the Iraq region.



Below is the simply described Google result for "Communism" :

Going further I will quote a section from part 2 of Muammar Gaddafi's Green Book with the section continuing the desire of Communism about money :

Where do you find oppression in these wonderful, idealism-filled bunch of thoughts ? Aren't they worth spending years of your life in bringing about societies that use these thoughts as their systems ? Think for example why the Japanese Red Army agitated. If you think most countries abandoned Communism what have they replaced it with ? Please read this post of mine on what true democracy is, what is not, the origin of democracy and where it was implemented in the modern world.
I don't need you to teach me anything.

I will believe unless there is hard evidence.

No stop bothering me I have better things in life to do than gossip with Indians.
 
Since Sri Lanka was over run by invaders thus making it "Indian" not Ceylon, Sri Lankan
Than Hindustan is supposed to be what?
Turkic or Afghan?
Mughals are not part of Hindustan or it's history, traditions, culture
Oh, but they are, very much. Much, much more than you might imagine. You might like to explore the ancestry and descent of the Meos, and of what happened to the thousands of Mongol soldiers defeated by Balban and his brave son, and resettled in the space between Delhi and the Indus.
What about the people of Rohilkhand, who spoke Pushtu until three or four generations ago? Where does their legacy go?
No. Would mind elaborate?
They planned a 3rd dominion, outside India and Pakistan. Jinnah was furious and said do what you want. Shyama Prasad took the fears of the upper caste Bengalis of the west, went to Delhi, and got Nehru and Patel to slap around the two Congressmen.
 
I agree that Sumeria / Iraq / etc was advanced and I do believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was peopled by those originally from the Iraq region.

Below is the simply described Google result for "Communism" :

Going further I will quote a section from part 2 of Muammar Gaddafi's Green Book
Caste is a profession and the original ruling caste lived normally among the people. They believed in verbal and simple physical punishment for individual wrong doers but not oppression. They were not power hungry nor wealthy. I am talking about the people who established the concept; they were unlike traditional ostentatious middle eastern tyrants whom we see to this day. People like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, MBS, and Sisi rule by traditions of ancient middle eastern tyrannies. Even the Shah and Ayatullah of Iran are tyrannical and so were the Roman and Chinese rulers.

Gaddafi was a dictator who pretended not to be one. His children lived in ultra luxury. In assets he was a very wealthy man while giving the fake facade of living in tents and the pretense of having no formal power, except the 'humble' title of Colonel. My dad was sent by the government of India with a group of Indians for some months to Soviet Russia for technical training. He said they had no freedom of conscience or of movement there. If some Russians believed in God they could not say it openly. Fascism, ideological nationalism, and communism are tyrannies.
 
Last edited:
Seriously what do we all Humans have? Legs? What modes of transportation we had? Bullock carts and the like? People moved and have been migrating and mixing all around the subcontinent, saying a person in the subcontinent has nothing to do with a person in some other part of the subcontinent is ludicrous. The current political boundaries are too recent to create historical borders.
Humans literally walked out of Africa and now somehow everyone decided that a Punjabi will always sit in Punjab for a millenia, a Bengali always in Bengal. Did they sprout out of the earth like carrots in gangetic plain, south India, etc? Or somehow miraculously never having to step foot in Punjab, Rajasthan or UP just pole vaulting from human origins in Africa and landing in say Maharashtra or Bengal? :cheesy:
 
Seriously what do we all Humans have? Legs? What modes of transportation we had? Bullock carts and the like? People moved and have been migrating and mixing all around the subcontinent, saying a person in the subcontinent has nothing to do with a person in some other part of the subcontinent is ludicrous. The current political boundaries are too recent to create historical borders.
Humans literally walked out of Africa and now somehow everyone decided that a Punjabi will always sit in Punjab for a millenia, a Bengali always in Bengal. Did they sprout out of the earth like carrots in gangetic plain, south India, etc? Or somehow miraculously never having to step foot in Punjab, Rajasthan or UP just pole vaulting from human origins in Africa and landing in say Maharashtra or Bengal? :cheesy:

There should be a react button for "Laugh because I liked".
 

Taking Ties to New Heights: Japan and India Join Hands in the Strategic Andaman and Nicobar Islands​

There are few bilateral relationships that are as dispute-free as the one between India and Japan. The Japanese see India as the land of Lord Buddha and Subhash Chandra Bose, which is why they have a lot of respect for Indians. India, on the other hand, looks towards Japan as a developed, benevolent power that can help lend stability to the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, the relationship between India and Japan is based on mutual understanding and mutual admiration.
After the 1950s, the bilateral relationship between the two countries has remained stable. A diplomatic relationship was established in 1952, Japan started providing soft loans and developmental aid to India in 1958 and when India faced a balance of payment crisis in 1991, Japan was one of the few countries that helped New Delhi. However, over the past few years, the relationship has evolved further and has become more strategic in character. So, how is the Indo-Japanese relationship evolving and what does it mean for the two countries? Let’s find out.

The Indo-Japanese relationship is evolving in three areas- the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), defence and economic partnership. Cooperation in each of these three sectors is strategically crucial for the three countries.
Starting with cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region, Recently, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) signed a grant agreement with the Government of India to provide around US$133 million for a power supply project in India’s Andaman & Nicobar Islands (ANI). For India, the investment becomes pivotal to its plans of developing the Islands into a well-equipped region where military assets can be effectively stationed. The islands carry a lot of significance being located close to the Strait of Malacca and accounting for 30% of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Indian Ocean Region, which New Delhi considers to be its privileged sphere of influence.

This is however just one of many such Japanese investments in the region. Japan has also been making strategic investments in countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. This gives India a sense of security in the region. Even if China is trying to ramp up investments in the region, India can take heart from the fact that its partner, Japan is also getting involved in the region.

For Japan, investments in the Indian Ocean Region mostly revolve around energy security. Tokyo imports 90% of its fuel from the Middle East. India too exports refined petroleum and other energy commodities to Japan. However, Japan must ensure the safety of the critical sea lines of communication in the Indian Ocean in order to secure its energy supplies. With China ramping up its presence in the region and emergence of non-conventional security threats such as trafficking and smuggling, Tokyo is also moved by self-interest in its attempts to ensure a comprehensive presence in the Indian Ocean Region.


Together, both India and Japan are looking to ensure that other regional actors like Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia, all of which are located in close vicinity to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands are assured that the Quad still exercises a lot of influence. The US may have dropped the ball with the Solomon Islands signing a defence deal with Beijing, but the other three Quad nations- India, Australia and Japan aren’t going to sit idle.

Meanwhile, India and Japan have also expanded cooperation in the defence sector. The two countries have developed several frameworks to enhance defence dialogue including Foreign and Defence Ministerial Meeting (“2+2” meeting), annual Defence Ministerial Dialogue and the Malabar Exercise. In 2020, New Delhi and Tokyo signed the “Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA)” that paves way for establishing “a framework such as the settlement procedures for the reciprocal provision of supplies and services between the Self-Defense Forces of Japan and the Indian Armed Forces” to “facilitate the smooth and prompt provision of supplies and services between the Self-Defense Forces of Japan and the Indian Armed Forces.”


The defence pact is a signal of converging geopolitical interests. Both India and Japan face Chinese military aggression, and therefore the two sides can counteract China with greater cooperation and sharing of military resources.

Finally, India and Japan are evolving their economic partnership. Japan has always taken a keen interest when it comes to investing in India’s infrastructure through soft loans or aid grants. India has benefitted from Japanese-funded projects like the Delhi Metro and there are several such ongoing projects too including the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail, the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC), the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor and the Chennai-Bengaluru Industrial Corridor (CBIC).

The Japanese perceive India as a great friend and a means of counterbalancing growing Chinese influence, which explains why Tokyo has invested billions of Dollars in India over the past six decades or so. Recently, during his India visit, Japanese PM Fumio Kishida announced a plan to invest 5 trillion yen ($42 billion) in India over the next five years, surpassing the 3.5 trillion yen that former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe had offered in 2014.

However, the Indo-Japanese relationship is now moving beyond aid assistance and development of infrastructure. Tokyo has been continuously signalling that many Japanese companies are ready to invest in India provided the conditions are conducive. Remember, India, Japan and Australia had launched the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) last year in a bid to move regional and global supply chains away from China. For India, this is an opportunity to ramp up its manufacturing industry while competing more fiercely with China and for Japan, it is an opportunity to decouple more vigorously from China.

Japan also signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) with India, under which skilled Indian workers from fourteen sectors- nursing care; building cleaning; material processing industry; industrial machinery manufacturing industry; electric and electronic information related industry; construction; shipbuilding and ship-related industry; automobile maintenance; aviation; lodging; agriculture; fisheries; food and beverages manufacturing industry and food service industry, were identified for enhanced job opportunities in Japan.

The MoC is extraordinary in the sense that Japan is a closed society and generally reticent about immigration. However, the Japanese perceive Indians as bright, intelligent and belonging to the land of Lord Buddha. Therefore, assimilation of Indian workers in Japanese society would be comparatively easier.

For the people of India, it translates into an opportunity to target a new jobs market. On the other hand, Japan can solve its workforce scarcity issue by tapping into India’s young demographic advantage. For many Japanese corporations relocating their operations from China to their home location, the arrival of skilled Indian workers could be a major shot in the arm.

India and Japan remain time-tested partners and their evolving relationship reflects the growing convergence of their strategic interests.




 
That was a very late absorption into the Dasavatar lists, and has very little in practical life to recommend it.
Yes, that might be a late absorption, possibly in the Gupta period between 300 CE and 600 CE. Lord Buddha being an avatar of Lord Vishnu is also disputed. Regardless, Hindus have enormous respect for him and his philosophies, which were in turn influenced by earlier Hindu ideas. There's a great deal of syncretism between the two faiths in Sri Lanka and Thailand.
Brahmins always preached that Buddhists were heretics.
How was he then included as an avatar of Lord Vishnu? Even if he was considered by some, there's no single book, single leader among Hindus to brand him as a heretic. There could be some who didn't consider him that and hence the inclusion, possibly as a sign of respect.

It is a fable with no substantiating evidence.
Thanks for clarifying.
Clearly, beyond a doubt, the Chechen.
What I mean is that there's no clear evidence or document to show whether it was destroyed during Hindu or Muslim rule. Iconoclasm is generally a part of the belief of Muslims but I still won't say that they destroyed the mentioned stupas based on the wording of that article.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that might be a late absorption, possibly in the Gupta period between 300 CE and 600 CE. Lord Buddha being an avatar of Lord Vishnu is also disputed. Regardless, Hindus have enormous respect for him and his philosophies, which were in turn influenced by earlier Hindu ideas. There's a great deal of syncretism between the two faiths in Sri Lanka and Thailand.

How was he then included as an avatar of Lord Vishnu? Even
Brahmins have always co-opted invaders, from after the Persians, who were originally their deadly rivals in religion, reversing concepts - so, Asura became Ahura, and became good, Deva became Daiva, and became bad, and so on. Some speculate that the one folk split into two because of these religious differences, one set went south-west, and into the Iran plateau, the other set south-east, and into Afghanistan and the passes of Khaibar, Gomal and Bolan.

After them, whoever came, Bactrian Greek, Saka (kinfolk), Pahlava (kinfolk), Kushan, Hun, was absorbed. They could not succeed with the Turks and the Afghans who came from around 1000 AD, because the religions were totally incompatible.

Sorry, I must run, back in the evening.
 
Brahmins have always co-opted invaders, from after the Persians, who were originally their deadly rivals in religion, reversing concepts - so, Asura became Ahura, and became good, Deva became Daiva, and became bad, and so on.
Didn't get this. Do you mean they came to India and reversed the meaning of Deva and Asura for some reason and if yes, why did they do this and how is it a form a co-opting invaders in this context?
Conversely, it could also be that some people might have migrated from India to Persia and the meaning of those two terms might have been mixed up by the locals after reaching there. We can only speculate.
Some speculate that the one folk split into two because of these religious differences, one set went south-west, and into the Iran plateau, the other set south-east, and into Afghanistan and the passes of Khaibar, Gomal and Bolan.
Again, that's just speculation.
After them, whoever came, Bactrian Greek, Saka (kinfolk), Pahlava (kinfolk), Kushan, Hun, was absorbed.
That's a good thing.

Sorry, I must run, back in the evening.
No worries, I too won't be available for the next few days.
 
Didn't get this. Do you mean they came to India and reversed the meaning of Deva and Asura for some reason and if yes, why did they do this and how is it a form a co-opting invaders in this context?
They split when they were still on the banks of the Oxus-Jaxartes. When the Indo-Aryan speaking faction came into India, they came with the firm belief that Devas were good and Asuras were bad. They could not co-opt the Persians of the Achaemenid Empire because they were already on opposite sides and had been for 900 years or more. They co-opted everyone else. Look up the origin of Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.

Conversely, it could also be that some people might have migrated from India to Persia and the meaning of those two terms might have been mixed up by the locals after reaching there. We can only speculate.
No, that is only the wild imagining of the idiots who believe in the Out Of India theory. You have to look at the timing of the Mitanni, who reached Asia Minor (now we call it Turkey, or Anatolia), just before the Indo-Aryan kinsmen of theirs, speaking the same branch of the language, reached India. I hope you understand that it was impossible to be somewhere in the uplands of north-west India and in the deeps of Turkey at the same time.

Again, that's just speculation.
That the Iranian speakers went into Iran, and called it Iran, is not speculation.

That the Indo-Aryan speakers went into India and re-started civilisation, is not speculation.

That they split because of religious reasons is speculation.
 
They split when they were still on the banks of the Oxus-Jaxartes. When the Indo-Aryan speaking faction came into India, they came with the firm belief that Devas were good and Asuras were bad. They could not co-opt the Persians of the Achaemenid Empire because they were already on opposite sides and had been for 900 years or more. They co-opted everyone else. Look up the origin of Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.
I'm wondering why Persians were their deadly rivals in religion. Why did the split occur, if it occurred?
They co-opted everyone else.
Which is good. Why would you want continuous conflict?
You have to look at the timing of the Mitanni, who reached Asia Minor (now we call it Turkey, or Anatolia), just before the Indo-Aryan kinsmen of theirs, speaking the same branch of the language, reached India. I hope you understand that it was impossible to be somewhere in the uplands of north-west India and in the deeps of Turkey at the same time.
That's under the assumption that both the groups parted in some place, probably Central Asia, and then proceeded on East and West respectively.
That the Iranian speakers went into Iran, and called it Iran, is not speculation.

That the Indo-Aryan speakers went into India and re-started civilisation, is not speculation.

That they split because of religious reasons is speculation.
I don't have adequate knowledge on the topic and hence I won't comment on it. I'll need to read some books/articles related to this topic first.
 
I'm wondering why Persians were their deadly rivals in religion. Why did the split occur, if it occurred?
For the same flimsy irrational causes that made a king who followed a master who preached advaitabad expel all the followers of another master who preached visishtadvaitabad.
 
Back
Top Bottom