Instagram

SportsFever360

Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 80 of 285
  1. #1
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Karachi/NYC
    Runs
    22,172
    Mentioned
    1226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Why were Indian empires so weak post 1000 AD?

    Time and again they got plundered by foreign invaders so many times that its not even funny.

    When Mughals came, by and large, they had to fight against existing non native Muslim empires to take control than have to fight against local indigenous empires.

    I was recently shocked to find out that even in South India there were Muslim empires to the point that there were both Shia and Sunni empires fighting each other for influence.

    Once these empires had been present for long enough time to be called locals they too were attacked and fought against as the Europeans gained increasing influence and eventually formally colonized the country.

    The question is that were the local Hindu majority that disorganized or disunited that apart from some stands they gave little resistance and let others run over them?


    #MPGA

  2. #2
    Debut
    Jul 2008
    Runs
    7,515
    Mentioned
    353 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The invading armies were barbaric, at least too barbaric for India. Ancient society was progressive back then, and their economy was amazing despite of their internal differences. They didn't have concept of the nation back then meaning every provinces didn't fight under the same banner, therefore they were caught off-guard at their worst possible time. Hence easy victory for barbaric invading army.

    For the same reason progressive ancient Bagdad couldn't handle barbaric Genghis Khan and his army either.

  3. #3
    Debut
    May 2015
    Venue
    Exile
    Runs
    1,981
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Kumars don't like fighting, servitude is easier

  4. #4
    Debut
    Oct 2009
    Runs
    1,943
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

    In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

    Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.

  5. #5
    Debut
    May 2015
    Venue
    Exile
    Runs
    1,981
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cracket View Post
    There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

    In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

    Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.
    There was never no Indian nation nor any unified India except for 3 short and rare times in history, ancient India is comparable to Europe as a subcontinent not nation-state or empire like Greece or Persia.

    You say India retained your culture, but what culture? Assamese,Ladakhi,Tamil or Marathi culture?I don't see a common thread, just an artificial confederation of many nations.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Karachi/NYC
    Runs
    22,172
    Mentioned
    1226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cracket View Post
    There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

    In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

    Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.
    Thats the question.

    Did the inhabtants of the Indian subcontinent ever really see themselves as one entity.

    India the country is a British construct

    For example. Till the British came and colonized the whole area, the subcontinent had not existed as a single entity for over 2 millenias.

    I really doubt there was anything such as an 'indian Identity'


    #MPGA

  7. #7
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Runs
    4,470
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deosai View Post
    There was never no Indian nation nor any unified India except for 3 short and rare times in history, ancient India is comparable to Europe as a subcontinent not nation-state or empire like Greece or Persia.

    You say India retained your culture, but what culture? Assamese,Ladakhi,Tamil or Marathi culture?I don't see a common thread, just an artificial confederation of many nations.
    Also we Muslims took 1/5 of their 'ancient india'.


    "The hypocrite seeks for faults, the believer seeks for excuses"-Imam al Ghazali (ra)

  8. #8
    Debut
    May 2015
    Venue
    Exile
    Runs
    1,981
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by speed View Post
    Also we Muslims took 1/5 of their 'ancient india'.
    haha yes, it's funny Indians can't visit the great ancient cities of Harappa and Moen-jo-Daro, so they haven't preserved anything, if any thing they lost the most important cities of ancient 'India'.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Sep 2014
    Runs
    12,955
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Ever heard of the Chola Empire ?

    Every part of of the globe had its own Golden and Dark ages. The ancient South Asia had it's golden period before BC along with the Egyptians, and then later from 8th century CE till 13th century CE. The Europeans had their Dark Ages between the same time when South Asia had it's second' Golden Period. The Arab/Muslim's had their golden period during this time as well. Europe was backward as hell during this time. Africa had it's own golden time. Since the Europeans were the latest to have their golden period (14th century till 20th century) we remember them and think of them as progressive, successful and superior.

  10. #10
    Debut
    Jun 2011
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    9,648
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

    They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.

  11. #11
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    1,788
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cracket View Post
    There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

    In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

    Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.
    The Persians always wanted to control the Indus areas, and if Alexander the Great went there and fought against Raja Porus of Jhelum it was mainly to emulate the Persian emperor Darius the Great, who's Achaemenid empire controlled half of the world's population, including modern Pakistan. In fact, the name "India" itself comes from the Greeks, who borrowed it from the Persians, named after the Sindhu/Indus river (in Pakistan.)

    If mainland/gangetic India was relatively spared by foreign invaders, it's because Pakistan served as natural border against western marauders. The local resistance of peoples from the Potohar made sure that foreigners - from Persians to Mughals - had hard time getting souther. You can read Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus Saga" where he beautifully exposes, in detail and with an exquisite style, that overlooked part of history.

    As for Indian "national identity", not only the concept of nationalism was foreign to everyone before Europe's 19th century romanticism, but even today a Tamil Hindu and a Punjabi Sikh are dissimilar in terms of ethnicity, culture or even world-view. India is a federation of many nationalities (like Pakistan), not a nation stricto sensu.

    China is the only longest-surviving "nation" (anachronistic, but let's admit), because there's ethnic homogeneity (Huis) and cultural continuity.
    Last edited by enkidu_; 18th October 2015 at 16:25.

  12. #12
    Debut
    Jun 2011
    Venue
    Hyderabad
    Runs
    14,515
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Chola, Vijayanagara, Maratha, Travancore.. there were many South Indian kingdoms, even during the Mughal rule. But you would not know about them.

  13. #13
    Debut
    Jul 2008
    Runs
    7,515
    Mentioned
    353 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

    They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.
    Judging by your information, that's probably they were able to rule for 600 years. Being silent guardians pay off in the long run.

  14. #14
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,274
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    India is actually an artificial entity which was woven together over the centuries by invaders and a continent size entity both in size and population came to existence as a single unit.once the frontier kingdoms like punjwb or rajasthan, the two martial races fell to invaders, rest of kingdoms were there for the taking.the thing that they never got to extreme south was they never felt threatened by them or just weren't good enough to fight or may they wanted toconsolidate over the conquered lands.

  15. #15
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    10,670
    Mentioned
    399 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It is in the national DNA. Meek and soft. If not for warfare technology and nukes, India would still be like a sitting duck to brave invading armies.


    Narendra Modi and Imran Khan Zindabad! NOT

  16. #16
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,274
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketCartoons View Post
    It is in the national DNA. Meek and soft. If not for warfare technology and nukes, India would still be like a sitting duck to brave invading armies.
    Their is nothing like soft and meek.you are only capable or you are not capable of defending yourselves . Their is a reason why indians don't priduce many world class athletes, even those athletes are mostly from punjab or haryana.you are right modern warfare has changed the rules of the game.

  17. #17
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    10,670
    Mentioned
    399 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hussain123 View Post
    Their is nothing like soft and meek.you are only capable or you are not capable of defending yourselves . Their is a reason why indians don't priduce many world class athletes, even those athletes are mostly from punjab or haryana.you are right modern warfare has changed the rules of the game.
    But I think indians are soft..when you meet them in real world. only online you will find the bravehearts, but then they dont have to look into the eyes while typing.

    even the rajputs, the so called martial race of india, got beaten for fun by invading armies and they started giving their daughters to the kings for marriage.


    Narendra Modi and Imran Khan Zindabad! NOT

  18. #18
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,274
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketCartoons View Post
    But I think indians are soft..when you meet them in real world. only online you will find the bravehearts, but then they dont have to look into the eyes while typing.

    even the rajputs, the so called martial race of india, got beaten for fun by invading armies and they started giving their daughters to the kings for marriage.
    Rajputs were the ones which saved india(if a thing like that ever existed before)from foreign invasions umpteen times.theu were bound to fail at some.it is the ease with which invaders ruled over india without any resistance from other Kingdoms which is interesting. Did they believe in a concept of anything called India or invasion of "foreign" forces enforcing their own culture on natives.or they simply saw it as another relative Kingdom being downed by other kingdoms which they better don't mess with.

  19. #19
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    12,400
    Mentioned
    755 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Maybe coz Abrahamic faiths allow followers more unity and creates more of a feeling of community and belonging. Hinduism as an ism was constructed and pidgeonholed by british. Lots of different schools in Hinduism. Cultural ethnic differences amongst Indian peoples. So Indians and So called Hindus werent united. They only identified more with caste groups and local ethnic groups so they had no qualms in allying with foreign invaders against other natives. In Islam.Christianity all are equal in faith in theory. Hinduism has caste system so that creates more divisions..only with late 19th Century romanticism and nationalism. Concept of one national identity created. India is a nation of many nations.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Debut
    Nov 2013
    Runs
    3,161
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deosai View Post
    There was never no Indian nation nor any unified India except for 3 short and rare times in history, ancient India is comparable to Europe as a subcontinent not nation-state or empire like Greece or Persia.

    You say India retained your culture, but what culture? Assamese,Ladakhi,Tamil or Marathi culture?I don't see a common thread, just an artificial confederation of many nations.


    Megasthenes & Hieun Tsang considered it to be one entity. So, it is quite probable their respective states had the same perception.

  21. #21
    Debut
    Nov 2013
    Runs
    3,161
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    People did not necessarily see them as theocratic empires. Mughals had a lot of Hindus fighting for them while the Maratha Army had a lot of Muslims.

  22. #22
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Karachi/NYC
    Runs
    22,172
    Mentioned
    1226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Abhilash93 View Post
    People did not necessarily see them as theocratic empires. Mughals had a lot of Hindus fighting for them while the Maratha Army had a lot of Muslims.
    That's later on but when they first invaded India it was exclusively MUslim central Asians. In fact it was built as a war against idol worshipping infidels

  23. #23
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    1,788
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hussain123 View Post
    Rajputs were the ones which saved india(if a thing like that ever existed before)from foreign invasions umpteen times.theu were bound to fail at some.it is the ease with which invaders ruled over india without any resistance from other Kingdoms which is interesting. Did they believe in a concept of anything called India or invasion of "foreign" forces enforcing their own culture on natives.or they simply saw it as another relative Kingdom being downed by other kingdoms which they better don't mess with.
    Exactly, and we get back to the crux of the discussion : there was no Indian identity. In modern Pak many tribes have "accommodated" what we'd call today "invaders" - but for them, they weren't more "foreign" than someone from modern day Bihar or Tamil Nadu, especially after the conversion to Islam. Thus, they "collaborated" with the new regional powers and assumed authority on a more local level (Gakkhars/Kayanis, Janjuas, Awans, ...), even if low intensity insurgency remained alive for centuries. Aitzaz Ahsan talks of Babur complaining a lot about rustic Jats and Gujjars in his memoirs, belligerent despite the fact that he conquered Sialkot area (with much difficulties), and the local Pashtuns were such a pain that he married a Yousufzai lady, Bibi Mubaraka, just to consolidate their trust - but when he passed though the Indus populations after three failed attempts, Dehli was a piece of cake. Aitzaz Ahsan also shows how the same happened centuries later, when Mughal emperor Muhammad "Rangeela" didn't try to stop Nadir Shah's invasion as he knew that there was no need to lose men, considering that if Nadir Shah was in Dehli it meant that he subdued Indus populations. Another famous ruler, Muhammad Ghori, was killed by Gakkhars while Muhammad bin Tughluq, despite owning Delhi, struggled his tons of years in Sindh, where he ultimately died (and which gave oxygen to southern India, as this ruler was about to concretize the geographically largest empire in India since the Mauryas).

    In fact I'd advise everyone here to read Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus Saga". It answers OP @Slog, and way, way more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abhilash93 View Post
    Megasthenes & Hieun Tsang considered it to be one entity. So, it is quite probable their respective states had the same perception.
    Don't Indians consider "Whites" or "Europe" to be "one entity" (what does that even mean) ?

    There's another point of view : medieval bifurcation between "al Sind" and "al Hind"

    Sind, in point of fact, while vaguely defined territorially, overlaps rather well with what is currently Pakistan. It definitely did extend beyond the present province of Sindh and Makran ; the whole of Balochistan was included, a part of the Panjab, and the North-Western Frontier Province.
    André Wink, Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Volume 1, p. 145
    Last edited by enkidu_; 18th October 2015 at 19:13.

  24. #24
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    2,062
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    As I recollect, the only time you can see united India was during Mauryan empire but even then the south Indian kingdom was separate Or possibly in mythology describes as Bharat in ancient texts.

    Really surprising that despite so many differences, India is still united for last 68 years.

  25. #25
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deosai View Post
    Kumars don't like fighting, servitude is easier
    I hope you do realise that you are actually making fun of your own history while simultaneously showcasing your ignorance too. Or are you too one of the long lost relatives of Babur?

  26. #26
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallen King View Post
    The invading armies were barbaric, at least too barbaric for India. Ancient society was progressive back then, and their economy was amazing despite of their internal differences. They didn't have concept of the nation back then meaning every provinces didn't fight under the same banner, therefore they were caught off-guard at their worst possible time. Hence easy victory for barbaric invading army.

    For the same reason progressive ancient Bagdad couldn't handle barbaric Genghis Khan and his army either.
    +1

  27. #27
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,416
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

    They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.
    Ahom?

  28. #28
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Runs
    6,804
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is why Hindus need to unite against the foreign forces.

  29. #29
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    10,670
    Mentioned
    399 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Within 50 years Hindus will be extinct, and will be replaced by fake hindus who will say, i am a proud hindu but I eat beef.


    Narendra Modi and Imran Khan Zindabad! NOT

  30. #30
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    2,062
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketCartoons View Post
    Within 50 years Hindus will be extinct, and will be replaced by fake hindus who will say, i am a proud hindu but I eat beef.
    that is the case for last 1000 years. u can call it flexibility !! but the beef related stuffs are just purely political which u can see very well.

    It all depends on value systems.

  31. #31
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    10,670
    Mentioned
    399 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by adit_sh View Post
    that is the case for last 1000 years. u can call it flexibility !! but the beef related stuffs are just purely political which u can see very well.

    It all depends on value systems.
    Mughals or British were never enemies of Hinduism. The snakes that pretend to be Hindus are the real enemies. Good luck defeating them.


    Narendra Modi and Imran Khan Zindabad! NOT

  32. #32
    Debut
    Sep 2007
    Runs
    1,755
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Probably one of the best thread on PP. I have read so much about this though various books on Babur, Akbar, Aurnangzeb.

    I personally believe it came down to the religion. Hindus in general believe that you get a human life after going through millions of births as animals/insects and you can only attain Moksha (final destination- Heaven) through human life. So human life is highly valued in Hinduism whereas Muslims believe that if you die in a battle against Kaffir you attain the final destination. It's was very easy to motivate Muslim soldiers in a battle as soldiers had a big reason to fight and kill or even die. However, Hindus soldiers who fought only for money in their small kingdom didn't have much incentive to come and fight or die for. You can read so much about how Invders kings used Islam and religious speeches to motivate their soldiers.
    Also, India was never United and there was no one nation. There were thousands of kingdoms ruled by thousands of kings. So less resources to fight against barbaric invaders. Also, in Hinduism it is said that a King should look after their people at any cost (Raaj Dharma) and In order to save the people from brutality of the invaders, they would convert to Islam. Since Hindus soldiers believe whatever the Kings believed, they would convert too. Then those same soldiers would join Mughals and Muslims and fight against Idol worshippers even at the cost of death. Also, converting back to Hinduism was not allowed so they wouldn't practice Hindiism or try to convert back. It was easy to complain about someone who tried to convert back. The punishment was death.

    However things have changed now. Now the notion of Nation comes first for Hindus. Which means that a Hindu can still attain moksha if fighting for his nation. This notion and identity of one nation has helped Hindus becoming more stronger. Only Rajputs somehow believed in this theory in the past and that's why they rebelled. However once one thier Kings converted to Islam for RaajDharma, Rajput soldiers converted too

    Waqar Younis, Naved Rana, Rameez Raza are few Raput Muslims.

  33. #33
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slog View Post
    Time and again they got plundered by foreign invaders so many times that its not even funny.

    When Mughals came, by and large, they had to fight against existing non native Muslim empires to take control than have to fight against local indigenous empires.

    I was recently shocked to find out that even in South India there were Muslim empires to the point that there were both Shia and Sunni empires fighting each other for influence.

    Once these empires had been present for long enough time to be called locals they too were attacked and fought against as the Europeans gained increasing influence and eventually formally colonized the country.

    The question is that were the local Hindu majority that disorganized or disunited that apart from some stands they gave little resistance and let others run over them?
    India was never really united and it was largely a collection of a number of princely states. It was only really unified thrice - by Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka and the Mughals, and even then much of South India remained largely isolated except for a few years. There was much infighting among the princely states and there was never really an alliance to ward off the muslim invaders. It was also due to this reason, the East India company was able to get a stranglehold of much of the Indian subcontinent with their much famed "divide and rule" policy.

    What does however, make the Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics. They also introduced new cultural mores that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. While this was often a source of friction and conflict, it should also be noted that there were also Muslim rulers, like Akbar, who in much of their secular practice absorbed or accommodated local traditions.

  34. #34
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    23,074
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallen King View Post
    The invading armies were barbaric, at least too barbaric for India. Ancient society was progressive back then, and their economy was amazing despite of their internal differences. They didn't have concept of the nation back then meaning every provinces didn't fight under the same banner, therefore they were caught off-guard at their worst possible time. Hence easy victory for barbaric invading army.

    For the same reason progressive ancient Bagdad couldn't handle barbaric Genghis Khan and his army either.
    This is true. I was reading an excerpt of a book about the Portuguese empire, and the behaviour of the invading armies was astonishingly brutal, not just in India either. If they took Muslim prisoners they would defecate in their mouths. In India one of the Portuguese generals described how they opened fire on large crowds and would laugh at the people who were crying over their dead. Indian culture was probably unprepared for such wholesale violence.

  35. #35
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Karachi/NYC
    Runs
    22,172
    Mentioned
    1226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rahulrulezz View Post
    Probably one of the best thread on PP. I have read so much about this though various books on Babur, Akbar, Aurnangzeb.

    I personally believe it came down to the religion. Hindus in general believe that you get a human life after going through millions of births as animals/insects and you can only attain Moksha (final destination- Heaven) through human life. So human life is highly valued in Hinduism whereas Muslims believe that if you die in a battle against Kaffir you attain the final destination. It's was very easy to motivate Muslim soldiers in a battle as soldiers had a big reason to fight and kill or even die. However, Hindus soldiers who fought only for money in their small kingdom didn't have much incentive to come and fight or die for. You can read so much about how Invders kings used Islam and religious speeches to motivate their soldiers.
    Also, India was never United and there was no one nation. There were thousands of kingdoms ruled by thousands of kings. So less resources to fight against barbaric invaders. Also, in Hinduism it is said that a King should look after their people at any cost (Raaj Dharma) and In order to save the people from brutality of the invaders, they would convert to Islam. Since Hindus soldiers believe whatever the Kings believed, they would convert too. Then those same soldiers would join Mughals and Muslims and fight against Idol worshippers even at the cost of death. Also, converting back to Hinduism was not allowed so they wouldn't practice Hindiism or try to convert back. It was easy to complain about someone who tried to convert back. The punishment was death.

    However things have changed now. Now the notion of Nation comes first for Hindus. Which means that a Hindu can still attain moksha if fighting for his nation. This notion and identity of one nation has helped Hindus becoming more stronger. Only Rajputs somehow believed in this theory in the past and that's why they rebelled. However once one thier Kings converted to Islam for RaajDharma, Rajput soldiers converted too

    Waqar Younis, Naved Rana, Rameez Raza are few Raput Muslims.
    good post.

    I think Hinduism fails to stress on unity of people following the faith. (regardless of merits of said unity.)

    Islam and Abrahamic religion stress it. Its a different story that it may not be followed or maybe one way traffic or whatever but atleast in a superficial sense there is this concept.

    Also I just dont mean the Mughal invasion. The messed up thing is that there were different Muslim empires (Muslim, not always Islamic) squabbling with each other with none of them having a significantly great record of trating the Hindu subjects fairly. But you see no massive response where the 'natives' rebelled.

    Even the 1857 War of Independence against the British was mostly driven by Muslims (though to be fair by that point they had been in India long enough to be considered natives.). But the average native Hindu didnt coalesce themselves into a single identity. Maybe caste and ethnicities are given greater precedence even in scripture?


    #MPGA

  36. #36
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    360
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Ever heard of Raja Raja chola ?

  37. #37
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    2,279
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Its the way Indian religions evolved that caused them ultimately the trouble of Abrahamic faiths.

    The religions coming out of Hindustan like Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism are all sissy religions. They talk about non violence. The sects in these 3 religions that came out of India were mostly started by ascetics and sadhus who do not fight much. Sikhism is the first religion which showed some spine and formed an army to protect Hindustan.

    Compare this to the super aggressive Abrahmic faiths of Islam and Christianity. The highly motivated Muslim armies and Crusaders would wipe the floor with Hindu/Jain and Buddhist soldiers.

    The motivation of Jannat is missing from Indian religions where as in Islam, the reward for dying for Islamic cause is paradise. I am sure the Muslim warlords from Arabia and Persia and Central Asia used the Jannat and Jihad concept to motivate their army and destroy the Indian armies easily.

    India was a land of plenty with millions of acres of fertile land. Consider where the Muslim armies come from. They are all from harsh conditions. They were hardened up individuals while we were pampered people.

    Bottom line is, we were no match to the highly motivated barbaric armies.


    Indian phast bowlers can only bowl at 100k and they lose their radar striving for that extra 20k.

  38. #38
    Debut
    Sep 2007
    Runs
    1,755
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by slog View Post
    good post.

    I think hinduism fails to stress on unity of people following the faith. (regardless of merits of said unity.)

    islam and abrahamic religion stress it. Its a different story that it may not be followed or maybe one way traffic or whatever but atleast in a superficial sense there is this concept.

    Also i just dont mean the mughal invasion. The messed up thing is that there were different muslim empires (muslim, not always islamic) squabbling with each other with none of them having a significantly great record of trating the hindu subjects fairly. But you see no massive response where the 'natives' rebelled.

    Even the 1857 war of independence against the british was mostly driven by muslims (though to be fair by that point they had been in india long enough to be considered natives.). But the average native hindu didnt coalesce themselves into a single identity. Maybe caste and ethnicities are given greater precedence even in scripture?
    Quote Originally Posted by lurker_ind View Post
    its the way indian religions evolved that caused them ultimately the trouble of abrahamic faiths.

    The religions coming out of hindustan like hinduism/buddhism/jainism are all sissy religions. They talk about non violence. The sects in these 3 religions that came out of india were mostly started by ascetics and sadhus who do not fight much. Sikhism is the first religion which showed some spine and formed an army to protect hindustan.

    Compare this to the super aggressive abrahmic faiths of islam and christianity. The highly motivated muslim armies and crusaders would wipe the floor with hindu/jain and buddhist soldiers.

    The motivation of jannat is missing from indian religions where as in islam, the reward for dying for islamic cause is paradise. I am sure the muslim warlords from arabia and persia and central asia used the jannat and jihad concept to motivate their army and destroy the indian armies easily.

    India was a land of plenty with millions of acres of fertile land. Consider where the muslim armies come from. They are all from harsh conditions. They were hardened up individuals while we were pampered people.

    Bottom line is, we were no match to the highly motivated barbaric armies.
    spot on!

  39. #39
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    No disrespect intended but I am glad the pagan empires were weak and the light of Islam entered the subcontinent, Alhamdulillah.

    Having said that, the wife of Akbar belonged to a very powerful non-Muslim group, didn't she?


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  40. #40
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker_Ind View Post
    Its the way Indian religions evolved that caused them ultimately the trouble of Abrahamic faiths.

    The religions coming out of Hindustan like Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism are all sissy religions. They talk about non violence. The sects in these 3 religions that came out of India were mostly started by ascetics and sadhus who do not fight much. Sikhism is the first religion which showed some spine and formed an army to protect Hindustan.

    Compare this to the super aggressive Abrahmic faiths of Islam and Christianity. The highly motivated Muslim armies and Crusaders would wipe the floor with Hindu/Jain and Buddhist soldiers.

    The motivation of Jannat is missing from Indian religions where as in Islam, the reward for dying for Islamic cause is paradise. I am sure the Muslim warlords from Arabia and Persia and Central Asia used the Jannat and Jihad concept to motivate their army and destroy the Indian armies easily.

    India was a land of plenty with millions of acres of fertile land. Consider where the Muslim armies come from. They are all from harsh conditions. They were hardened up individuals while we were pampered people.

    Bottom line is, we were no match to the highly motivated barbaric armies.
    The Muslim armies were very powerful in combat and did not hesitate to put down anyone who opposed them but they were much more civilized than the people they conquered.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  41. #41
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    18,403
    Mentioned
    474 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    No disrespect intended but I am glad the pagan empires were weak and the light of Islam entered the subcontinent, Alhamdulillah.

    Having said that, the wife of Akbar belonged to a very powerful non-Muslim group, didn't she?
    Light of Islam through the murder of thousands?Imagine such a way of spreading religion in this century and what would had been your thoughts.


    In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
    -Virat Kohli

  42. #42
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaDed View Post
    Light of Islam through the murder of thousands?Imagine such a way of spreading religion in this century and what would had been your thoughts.
    Murder? It was war. Should have paid the Jizya or converted peacefully. There were no major, targeted killings of civilians and in many cases, the oppressed population welcomed their Islamic liberators with open arms. Same thing happened in the west-ward expansion of Islam.

    Today, there is no need for war because there is no threat to people preaching Islam peacefully, and it is the fastest growing religion in the world, as a result.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  43. #43
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    18,403
    Mentioned
    474 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    Murder? It was war. Should have paid the Jizya or converted peacefully. There were no major, targeted killings of civilians and in many cases, the oppressed population welcomed their Islamic liberators with open arms. Same thing happened in the west-ward expansion of Islam.

    Today, there is no need for war because there is no threat to people preaching Islam peacefully, and it is the fastest growing religion in the world, as a result.
    Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?


    In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
    -Virat Kohli

  44. #44
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    2,279
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    The Muslim armies were very powerful in combat and did not hesitate to put down anyone who opposed them but they were much more civilized than the people they conquered.
    I hope you are trolling.

    Muslim armies may be more powerful and better organized and motivated. But calling them civilized is ludicrous.

    There is nothing civilized about marauding blood thirsty armies. They are the most pathetic humans ever born. If they were civilized, they would have spread their religion and ideology peacefully like Buddhists did.

    Muslim armies did not do any charity work in subcontinent. They were no missionaries of charity. They were built for war and they were ready to use deadly force to send their message.

    Imagine if America or some other super power occupies your country and forces their ideology on you and massacres people who oppose their beliefs. Would you be okay with that?


    Indian phast bowlers can only bowl at 100k and they lose their radar striving for that extra 20k.

  45. #45
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    2,279
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaDed View Post
    Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?
    He is trolling.


    Indian phast bowlers can only bowl at 100k and they lose their radar striving for that extra 20k.

  46. #46
    Debut
    May 2015
    Venue
    Exile
    Runs
    1,981
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by street cricketer View Post
    I hope you do realise that you are actually making fun of your own history while simultaneously showcasing your ignorance too. Or are you too one of the long lost relatives of Babur?
    lol "my history", i didn't know the billion + South Asians all had the same ancestors

  47. #47
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker_Ind View Post
    I hope you are trolling.

    Muslim armies may be more powerful and better organized and motivated. But calling them civilized is ludicrous.

    There is nothing civilized about marauding blood thirsty armies. They are the most pathetic humans ever born. If they were civilized, they would have spread their religion and ideology peacefully like Buddhists did.

    Muslim armies did not do any charity work in subcontinent. They were no missionaries of charity. They were built for war and they were ready to use deadly force to send their message.

    Imagine if America or some other super power occupies your country and forces their ideology on you and massacres people who oppose their beliefs. Would you be okay with that?
    They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.

    "marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.

    I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?

    You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.

    If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  48. #48
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaDed View Post
    Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?
    The oppressive kings were no doubt unhappy over their defeat but once the common folk realized what Islam actually is, they converted in great numbers.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  49. #49
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    18,403
    Mentioned
    474 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    The oppressive kings were no doubt unhappy over their defeat but once the common folk realized what Islam actually is, they converted in great numbers.
    Lovely excuse


    In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
    -Virat Kohli

  50. #50
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Runs
    6,804
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Maar maar ke musalmaan " was a folklore in those times.. countless stories have been built on it. Not sure people commenting or trolling here simply about greatness of Islam.

  51. #51
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    2,279
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.

    "marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.

    I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?

    You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.

    If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.
    I objected to your uncivilized comment.

    The light of Islam to subcontinent? How do you know Islam is light and right?

    Indians were not uncivilized. We were not some tree dwelling apes running without clothes.

    Anyone who tries to spread their word by using their armies is as uncivilized as it gets. No justification to the loss of lives on both sides.

    Muslim armies did not convert everyone because Muslim rulers needed Hindu population support to successfully rule them. They could not kill or convert everyone as it would lead to large scale rebellion. So they targeted the Kings with war (hundreds and thousands killed). When the king agrees to convert to save his throne, the locals were targeted slowly through force or preaching most probably depending on the situation.


    Indian phast bowlers can only bowl at 100k and they lose their radar striving for that extra 20k.

  52. #52
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    2,279
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    The oppressive kings were no doubt unhappy over their defeat but once the common folk realized what Islam actually is, they converted in great numbers.
    Muslim emperors are so kind and benevolent


    Indian phast bowlers can only bowl at 100k and they lose their radar striving for that extra 20k.

  53. #53
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker_Ind View Post
    I objected to your uncivilized comment.

    The light of Islam to subcontinent? How do you know Islam is light and right?

    Indians were not uncivilized. We were not some tree dwelling apes running without clothes.

    Anyone who tries to spread their word by using their armies is as uncivilized as it gets. No justification to the loss of lives on both sides.

    Muslim armies did not convert everyone because Muslim rulers needed Hindu population support to successfully rule them. They could not kill or convert everyone as it would lead to large scale rebellion. So they targeted the Kings with war (hundreds and thousands killed). When the king agrees to convert to save his throne, the locals were targeted slowly through force or preaching most probably depending on the situation.
    Hold on, you got offending by my "uncivilized" comment but you're okay with calling other people "uncivilized"?

    No, you definitely were wearing clothes but the culture was very oppressive for people in the lower castes and there is no way people would have been able to freely convert to Islam, without the ruling power stepping in. Force was necessary but the decision to fight or 'save lives' rested with the Hindu Kings. They could have surrendered and paid the Jizya before the fighting started but they did not.

    The large-scale rebellions did not happen because the people were far more happier living under Islamic rule than they were under the rule of their former Hindu masters. You just helped prove my point.

    The locals accepted Islam because they saw it as the better way of life. As simple as that. They were not killed if they converted.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  54. #54
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker_Ind View Post
    Muslim emperors are so kind and benevolent
    Some were terrible, no doubt, but in general, the Muslims rulers were better than rulers from other religions.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  55. #55
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    18,403
    Mentioned
    474 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    Some were terrible, no doubt, but in general, the Muslims rulers were better than rulers from other religions.
    Dude lol are you serious or trolling i'm not understanding.


    In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
    -Virat Kohli

  56. #56
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,065
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rahulrulezz View Post
    Probably one of the best thread on PP. I have read so much about this though various books on Babur, Akbar, Aurnangzeb.



    I personally believe it came down to the religion. Hindus in general believe that you get a human life after going through millions of births as animals/insects and you can only attain Moksha (final destination- Heaven) through human life. So human life is highly valued in Hinduism whereas Muslims believe that if you die in a battle against Kaffir you attain the final destination. It's was very easy to motivate Muslim soldiers in a battle as soldiers had a big reason to fight and kill or even die. However, Hindus soldiers who fought only for money in their small kingdom didn't have much incentive to come and fight or die for. You can read so much about how Invders kings used Islam and religious speeches to motivate their soldiers.

    Also, India was never United and there was no one nation. There were thousands of kingdoms ruled by thousands of kings. So less resources to fight against barbaric invaders. Also, in Hinduism it is said that a King should look after their people at any cost (Raaj Dharma) and In order to save the people from brutality of the invaders, they would convert to Islam. Since Hindus soldiers believe whatever the Kings believed, they would convert too. Then those same soldiers would join Mughals and Muslims and fight against Idol worshippers even at the cost of death. Also, converting back to Hinduism was not allowed so they wouldn't practice Hindiism or try to convert back. It was easy to complain about someone who tried to convert back. The punishment was death.



    However things have changed now. Now the notion of Nation comes first for Hindus. Which means that a Hindu can still attain moksha if fighting for his nation. This notion and identity of one nation has helped Hindus becoming more stronger. Only Rajputs somehow believed in this theory in the past and that's why they rebelled. However once one thier Kings converted to Islam for RaajDharma, Rajput soldiers converted too



    Waqar Younis, Naved Rana, Rameez Raza are few Raput Muslims.

    excellent post. Now, India comes first for everyone. Now, they have an identity, proud banner to die for. I for one won't hesitate to fight for the country if the situation demands.

  57. #57
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    1,788
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaDed View Post
    Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?
    Babur and Ghaznavi went to Gangetic India for the same reasons Indians today go to the Gulf or the US : namely for economic reasons, not to spread Hinduism.

    Like other western conquerors, they met stiff resistance from the locals of Pakistan. You can't equate the story of Islam in the region with that of Central Asian invaders, as for instance when Ghaznavi was there those fighting him already converted, such was even more the case with Babur later on.

    If conversions to Islam were linked with foreign oppressors, you wouldn't had Islam majority in Punjab, Sindh or Kashmir region but in modern day Uttar Pradesh and somehow Madya Pradesh states of India. Even in Punjab and Sindh that so called "majority" was around 60%-70% (before Partition).

  58. #58
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deosai View Post
    lol "my history", i didn't know the billion + South Asians all had the same ancestors
    Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.

  59. #59
    Debut
    May 2015
    Venue
    Exile
    Runs
    1,981
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by street cricketer View Post
    Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.
    Load of **, most Pakistanis don't claim to be Mughal or whatever, most Pakistanis take pride in being native of this region, a region very far from your area (Tamil Nadu), and yes there were some foreign settlements and they have been absorbed in our population, those people who do have invader blood do exist among us like you have some Brahmins in India - both are a minority.

    You can't say Pakistan has one monolithic history cause we're a big diverse country with so many ethnic groups, both native and migrants, you have to look at South Asian history through an individualistic lens cause there was never an "us".

  60. #60
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,065
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.



    "marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.



    I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?



    You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.



    If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.

    wrong. Iran and Iraq converted to Islam in twenty years. Same thing with Egypt. But in Indian subcontinent, people fought against Islamic forces. Millions lost their lives, but they choose death before converting to Islam. Im not trying to offend anyone here. But, the truth is people who were scared of mughals chose to convert. At one point of time, the murders were so brutal that Hindu population was 80 million in India.
    Marathas gave a deadly blow to the murderous Islamic rule, it was ended in a nice way. What about Sikhs? Their fighting skills are unmatched that they didn't convert. Their guru was killed by mughals, but they refused to budge. Jats, rajput maharana pratap Singh. ?
    People here chose to fight and its the same reason why India is still 80% dharmic religion.

  61. #61
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    2,279
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by street cricketer View Post
    Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.
    Its cool to be on the victors side.


    Indian phast bowlers can only bowl at 100k and they lose their radar striving for that extra 20k.

  62. #62
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    1,788
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by street cricketer View Post
    Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.
    Indians take pride in the Vedas, etc which have been brought by Aryan invaders (you being from Dravida Nadu know about them). Not only Pakistanis, apart from Adivassis, other Indians are also foreign invaders, just a bit older.

    Pakistani Pashtuns+Sindhis+Baloch (more than half of the population) have nothing to do with Gangetic India, and so is the case with few isolated groups like those in Gilgit Baltistan, and in Punjab, only the central areas/majhi speaking ones (not Potohar/Saraiki) have a link with Punjab of India, 3% of the population.

    You can't talk of India and Pakistan in the same breadth when it comes to ethnicity, culture, religion, ... like you can't do that with India-Bangladesh and India-Sri Lanka. These countries belong to different races and you can give one stand for all.

    The most martial population of Potohar accepted Islam in droves (you will find minimal - if at all - Hindu/Sikh Gakkhars, Janjua Rajputs, Awans, ...). Do you think they saw Islam as something of "foreign invaders invading India" ? No, because there was no Indian/Hindu identity, no Islam/invaders correlation, etc types of equation(s) as opposed to what happened in Gangetic India.

  63. #63
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Karachi/NYC
    Runs
    22,172
    Mentioned
    1226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by street cricketer View Post
    Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.
    this line keeps getting repeated by some Indian posters but i never find any evidence to support it.

    What they might have said is that we are different than Indians. From an ethnic standpoint that might be true. Only ethnicity Pakistan and India share wholesale is Punjabi ethnic group. And Punjabis form about 3% of Indian population.


    #MPGA

  64. #64
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raw deal View Post
    wrong. Iran and Iraq converted to Islam in twenty years. Same thing with Egypt. But in Indian subcontinent, people fought against Islamic forces. Millions lost their lives, but they choose death before converting to Islam. Im not trying to offend anyone here. But, the truth is people who were scared of mughals chose to convert. At one point of time, the murders were so brutal that Hindu population was 80 million in India.
    Marathas gave a deadly blow to the murderous Islamic rule, it was ended in a nice way. What about Sikhs? Their fighting skills are unmatched that they didn't convert. Their guru was killed by mughals, but they refused to budge. Jats, rajput maharana pratap Singh. ?
    People here chose to fight and its the same reason why India is still 80% dharmic religion.
    The resistance was actually more severe in Syria, Iran and in that area, in general. The Hindu kings put up a fight but they were defeated. The end result was that Islam was firmly established in India.

    You guys are making contradictory arguments, either they were too "civilized" to fight and lost. Or they did fight and thus were not really "civilized" according to a tree-huggers definition of the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by JaDed View Post
    Dude lol are you serious or trolling i'm not understanding.
    Of course you don't understand any of this.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  65. #65
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I know Pakistan is an extremely diverse country with Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns, Balochis, Hazaras, etc. I also know that Pakistan in no way is connected to Tamil Nadu or Kerala or whatever. I was merely pointing out the irony in you ridiculing the natives when the natives in yesteryear Pakistan offered probably the highest resistance to the invading armies. Ghazni was faced resistance with Jayapala and Anandapala and other such rulers who were based in Peshawar, Multan and other areas in modern day Pakistan, and such rulers had no connection to Tamil nadu or South India.

  66. #66
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The above comment was meant as a reply to Deosai.

  67. #67
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Runs
    1,788
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by street cricketer View Post
    I know Pakistan is an extremely diverse country with Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns, Balochis, Hazaras, etc. I also know that Pakistan in no way is connected to Tamil Nadu or Kerala or whatever. I was merely pointing out the irony in you ridiculing the natives when the natives in yesteryear Pakistan offered probably the highest resistance to the invading armies. Ghazni was faced resistance with Jayapala and Anandapala and other such rulers who were based in Peshawar, Multan and other areas in modern day Pakistan, and such rulers had no connection to Tamil nadu or South India.
    Yes, and former COAS Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is a Gakkhar, and the Ghori missiles are named after Muhammad Ghori, who was actually killed by Gakkhars. But that happens everywhere. You have Dravidians take pride in Aryan imports, you have African Americans take pride in US history, you have Levantines/Egyptians take pride in Arab conquests, etc and so on.

    Never seen an actual Pakistani says he descend from Babur, but Pakistanis may be sensitive for two reasons, as they see imprints of Hindutvadi cultural imperialism :

    1) Such discussions deny their singularity/differences of Pakistanis as compared to Indians
    2) Some implicit Islam bashing.

  68. #68
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,065
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    The resistance was actually more severe in Syria, Iran and in that area, in general. The Hindu kings put up a fight but they were defeated. The end result was that Islam was firmly established in India.

    You guys are making contradictory arguments, either they were too "civilized" to fight and lost. Or they did fight and thus were not really "civilized" according to a tree-huggers definition of the word.



    Of course you don't understand any of this.

    if the resistance was severe in these countries, they wouldn't have become 100% Islamic in 15 years. Here, people just didn't convert and chose to die. Kings here in India lost to invading Islamic army because they had certain principles like they wouldn't fight after evening, they wouldn't touch women or public, they would pardon easily like how prithviraj pardoned Mohammed ghori for 17 times. But Islamic armies were barbaric, killed the civilians, looted gold. Such things didn't exist in India.
    Even shivaji who defeated mughals many times didn't touch public. Once his army misbehaved with a Muslim queen in surat, and shivaji punished the army general and apologized to her and said to her that if her mom was as beautiful as her, he would have been more good looking.
    Rajputs are ultimate in this kind of fighting. Barbarism were exclusive for the invading Islamic forces.

  69. #69
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    2,248
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.

    "marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.

    I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?

    You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.

    If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.
    They wouldnt have been burnt alive if they had tried to preach their religion peacefully...if that was the case then budhism ,sikhism,jaininsm would not have born from hindustan...and there is not any law that converting from hindus results to only death unlike invaders religion and we are glad to we resist to invaders forced religion and thankfull to our generation that we didnt enter darkness like what you said in starting....

  70. #70
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,274
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enkidu_ View Post
    Exactly, and we get back to the crux of the discussion : there was no Indian identity. In modern Pak many tribes have "accommodated" what we'd call today "invaders" - but for them, they weren't more "foreign" than someone from modern day Bihar or Tamil Nadu, especially after the conversion to Islam. Thus, they "collaborated" with the new regional powers and assumed authority on a more local level (Gakkhars/Kayanis, Janjuas, Awans, ...), even if low intensity insurgency remained alive for centuries. Aitzaz Ahsan talks of Babur complaining a lot about rustic Jats and Gujjars in his memoirs, belligerent despite the fact that he conquered Sialkot area (with much difficulties), and the local Pashtuns were such a pain that he married a Yousufzai lady, Bibi Mubaraka, just to consolidate their trust - but when he passed though the Indus populations after three failed attempts, Dehli was a piece of cake. Aitzaz Ahsan also shows how the same happened centuries later, when Mughal emperor Muhammad "Rangeela" didn't try to stop Nadir Shah's invasion as he knew that there was no need to lose men, considering that if Nadir Shah was in Dehli it meant that he subdued Indus populations. Another famous ruler, Muhammad Ghori, was killed by Gakkhars while Muhammad bin Tughluq, despite owning Delhi, struggled his tons of years in Sindh, where he ultimately died (and which gave oxygen to southern India, as this ruler was about to concretize the geographically largest empire in India since the Mauryas).

    In fact I'd advise everyone here to read Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus Saga". It answers OP @Slog, and way, way more.



    Don't Indians consider "Whites" or "Europe" to be "one entity" (what does that even mean) ?

    There's another point of view : medieval bifurcation between "al Sind" and "al Hind"



    André Wink, Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Volume 1, p. 145
    I personally believe had india never fell to britush empire, it may never have have been concieved in its contemporary form.with weakening of mughal rule, marathas had acquired centrality in the deciding the future for indian subcontinent.with emerging sikh rule, rejuvenation of rajputs and ever rising marathas, situation would have made them consolidate on their acquired landa which would furthur have lead to formation of different small provinces ruled by an autonmous rulers within those rulers.india today may have been an amalagam of tens of nation states.

  71. #71
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Runs
    1,274
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hussain123 View Post
    I personally believe had india never fell to britush empire, it may never have have been concieved in its contemporary form.with weakening of mughal rule, marathas had acquired centrality in the deciding the future for indian subcontinent.with emerging sikh rule, rejuvenation of rajputs and ever rising marathas, situation would have made them consolidate on their acquired landa which would furthur have lead to formation of different small provinces ruled by an autonmous rulers within those rulers.india today may have been an amalagam of tens of nation states.
    **within respective kingdoms

  72. #72
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enkidu_ View Post
    Indians take pride in the Vedas, etc which have been brought by Aryan invaders (you being from Dravida Nadu know about them). Not only Pakistanis, apart from Adivassis, other Indians are also foreign invaders, just a bit older.

    Pakistani Pashtuns+Sindhis+Baloch (more than half of the population) have nothing to do with Gangetic India, and so is the case with few isolated groups like those in Gilgit Baltistan, and in Punjab, only the central areas/majhi speaking ones (not Potohar/Saraiki) have a link with Punjab of India, 3% of the population.

    You can't talk of India and Pakistan in the same breadth when it comes to ethnicity, culture, religion, ... like you can't do that with India-Bangladesh and India-Sri Lanka. These countries belong to different races and you can give one stand for all.

    The most martial population of Potohar accepted Islam in droves (you will find minimal - if at all - Hindu/Sikh Gakkhars, Janjua Rajputs, Awans, ...). Do you think they saw Islam as something of "foreign invaders invading India" ? No, because there was no Indian/Hindu identity, no Islam/invaders correlation, etc types of equation(s) as opposed to what happened in Gangetic India.
    Yes, but the same Tamilians take a huge pride in Sangam literature (actually, much more pride), which was probably composed during the same period as the Vedic literature. In the case of a few Pakistanis (not all), it is almost a case of us vs them. I know religion plays a huge factor too, but they tend to take swipes like partitioning ancient India and such, when rulers such as Mauryas and Ashoka's empire extended into Pakistan as much as it extended into modern day India, and Pakistan has its own rich history pre Islamic era (iirc, the decimal system that most Indians like to take pride of, was actually put forth by Aryabhatta who was born in Pakistan). You can see such comments in this very own thread. I was only pointing out that.

  73. #73
    Debut
    Oct 2015
    Runs
    12,078
    Mentioned
    314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Another common line that is often trotted out in the internet is that India is a peaceful country and that throughout its history, it has never invaded any country, which is absolute hogwash. From time immemorial, there was trading between the Eastern and Southern kingdoms of India with Southeast Asia; and there were many Hindu and Buddhist influences in countries such as Cambodia and Indonesia. In fact, the first real kingdom in Cambodia's history was the Funan kingdom which was a Hindu kingdom. And the Khmer dynasty which built the much famed Angkor wat was also a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu built by Suryavarman III.

    The Chola dynasty of South India had probably the best navy in Indian history and Rajendra Chola I raided the present day Indonesia, taking a huge treasury with them to their homeland. At their peak, the Chola dynasty's influence exteded far into Southeast Asia and they were regular traders with the Chinese and other kingdoms of Asia minor. It is mentioned that they even had knowledge of Australia during then.

  74. #74
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raw deal View Post
    if the resistance was severe in these countries, they wouldn't have become 100% Islamic in 15 years. Here, people just didn't convert and chose to die. Kings here in India lost to invading Islamic army because they had certain principles like they wouldn't fight after evening, they wouldn't touch women or public, they would pardon easily like how prithviraj pardoned Mohammed ghori for 17 times. But Islamic armies were barbaric, killed the civilians, looted gold. Such things didn't exist in India.
    Even shivaji who defeated mughals many times didn't touch public. Once his army misbehaved with a Muslim queen in surat, and shivaji punished the army general and apologized to her and said to her that if her mom was as beautiful as her, he would have been more good looking.
    Rajputs are ultimate in this kind of fighting. Barbarism were exclusive for the invading Islamic forces.
    Choosing to become Muslims doesn't depend on whether they fought wars or not. The Hindus were defeated by 17 year old, Mohammad Bin Qasim, whereas the Syrians, Iraqis, etc had to deal with the greatest general who ever lived, Khalid Bin Walid (RA). The Persian and Romans were obviously a lot stronger than the Hindus so it is foolish to say that the latter gave more resistance.

    The Mughals ruled over India for how many years? For all this supposed, 'death over conversion' talk, the Hindus were all too happy to be under Islamic rule for hundreds of years.

    You are living in a delusional world if you think that the Hindu kings did not touch civilians but the Muslims did. In Islam it is forbidden to even burn trees and kill animals, unless absolutely necessary so forget about harming innocent women, children, elderly or religious leaders. The Muslims were the liberators, where exactly were all these women and "public" that the Hindu kings spared? This was all happening in India, not Saudi Arabia.

    Some of the Hindu kings were good rules definitely, just like some of the Muslim ones were terrible but in general, the Muslim rulers were far better. You're just twisting history here.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  75. #75
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    12,400
    Mentioned
    755 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    @bilal 7 atm a lot of middle east is backwards economically socially compared to the West. So would Western invasion of Middle East to bring the enlightenment of Western Secular culture from some of the oppressive theocratic regimes in Middle East be justified.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

  76. #76
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    12,400
    Mentioned
    755 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Some of the comments from Bilal 7 have been disturbing to me. As we see in the Middle East today. Western interventions have angered many Muslims. And Muslims are always crying about how the evil west butchers Muslims. How in the hell can you justify Actions of some barbaric hordes invading India saying they were enlightening them witht rhe message of Islam. What enlightening message needs Swords and armies to spread surely if its so enlightening people will convert themselves without a knife to their throat.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

  77. #77
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    12,400
    Mentioned
    755 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaDed View Post
    Dude lol are you serious or trolling i'm not understanding.
    Guy is serious. Theres a reason for all the Amla and Moeen love.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

  78. #78
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Runs
    4,470
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adil_94 View Post
    @bilal 7 atm a lot of middle east is backwards economically socially compared to the West. So would Western invasion of Middle East to bring the enlightenment of Western Secular culture from some of the oppressive theocratic regimes in Middle East be justified.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
    The west already invaded and drew up todays middle east, lebanon,jordan,syria,iraq, isreal are all european constructs.

    wherever muslim invaders went they built nation states and married with the locals, the european never married the locals, they came, looted and went back, with the exception of north america, where the indigenous were almost exterminated.


    "The hypocrite seeks for faults, the believer seeks for excuses"-Imam al Ghazali (ra)

  79. #79
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adil_94 View Post
    @bilal 7 atm a lot of middle east is backwards economically socially compared to the West. So would Western invasion of Middle East to bring the enlightenment of Western Secular culture from some of the oppressive theocratic regimes in Middle East be justified.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
    Well, it was certainly justified when Assad was killing millions of Syrians or how a democratically elected government in Egypt was removed from power or in the case of Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinian people.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  80. #80
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    28,283
    Mentioned
    913 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adil_94 View Post
    Some of the comments from Bilal 7 have been disturbing to me. As we see in the Middle East today. Western interventions have angered many Muslims. And Muslims are always crying about how the evil west butchers Muslims. How in the hell can you justify Actions of some barbaric hordes invading India saying they were enlightening them witht rhe message of Islam. What enlightening message needs Swords and armies to spread surely if its so enlightening people will convert themselves without a knife to their throat.

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
    You need to read a book. There was no knife to the throat, your ignorance is appalling.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •