panther Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 2 hours ago, mishra said: 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. Just checked the 1891 british cencus and total population of turks is 50,000, mughals 330,000 and we don't know how many are fakes here. negligible in a population of 250 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Is this you are talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1891_census_of_India Foreign Musalmans Total 34,348,085 Shaikh 27,644,993 Pathan 3,255,521 Mughal 333,114 Sayyid 1,430,329 Baloch 971,835 Turk 50,503 Arab 39,338 Others 622,452 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, mishra said: Is this you are talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1891_census_of_India Foreign Musalmans Total 34,348,085 Shaikh 27,644,993 Pathan 3,255,521 Mughal 333,114 Sayyid 1,430,329 Baloch 971,835 Turk 50,503 Arab 39,338 Others 622,452 yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 ^ That level of multiplication over 300 years is easily possible. There are books about life accounts of various Mughals. I have read few, partially. I am sure there must be life accounts of Timur Lung/ Ghazani and all. Never read them. but surely you can find them. All you need to do is read one of them and use some common sense. If you are not a reader type, Watch "Marco Polo" on netflix. All these accounst are very toned down versions but you can use you imagination. My two cent observation is that India and its indigenous population failed its women because they have been expecting a Sita who will survive a Ravana. In reality, Ravana was way way more human compared to these mid east Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 3 hours ago, mishra said: 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. At the time of Babar, Persia was Sunni. It was the Safavids who converted the nation to the Shiite faith. Mulo, or someone else good at the history of the period can confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mariyam said: At the time of Babar, Persia was Sunni. It was the Safavids who converted the nation to the Shiite faith. Mulo, or someone else good at the history of the period can confirm. No safavids ruled started about 2 decades before babar invaded India, safavids were turks, not persians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 1 minute ago, panther said: No safavids ruled started about 2 decades before babar invaded India, safavids were turks, not persians. The Safavids ruled over Persia, didn't they? In 2 decades they managed to change all Persians to the Shia faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 1 hour ago, mishra said: Is this you are talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1891_census_of_India Foreign Musalmans Total 34,348,085 Shaikh 27,644,993 Pathan 3,255,521 Mughal 333,114 Sayyid 1,430,329 Baloch 971,835 Turk 50,503 Arab 39,338 Others 622,452 Why are Baloch, Pathan counted as foreign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Just now, Mariyam said: The Safavids ruled over Persia, didn't they? In 2 decades they managed to change all Persians to the Shia faith? pretty much except the baloch and kurds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 people needs to understand what muloghonto trying to say is that world/Universe statrs with India and will finish with India. thats the main point here. everything else is useless. That is the Pakistani delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 13 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: That is the Pakistani delusion. muloghonto is not pakistani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Deucalion said: 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. That may be so, but it definitely isn't Pakistan for Pakistanis and Pakistan can't ever be anything more than 1947 creation for the Pakistanis, as you denounce its pre-muslim history and it didnt exist- even for your arab or mongol masters- till 1947. Must really burn Pakistanis that the arabs, mongols even as late as 1300s/1500s keep calling Pakistan 'Hindh' aka India. chewy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 muloghonto is not pakistani. That everything starts ends with Pakistan is a Pakistani delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mariyam said: At the time of Babar, Persia was Sunni. It was the Safavids who converted the nation to the Shiite faith. Mulo, or someone else good at the history of the period can confirm. Quote The brutal truth was that they trusted the Uzbeks to protect them from the shah and Shiitism – they didn’t trust Babur. He was fatally compromised by his previous alliance with the shah Make what you may. Just a line from a book Edited December 1, 2016 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 13 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: That everything starts ends with Pakistan is a Pakistani delusion. i hope got it. 13 hours ago, Muloghonto said: That may be so, but it definitely isn't Pakistan . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalebi_bhai Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 4 hours ago, sandeep said: 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 Don't worry about CPEC. It will become redundant some time next year. Indian Armed Forces are planning something big in POK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 10 hours ago, panther said: 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. Many Rohilla Pathans are Bangash and Shinwari too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Don't worry about CPEC. It will become redundant some time next year. Indian Armed Forces are planning something big in POK. NATO is going to get rid of cpec.IA doesnt need to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, Mariyam said: Many Rohilla Pathans are Bangash and Shinwari too. Sounds like a menu in a middle eastern restaurant Mariyam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, Mariyam said: Many Rohilla Pathans are Bangash and Shinwari too. lodhi, kakar, afridi also, do you have pashtun ancestry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts