Why didn’t the Hindus of India ever defeat an invading army!

[Varunastra]

So, we agree.. India and then Pakistan

As for homegrown empire vs foreign invasion, that means different things to the inhabitants of different countries/regions in India

A Bihar based empire conquering Punjab is an invasion for Punjabis (and vice versa)

Pashtuns are an inalienable and integral part of Pakistani identity. Abdali, Ghouri, Ghaznavi etc were Pashtuns. So their empires were as much 'homegrown' for Pakistanis as Mauryan empire is for you guys

Wait Ghouri and Ghaznavi were Pashtuns? Weren't they turkic people? Abdali was pashtun that I know of.

 

[magra]

Their fundamental problem is that, compulsively, they view medieval history in a Hindu-Muslim context. Therefore Ghaznavi was a looter and plunderer, but Shivaji was a saint, fighting for the rights of local populace.

Ghaznavi and the likes came from outside, attacked, looted wealth and women and went away to their land.
Shivaji never harmed women or Muslim places of worship. In fact, many muslims were in high position in his ranks.

An Indian customer once said similar things to me, that Chinese food is very light and any food can be eaten by hand, so as to feel the temperature of food and respect for food. Later, when he came to China, I took him to eat this.

Unfortunately, instead of feeling and respecting the food, he picked up chopsticks. And his expression told me that he didn't think the food was light.

View attachment 777781
View attachment 777782
View attachment 777783

China being a large country, obviously there are exceptions. However, the general rule of thumb is that Indian food is spicy whereas Chinese is not.

 

[SIPRA]

Ghaznavi and the likes came from outside, attacked, looted wealth and women and went away to their land.
Shivaji never harmed women or Muslim places of worship. In fact, many muslims were in high position in his ranks.

I merely made a conceptual point, since I believe that such a misreading and misinterpretation of the history is the cause of destruction of peace of this subcontinent. Otherwise, I am least interested in the utterly useless and futile discussions on ancient and medieval history.

 

[magra]

I merely made a conceptual point, since I believe that such a misreading and misinterpretation of the history is the cause of destruction of peace of this subcontinent. Otherwise, I am least interested in the utterly useless and futile discussions on ancient and medieval history.

And I merely corrected your misconception. You had half knowledge which is more dangerous than no knowledge.

 

[SIPRA]

And I merely corrected your misconception. You had half knowledge which is more dangerous than no knowledge.

"Lagay Raho Munna Bhai."

 

[M. Sarmad]

Wait Ghouri and Ghaznavi were Pashtuns? Weren't they turkic people? Abdali was pashtun that I know of.

Ghauris are linguistically and culturally Pashtuns. Many Pashtun tribes, including their largest tribe Khiljis (whose traditional homeland is Ghazni), have Turkic origins. Many "Pashtuns" have "Turkic origins", and these are not two mutually exclusive identities as you are trying to assert.

And as you are so much concerned about the "ethnicity" of the rulers, pray tell us what was the ethnicity of Chandragupta Maurya?.. Punjabi? Bihari ? Afghan? ... Or is it his Hindu religion supposedly (before converting to Jainism) that qualifies him and his empire as "homegrown"? .. Why is it that for you guys it is always the religion of the King primarily that makes him invader/evil... ? ..

 

[magra]

Ghauris are linguistically and culturally Pashtuns. Many Pashtun tribes, including their largest tribe Khiljis (whose traditional homeland is Ghazni), have Turkic origins. Many "Pashtuns" have "Turkic origins", and these are not two mutually exclusive identities as you are trying to assert.

And as you are so much concerned about the "ethnicity" of the rulers, pray tell us what was the ethnicity of Chandragupta Maurya?.. Punjabi? Bihari ? Afghan? ... Or is it his Hindu religion supposedly (before converting to Jainism) that qualifies him and his empires as "homegrown"? .. Why is it that for you guys it is always the religion of the King primarily that makes him invader/evil... ? ..

It is not religion or origin of the ruler which makes a ruler good or evil, it is the behavior.
If a ruler is just and cares for the population genuinely, then it is good.

Eg. Kanishka was a Greek ruler who Indianized and did well for Indians, so no one complains about him.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It is not religion or origin of the ruler which makes a ruler good or evil, it is the behavior.
If a ruler is just and cares for the population genuinely, then it is good.

Eg. Kanishka was a Greek ruler who Indianized and did well for Indians, so no one complains about him.

Kanishka/Kushan empire was Buddhist.. Hindu tradition and Indian constitution recognizes Buddhists (along with Jains and Sikhs) as Hindus. So, unless you have a list of Muslim rulers as well who, according to you, were just and cared for the population genuinely, your 'claim' cannot be taken seriously... This "All Jain/Buddhist/Hindu Kings good, All Muslim Kings evil invaders" mantra has become boring now

 

[SIPRA]

... Or is it his Hindu religion supposedly (before converting to Jainism) that qualifies him and his empire as "homegrown"? .. Why is it that for you guys it is always the religion of the King primarily that makes him invader/evil... ? ..

To them, if a Maratha warrior rises from Pune and attacks and ravages Peshawar, at a distance of about 1800 km, it is a "home grown" attack; but an attack by a Muslim general, from Ghazni, on Peshawar, with an in-between distance of about 300 km, is an "invasion", with accompanying "loot and plunder", as if Hindu warriors used to distribute sweets to those conquered.

 

[magra]

Kanishka/Kushan empire was Buddhist.. Hindu tradition and Indian constitution recognizes Buddhists (along with Jains and Sikhs) as Hindus. So, unless you have a list of Muslim rulers as well who, according to you, were just and cared for the population genuinely, your 'claim' cannot be taken seriously... This "All Jain/Buddhist/Hindu Kings good, All Muslim Kings evil invaders" mantra has become boring now

At that time, there was no Islam. So whats the harm if Kanishka chose the local religion and accepted Buddhism.
We also praise Akbar, who cared for population regardless of religion. He even tried to bring a new religion which was a mixture of Hinduism and Islam - Din e Ilahi.

To them, if a Maratha warrior rises from Pune and attacks and ravages Peshawar, at a distance of about 1800 km, it is a "home grown" attack; but an attack by a Muslim general, from Ghazni, on Peshawar, with an in-between distance of about 300 km, is an "invasion", with accompanying "loot and plunder", as if Hindu warriors used to distribute sweets to those conquered.

Its what you do after attack. Do you take responsibility and rule justly and fairly or do you just plunder wealth, terrorize innocent citizens, kidnap women and run away.

 

[M. Sarmad]

At that time, there was no Islam. So whats the harm if Kanishka chose the local religion and accepted Buddhism.
We also praise Akbar, who cared for population regardless of religion. He even tried to bring a new religion which was a mixture of Hinduism and Islam - Din e Ilahi.

So, you have named only one great Muslim Ruler, Akbar, out of dozens (if not hundreds), and that too because he tried to bring a religion other than Islam !! Thanks for proving my point.

Moreover, all kings we are talking about here were invaders. Aryans were invaders. You guys have your own classification of "Good invaders" vs "Bad invaders" based on the religion of the invaders.

 

[Jugger]

Follow a Chinese diet and you will also feel warmer.

They eat tonnes of pork, do you still want to ‘Follow Chinese diet’ ????

 

[magra]

So, you have named only one great Muslim Ruler, Akbar, out of dozens (if not hundreds), and that too because he tried to bring a religion other than Islam !! Thanks for proving my point.

Trying to bring a syncretic religion only points to his religious impartiality. He did not convert but remained a muslim.
There was another great Muslim ruler although he reigned only for 5 years - Sher Shah Suri.
He did lot of good work in those 5 years.

Moreover, all kings we are talking about here were invaders. Aryans were invaders. You guys have your own classification of "Good invaders" vs "Bad invaders" based on the religion of the invaders.

Aryan invasion theory is a myth propagated by British to divide and rule North and South India.

 

[Varunastra]

Ghauris are linguistically and culturally Pashtuns. Many Pashtun tribes, including their largest tribe Khiljis (whose traditional homeland is Ghazni), have Turkic origins. Many "Pashtuns" have "Turkic origins", and these are not two mutually exclusive identities as you are trying to assert.

And as you are so much concerned about the "ethnicity" of the rulers, pray tell us what was the ethnicity of Chandragupta Maurya?.. Punjabi? Bihari ? Afghan? ... Or is it his Hindu religion supposedly (before converting to Jainism) that qualifies him and his empire as "homegrown"? .. Why is it that for you guys it is always the religion of the King primarily that makes him invader/evil... ? ..

Hey man you are the one who brought up being Pashtuns as source of being Pakistani. I'm not the one overly concerned with ethnicity mate. Why blame me when I just ask for clarification on your claim?

 

[fitpOsitive]

They eat tonnes of pork, do you still want to ‘Follow Chinese diet’ ????

I was telling him why they warmer.
And I think no one follow a Chinese diet except for Chinese. Unless you are starving since few days.