CPEC has ZERO economic viability, its a massive cost. Is the purpose something else?

[panther]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I am sorry it comes across as dissing, but there isn't much to like about Pashtun history.

Even outsiders like Ibn Battuta and Al Biruni call them nothing more than robber tribes who raid, loot & pillage trade caravans travelling the Khyber & Bolan regions. Ibn Battuta specifically names the Afridi tribe as getting their entire income from robbing trade caravans and says not one man amongst them had the brains to form a kingdom or derive income from land & property tax. 

 

So a bunch of 'goondas' with no history or culture to speak of, who's ONLY achievement is that of being good at rape, pillage & loot, isn't much to like. 

 

Our culture is pashtunwali, I am not offended by your post, each to their own, everyone loves their own culture the most. 

[panther]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Just arab or do you guys have Israeli Jewish names like Yousuf, Ibrahim, Musa, etc as well ?

 

Yes those names as well, one of my brothers is named Musa.

[jalebi_bhai]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

That is Pashtun propaganda, nothing more. Most Pashtuns have Khan in their name. Since it is not a name original to them, it makes sense why not all of them have it. Also, not all Indian pathans have the title Khan to them. And you are either lying in this post or an earlier post where you said all your family have Arab names, followed by Tribal name followed by Khan.

 

It's silly how these guys want to take credit for things that have nothing to do with them. Their Army men legitimately think that they are the legitimate heir to the Mughal dynasty  . A country that is delusional about its own history and identity. Depending on which side of the bed they wake up, they either claim to be descendants of Arab/Central Asian invaders or the descendants of the Indus-Saraswati civilization. There is no way they can be both. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by jalebi_bhai

[Muloghonto]

Just now, panther said:

Our culture is pashtunwali, I am not offended by your post, each to their own, everyone loves their own culture the most. 

Yes, but i can think of many cultures which are not mine, which are likeable/respectable. Those invariably involve moving the human civilization forward.

Indian culture gave mankind the ethos to co-exist in diversity. Showed us that we can be one empire even with different religion & language.

They gave us mathematics,advanced pre-modern surgery, etc.

Greeks gave us logic & the concept of proofs. They gave us democracy and rule of reason.

Romans & Persians gave us the subject of governance & formation of large empires.

Chinese gave us many inventions such as paper,gun powder, etc. and gave us bureaucracy. 

The reneissance Europeans gave us the modern world in terms of science & technology.

The Afghans gave us nothing. The only thing Afghans did, is take from mankind's progress and try to send us backwards. Rape, loot, pillage, plunder. No science, no buerocracy, no governance, no economics. Nothing. So i don't see what is to like about your culture. Your people are ignorant, they live by the same moral standards of 2000 years ago and kill each other over petty things. If you weren't an Afghan, i'd bet you wouldn't find anything likeable about Afghans either.

[Texan]

I never got any straight answer from the Pakistani posters here about how they are lovers in bed with China when China enforces strict restrictions on its Muslims, does not even let them fast on Ramadan and does not allow them to even practice their religion. Pakistanis seem always about having this Muslim bhai bhai approach and their newspapers and public in general will have their blood boiling when they perceive any injustice to an Indian Muslim even in a simple case of a Muslim actor not allowed to participate in a play in India based on a Hindu biopic (wrong in my opinion, but not really a grave issue), but persecution by their lovers China and denial of right to practice their religion in China is accepted whole heartedly. Such double standards!

 

[randomGuy]

@Muloghonto bro, I agree but very bad things accumulated in our culture as well over time due to different reasons. Like caste system , sati etc.

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

@Muloghonto bro, I agree but very bad things accumulated in our culture as well over time due to different reasons. Like caste system , sati etc.

Yep. Caste system, ritualized religions, patriarchy- all these are very bad things that our culture suffers from.

 

[Mariyam]

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

PS: Most Indian muslims are muslims because : 
a) Rape, pillage etc. Which is why areas where muslims did not rule directly (e.g.: orissa, Chattisgarh, Assam, etc) there are hardly any muslims. 

b) Dhimmi tax. 

How are you able to quantify the reasons for the propagation of Islam in India as 'most' , 'many', etc ?

 

You've left out the work of the Sufi orders who were instrumental in propagating Islam in the region and making it socially relevant by Indianizing the faith.

[Asim]

wow there's couple of posts in this thread about CPEC too

[Mariyam]

@panther  Just out of curiosity, how do you categorize someone as a Pashtun? Is it language? Is it genetics? Is it religion? There are many communities in India where Pashtuns have settled over centuries. I'm sure you've heard of the Barelvis among the Rohilla Pathans. There are communities of Muslims which have migrated to Indian cities from NWFP areas post the Partition for business reasons. Are these people Pathans in your books?  What about Hindu and Sikh Pashto speakers?

Edited December 1, 2016 by Mariyam

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

How are you able to quantify the reasons for the propagation of Islam in India as 'most' , 'many', etc ?

 

You've left out the work of the Sufi orders who were instrumental in propagating Islam in the region and making it socially relevant by Indianizing the faith.

Because of muslim rulers' recordkeepings , we can see when the major waves of conversion happened for many parts of India. 

There is plenty of record of ruler like Iltutmish, Bhaktiyar & Ala-ud-din Khilji, Balban, Babur, Aurangzeb etc. killing countless people, demolishing countless temples and forcing people to convert. 

Ibn Batuta also left records on how genocidal the conversion of hindus were during his visit. 

 

Sufis were not that relevant actually, they were relevant to the already converted ones mostly. Someone like Mohinuddin Chisti for example- his shrine saw no real rise in visits till the periods of Balban, Babur, Aurangzeb etc., indicating that while people who were already muslim visited his shrine but the new recruits came predominantly due to violent policies than missionary sufism.

 

[Mariyam]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because of muslim rulers' recordkeepings , we can see when the major waves of conversion happened for many parts of India. 

There is plenty of record of ruler like Iltutmish, Bhaktiyar & Ala-ud-din Khilji, Balban, Babur, Aurangzeb etc. killing countless people, demolishing countless temples and forcing people to convert. 

Ibn Batuta also left records on how genocidal the conversion of hindus were during his visit. 

 

Sufis were not that relevant actually, they were relevant to the already converted ones mostly. Someone like Mohinuddin Chisti for example- his shrine saw no real rise in visits till the periods of Balban, Babur, Aurangzeb etc., indicating that while people who were already muslim visited his shrine but the new recruits came predominantly due to violent policies than missionary sufism.

 

Mulo, you have numbers on footfalls to shrines in various eras? That would be very interesting to look at. Its understandable that people didn't visit the mazar of Khwaja Chisti under Aurangzeb, as in his latter years he saw the sufi orders as heretics.

 

People who weren't Muslims also visited and still do visit Sufi Shrines. Besides, the numbers visiting shrines isn't my area of focus. The very reason that the final resting places of many of these preachers became shrines is that they were relevant to people then. 

 

Since we are on the topic; do you see people in India thronging the gaves of Aurangzeb or Balban or Khilji and offering dua? But you do see people at the shrines of Khwaja Chisti, Akbar, Nizamuddin Auliya, Al Mahimi, Ghanshakkar, Bulleh Shah etc.

Isn't that an indication of what Muslims consider as ideologues. 

 

PS: I've always wanted to ask; what does your ICF nickname mean? I have it currently on #2 in the worst ICF monikers list, right after Zubinpepsi.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Mariyam

[randomGuy]

@Mariyam ji

I think if a dalit converts, its combination of 2 factors - force/fear/selfishness(of post,money etc) due to Islamic rulers  in addition to getting a raw deal from Hindu caste system.

 

But if a not-dalit converts,  its purely single factor which is force/fear/selfishness due to Islamic rulers.

 

I don't think anyone(not significant numbers) converts due to Sufism.

Edited December 1, 2016 by randomGuy

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Mulo, you have numbers on footfalls to shrines in various eras? That would be very interesting to look at. Its understandable that people didn't visit the mazar of Khwaja Chisti under Aurangzeb, as in his latter years he saw the sufi orders as heretics.

 

People who weren't Muslims also visited and still do visit Sufi Shrines. Besides, the numbers visiting shrines isn't my area of focus. The very reason that the final resting places of many of these preachers became shrines is that they were relevant to people then. 

 

Since we are on the topic; do you see people in India thronging the gaves of Aurangzeb or Balban or Khilji and offering dua? But you do see people at the shrines of Khwaja Chisti, Akbar, Nizamuddin Auliya, Al Mahimi, Ghanshakkar, Bulleh Shah etc.

Isn't that an indication of what Muslims consider as ideologues. 

 

PS: I've always wanted to ask; what does your ICF nickname mean? I have it currently on #2 in the worst ICF monikers list, right after Zubinpepsi.

Not exact numbers, but the shrine did pay tax to Ajmer, which in turn paid tax to Delhi. The rise and fall of the taxation of Ajmer with these 'barbaric' rulers i've named, indicate that the major drives to conversion was terror and taxation. Otherwise, its too much of a reach to explain why Ajmer happened to pay more tax under Balban than Ibrahim Lodi, Malik Firoz compared to Ala-ud-din Khilji, etc.

 

My name means 'radish curry' in Bengali.

I guess the context is, in Bengali cuisine, 'muloghonto' is ever-present and hard to get rid of, tastes crappy but is guaranteed to give some nutritional value.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Muloghonto

[Asim]

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because of muslim rulers' recordkeepings , we can see when the major waves of conversion happened for many parts of India. 

There is plenty of record of ruler like Iltutmish, Bhaktiyar & Ala-ud-din Khilji, Balban, Babur, Aurangzeb etc. killing countless people, demolishing countless temples and forcing people to convert. 

Ibn Batuta also left records on how genocidal the conversion of hindus were during his visit. 

 

Sufis were not that relevant actually, they were relevant to the already converted ones mostly. Someone like Mohinuddin Chisti for example- his shrine saw no real rise in visits till the periods of Balban, Babur, Aurangzeb etc., indicating that while people who were already muslim visited his shrine but the new recruits came predominantly due to violent policies than missionary sufism.

 

Considering the number of centuries india was ruled by Muslim rulers + going with your logic:

Im sure today 90%+ of indian population must b consists of Muslims? Right?

Edited December 1, 2016 by Asim

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, Asim said:

Considering the number of centuries india was ruled by Muslim rulers + going with your logic:

Im sure today 90%+ of indian population must b consists of Muslims? Right?

No, because not every single Muslim ruler was single-minded in his oppression of the hindus. You muslims,be it arab or Indian or Indonesian, have a strong legacy of killing your own fathers/rebelling against brothers/cousins etc., which occupied a significant portion of the muslim rulers in Indian history. Not to mention, when people like Nader Shah/Tamerlane, etc. are invading, the rulers don't exactly have the time and resource to go oppress the hindus while fighting the invaders.

Look, there are court historians from the time of Iltutmish through Aurangzeb who left behind details of the massacres, pillage, rape, etc. not to mention, foreign visitors like Ibn Battuta as well.

If you know history, you cannot contest the fact that Indians/Pakistanis/Afghans are muslims because you got raped, pillaged,plundered or greedy. This is also evidenced not just in writings of court people of these rulers, its also evidenced by the fact that parts of India that did not have direct muslim rule, hardly have any muslim population.

 

If we go by historical India, about 33% of Indians are muslim today, whereas in the last thousand years, Indian subcontinent has had 15 times the population of west Asia and Central Asia combined. So for that few people to convert that many is no mean feat, even by force.

Even the Nazis were not able to exterminate all the Jews in Europe and Nazis had far more control of their country due to technology...

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Muloghonto

[panther]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

@panther  Just out of curiosity, how do you categorize someone as a Pashtun? Is it language? Is it genetics? Is it religion? There are many communities in India where Pashtuns have settled over centuries. I'm sure you've heard of the Barelvis among the Rohilla Pathans. There are communities of Muslims which have migrated to Indian cities from NWFP areas post the Partition for business reasons. Are these people Pathans in your books?  What about Hindu and Sikh Pashto speakers?

Pashtuns are recognised by their tribes, I know of the rohilla pashtuns well most of them are yusufzais, but in a modern context a pashtun would not really recognize them as pashtuns because they no longer speak Pashto nor practice pashtun wali. 

 

Sikhs and Hindus of Kpk are not recognised as pashtuns because they do not belong to any pashtun tribe, but as a general rule they speak Pashto and form the business community in places like Peshawar and bannu. 

[mishra]

Just to throw some numbers, Babar came with a army of 4,000 Sunnis. When he had most it was 20,000 as that included shia Persian army.

 

Considering each one kept 2-5 women as war booty/slave and may be 1-2 boys as slave, Within his rule few cities would have been overwhelmed by new religion.

[sandeep]

Let's keep this thread on CPEC and economic analysis. And split off the history stuff separate.  

 

Reality check on CPEC, but can't say it too loudly else greenBoots will come-a knockin'

 

http://www.dawn.com/news/1299683/the-giddy-brigade

[Deucalion]

people needs to understand what muloghonto trying to say is that world/Universe starts with India and will finish with India. thats the main point here. everything else is useless. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Deucalion