TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Rusty]

futile attempt for damage control.

It speaks but still no signs of intelligence.
Is it human?
Who knows?

btw, still no evidence of India as a country, so that must mean you already gave up.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Just few years after conquest of Delhi, India's largest university at Nalanda was burnt down.

And this cultural atrocity has exactly what to do with terrorism?

 

[Kazhugu]

Complete nonsense. You are going by the account of a court poet mourning his dead master with the most exaggerated, bombastic account of a victory followed by a defeat.

so do you say prithviraj never won the first battle of tarain and he never let go of ghauri...?

 

[Hellraiser007]

Hope you are not offended that you got my approval for that post.
Just one correction tho, there is no such thing as Indo-Aryan
The language the Aryans spoke was proto Indo-European, the offspring of which was Sanskrit in India.

Can you define who are Aryans and can you give solid evidence??

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are right, tool is one thing which win war. But in old days Barbarism was most effective tool. The civilization lost its barbarism was anihilated by other.

eg: Babylon became civilized and was anihilated by Syrians.
Unan civilized and anihilated by Saxons
etc...

A barbaric savage can use any tool effectively. One of the most important tool is fear. Current day Maoists and Terorists use the same tool.

As this thread was about "TURNING POINT" I mention PR Chauhan and Gouri. Other wise the main reason was "We Hindu/Boudh should have treated the savage there way."

Babylonians vs. Syrians?
Unan vs. Saxons?

Is this a bad dream?

Nice post.



actually this line caught my attention.....by this narrative wasn't the decision not to agree to population transfer in 1947 the greatest turning point ???......here we had a chance...a chance after almost 800 years.....to reverse the history....and begin afresh.....but that opportunity was let go....so extending your post...i would term this as the biggest turning point....

When was this ever under discussion?

 

[Hellraiser007]

Complete nonsense. You are going by the account of a court poet mourning his dead master with the most exaggerated, bombastic account of a victory followed by a defeat.

No you are wrong the first battle of Tarain was a bitter defeat for MD.Ghouri

The First Battle of Tarain
Size of the armies and generals

The total Rajput army is estimated at 50,000 with cavalry at 20,000 by the modern historians. The Muslim army was estimated at 35,000 cavalry (including camels, of which the numbers unknown), 20,000 infantry with 10,000 in either wing and a few thousand rearguard. The Ghori army, consisted mainly of Central Asian Turkic slaves(Mamluks), coming from horse breeding regions, and was dominated by cavalry.

According to Firishta, who was a Persian historian, the Rajput army consisted of 3,000 elephants, 3,000,000 cavalry and infantry.[2] Most historians, however, believe these figures are exaggerated. The Persian historian were ordered by the Muslim emperors (Ghori) at that time to exaggerate the figures, hence rendering Persian history unreliable.
Battle

In 1191, Muhammad Ghauri threw the gauntlet by laying siege to the fortress of Bhatinda in East Punjab which was on the frontier of Prithiviraj's domains. Prithviraj's appeal for help from his father-in-law was scornfully rejected by the haughty Jaichandra. But undaunted Prithviraj marched on to Bhatinda and met his enemy at a place called Tarain (also called Taraori) near the ancient town of Thanesar. Ghauri attempted the same tactics employed by Mahmud of Ghazni but wasn't successful and he was routed and chased for nearly 40 miles by Prithviraj. In face of the persistent Rajput attacks, the Ghori army broke ranks and fled, ghauri was injured and escaped with the help of his loyal servants from the battlefield.
Aftermath

Ghauri's defeated army retreated to Lahore and, thereafter, returned to Ghazni. Prithvi Raj ignored the advice of his advisers and did not pursue the retreating army, which was a decision he later regretted.

Prithvi Raj Chauhan is a pride and able king who has a potent army enough to eliminate foreign barbaric enemy.

 

[Kazhugu]

When was this ever under discussion?

ok..i'll rephrase that question...the decision not to take partition to its logical extension...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nalanda (The University) was burnt, TAxila (University) was destroyed, your ancestors were forced to follow The "Gauri's religion", Somnath was destroted. Ram temple was destroyed.. and formost

New country was born (I will refrain to Use hilary comment..) Hope u understand it.

The modern terrorism follow the same savage culture of Syrians, Mongols and Saxons..

I suppose by now I should have become inured to the nightmare visions of the Hindutvavadi lobby and its propagandists, but this thread stands out for the amount of bilge spouted.

 

[Rusty]

Can you define who is Aryans and can you give solid evidence??

Like most of history, in fact all of science, we cannot say for 100% about anything. only fools speak in absolutes.

however, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for the Aryans, who came from central Asia and spread to India and Europe.
The strongest evidence is linguistic.
Linguistic evidence shows that all the Indo-European languages are connected and had a single origin. There is also archaeological evidence, such as similar style of housing made and tools used.
Interestingly enough, the chariot was never mentioned in India until the Aryans arrived. This strongly points to again, an Aryan invasion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Our temples and universities were spared from destruction.

But what is the connection with terrorism?

 

[Kazhugu]

Linguistic evidence shows that all the Indo-European languages are connected and had a single origin. There is also archaeological evidence, such as similar style of housing made and tools used.
Interestingly enough, the chariot was never mentioned in India until the Aryans arrived. This strongly points to again, an Aryan invasion.

why would the arrival of chariots or horses be indicative of an invasion...why cant they be ancient day technology transfers between two civilizations ? did russia invade us and give us our brahmos ? and no there has been no conclusive archaelogical evidence of ait and the chronology of the rig veda is badly skewed for conclusive linguistic proof....

the aryan invasion theory has been debunked already....stop bringing in strawmans and diverting the topic....

 

[vsdoc]

fine...but pardon me for persisting with this....still I am not convinced how this objective of yours would have come to a nought if partition had been taken to its logical extension....atleast then the muhajirs would be in a position to keep the punjabis in check...

ok..i'll rephrase that question...the decision not to take partition to its logical extension...

What is logical about the TNT?

And you want to compound it by "taking it to its logical extension"?

In 1947, there was a scramble for power.

Both Hindus and Muslims.

The easiest route was taken. The route of least resistance.

Partition.

Are you certain ALL Muslims wanted to separate?

Was there a vote?

Be serious.

P.S. Joe, you should come in and play once you throw down the gauntlet.

 

[Rusty]

why would the arrival of chariots or horses be indicative of an invasion...why cant they be ancient day technology transfers between two civilizations ? did russia invade us and give us our brahmos ?

the aryan invasion theory has been debunked and there is no proof for that....stop bringing in strawmans and diverting the topic....

Chariots are machines of war, you don't simply build them and give them to your friend. You build them for WAR

And the Aryan invasion is only been debunked by Indian quacks who are threatened by real history. How can you guys play the victim card over and over again if your own culture/religion is a product of an invasion.
The Aryans did such a good job at not only invading the land but also the heart, that their colonial subjects will violently argue against them being the invaders even thousands of years later.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your question if fundamentally wrong.
There was no such thing as "India the country" before 1947
so you cannot have a turning point to a country that never existed.

Your understanding of the problem is fundamentally wrong, or if fundamentally wrong, if, or is, you prefer it that way. 'India' was a term used by people to the west, including people from the middle East and some parts of central Asia about the south Asian sub-continent. I understand that there is a need to cling to the letter of the interpretation, rather than acknowledging the fundamental reality, since we are talking with such glib confidence about fundamentals. That need merely obscures the reality that the 'India' that you fail to find in ancient annals existing as a self-described realm was in existence throughout that period as a series of great empires interrupted by interregna which saw much smaller states and their respective smaller spheres of influence. The idea of the larger kingdom was always present, for instance, in the word 'chakravartin'; ancient and early mediaeval politicians all knew what they were fighting about.

If you have to find a point to make, do look for it in fact, not in concocted and painfully conflicted propaganda.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Like most of history, in fact all of science, we cannot say for 100% about anything. only fools speak in absolutes.

however, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for the Aryans, who came from central Asia and spread to India and Europe.
The strongest evidence is linguistic.
Linguistic evidence shows that all the Indo-European languages are connected and had a single origin. There is also archaeological evidence, such as similar style of housing made and tools used.
Interestingly enough, the chariot was never mentioned in India until the Aryans arrived. This strongly points to again, an Aryan invasion.

Not exactly. the tools used in India which were found in Gangetic plains are completely different from that of tools from Central asia. There are lot of differences between the civilization of Gangetic plains and Central Asia.

Can you give solid proof that Aryans are from central Asia?

The word IRAN was derived from Arya and there is a region adjacent to Iran called Aria.

Don't be delusional, Most of the Indian civilization is indigenous to Gangetic plains in North and other major rivers in south.