Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content Count

    10,158
  • Betting tokens

    0
  • Runs

    162,590 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. I think i have proven many times over that one thing i DO know, is history, on this site. Would you like sources tabulating Mughal subah tax incomes to show Punjab is a nobody and a backwater province through the ENTIRE Mughal period ?? Would you also like sources to prove my point that until Ranjit Singh, Punjab, never once in its ENTIRE history, has formed a single unified kingdom ruled by the native Punjabis, that we know of ?
  2. No goalposts have been shifted. I said major irrigation. Ie, canals, dykes, earthworks etc. if you want to be technical about it, everyone has some form of irrigation- you diggin even a 10 foot trench to collect rain-water is irrigation. It doesn't change the fact that Punjab has been a minor player for most of Indian history. (India, in historical context is the subcontinent). You can whine about lower population or whatever - my point is simple - Punjab is a historical nobody and for a region its size and population, is well below average for the region, historically.
  3. Except, it wasn't. Punjab's chauth was lower than that of Bengal, Bihar, Allahabad,Gujarat and Delhi. actually, there was no Punjab back then, but adding chauths from Lahore and Multan subahs.
  4. Yeah. A bong is a racist by saying the facts and showing how Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, TN are more historically accomplished than us Bong..... great logic. You are mistaking my disdain for the overrated, historical nobody region called Punjab, as pro-bong racism. Unlike you, i know the aukaad of my people in the historical context of things.
  5. You dont necessarily need a CNS to feel pain or have thinking. For example, the octopus is known to be one of the most intelligent animals, yet it has over 50% of its brain spread out over its body. Which is why its limbs even severed, show surprising facets of 'independent thinking' till it runs out of energy. This whole 'plants dont feel pain because we cant relate to it, but animals do because we can relate to it' is an ignorant argument that is ultimately same as saying suffering of a chimp is more acute than suffering of a dolphin, because we can relate better and understand emotions better for a chimp. There is a famous experiment done a few years ago, that shows plants not only feel stress, they also retain memory. Some plants were exposed to caterpillars munching on their leaves, which resulted in them emitting certain stress-releif hormones similar to cortisol. This, was no big news. However, what was interesting, is that the same plants, showed exact same 'stressed out behaviour' when merely the sound of the same caterpillars munching on their leaves were played back to them : indicating plants do have some sort of memory. here is a less technical article on the issue of plants feeling pain: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm This whole ' i dont eat meat coz its cruel' is a false argument. Our ancestors could be excused of such belief because they had no means to scientifically verify plants feeling pain, but nowadays we do. And the result is surprising, yet trending towards a decisive nod to the idea that plants do feel pain as well. Depends. For example, if your concern is eco-friendlyness, you may be surprised to find that the same calorific value of lettuce is over 3x more greenhouse-gas generating than bacon. Also, farming certain plants are far more damaging to environment than certain animals. For eg, farming pigs and chickens consume less energy & water than farming avocados or almonds. Communism. There are lot of literature avail from 1930s-1950s chinese Americans/Hong Kong people who saw in horror as their culture was changed into a much more 'suffering causes strength' mentality under Mao, who used this axiom to pretty much bend the people to his will as he saw fit.
  6. that is a narrow argument. There is recent, emerging evidence that plants feel pain as well as show memory. Besides, death does not need to be painful. 1 swift chop of the head and its all over in a few seconds or a minute. This whole 'vegetarianism is because we cause pain to animals' is a nonsense argument that is : a) not entirely true (since plants too have been documented to feel pain and be stressed out by pain). So either way, eating equals killing a life and inflicting pain on some level or another on virtually any living being thats a more complex life-form than uni-cellular algae. b) going against OUR own evolution as a meat-eating, omnivorous species. Regardless of whether you are a hindu, jain or buddhist, fact remains that we've eaten cooked meat as a species almost universally till recent times. We also see long evidence of omnivorous species showing the greatest ability to survive geo-cataclysmic events and that is a no-brainer. A species that eats more variety of things finds it easier to survive global food shortages/portions of food-chain wiped out. And as evolution works, we adapt to things we do and lose adaptations that we don't do anymore. At one point our ancestors could process cellulose. Now we cannot. So i see this whole vegan/vegetarian thing as a betrayal of our species and akin to 'chopping the branch we sit on' from an evolutionary standpoint, based on some ignorant confirmation bias that supposes feeling of pain is valid only for animals. That being said, inflicting unnecessary pain is just horrific and these videos are pretty brutal. Its one thing to chop a head off an animal and let it die in a few seconds/minute, but to torture, is inhumane.
  7. Please learn better math. Punjab to Bengal ratios of population are more or less 140:230. Ie, 1:1.6x-ish. What we also know, is that for most of history(till about 400 years ago), the eastern half of Bangladesh (just east of Dhaka onwards) was not part of bengal, nor developed much (it used to part of Assam actually). So historically, they've been much closer in population than they are currently. Simple reality is, Punjab, for most of history, had very little to offer in terms of value. Combined with its low agricultural yeild compared to the land, its historic position has been either border provinces of Indian empires (and being under-developed) or launch-pads for invaders to rest of the subcontinent ( not just Ghorids and Ghaznavids, but also Alchon Huns, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Parthians), serving as pillaged & backwards province of the invaders. Even under Kushan times, there is a decisive material drop-off between Taxila and Jalandhar. You sure you wanna brag about that ? Bravo, O-brave Punjabi, the world's greatest jewel was under your empire, before the British defeated you and won it over. The history of the Kohinoor is a brilliant one, with it falling into a long list of hands, as war-booty. Yet, there is one exception to the Kohinoor exchanging hands after either direct loss at war and paying tribute for not being massacred more ( eg: Nader Shah) or directly included in peace treaty offering after annexation/loss(eg: Punjab to the Brits). And that is, how Punjab got it !! Long story short, Ranjit Singh acquired the Koh-i-noor by a stroke of unparalleled luck in the 600+ year history of the gem: he found a bedraggled king, on the run from a recent coup with part of his court and a few houshold guards, requesting urgent assylum, who happened to have the Koh-i-noor on him. This chap, who was also a horrible human being deserving to be overthrown, went by the name of Shah Shuja Durrani. Google him. Read. Both Afghan and Brit sources (who were monitoring the happenings of the region) confirm that Ranjit Singh offered shelter expressedly on a one-time payment fee of the Koh-i-noor. You mean the lands furthest from the seas were the last to be conquered by a naval power from a quarter of the way around the globe, sending ships over to project power into a region nearly 100x its population ?! You don't say, genius...
  8. Wrong. I can refer you to sources that track the history of irrigation in Punjab through the last couple of millenias. We also have corroborating views of historic visitors to India. Punjab prior to the mughals was largely unremarkable. Think much more of the 'nile', especially in the southern portion (relative to Punjab, not whole course-length) for Bari and Rechna doab. Yes, relative to the world, it has been quite fertile but relative to India and most of rest of Eastern half of Asia, it has been, historically unremarkable. The mughals were the first since pretty much the Kushans (who were foreigners and not based in Punjab either, ruling from two capitals- one at Bagram(AFG) and Mathura) to undertake any major irrigation works in Punjab. Yet, until the British times, Punjab did not get beyond 5-10% of the irrigation it has since then. All this shows, that Punjab has historically been an unremarkable region. This is also why, Punjab has zero native influence in the classical and medeival times. No, it directly implies that Bengal had a greater, thriving economy than Punjab. Its straightforward math : if province X generates income of value A & province Y generates income of value B, if A > B, then province A is more developed than province B, provided taxation was proportionate. Which it was for the mughal empire- chauth (1/4th of revenue). You can whine about it being due to greater population itself (so not greater per capita), but thats irrelevant, we are comparing the regions as a whole. The argument is not about Bengal, its about Punjab. I will be happy to compare it with Gujju-land and demonstrate how Gujju-land has been a bigger economic & cultural powerhouse historically than Punjab. Your constant uprisings are neither true, nor do they matter in face of 150+ years of tax records. Punjab went through decades of peace and prosperity as well for most of it. Still, chauth of Lahore and Multan were amongst the lowest of the 'main revenue generators' for the empire. Sikhs were not major players in Punjabi economy of history till after 1700s. So their rebellions and struggles, while relevant to Punjabi identity today, is largely irrelevant to the historic identity of Punjab stretching for 2000+ years or even for much of Akbar, Jahangir, Shah-Jahan & Aurangzeb's time. A few Sikh villages out of thousands in Punjab going down heroically/resisting, is irrelevant to the economy and stability of the whole region.
  9. no, but it can be used in an analogous sense as 'europeans', as well. It doesn't matter if the UK Sikhs of indic roots do not see themselves as Indian. Academia will continue to see so, because while strictly speaking, 'indian' is not a race, academia is slowly warming to the idea of seeing the Indian identity as similar to an 'European' one, as in a culture/social sphere.
  10. You can whine as much as you want but facts are facts. Mughals collected chauth from every Subah. So the Subahs that generated more income were the more prosperous ones and the ones that generated less were the poor ones. That much is simple logic. And yes, historically speaking, Punjab is a small player in Indian history, punching way below its weight. Until Ranjit Singh, there was not a SINGLE native, Punjabi kingdom, never mind an empire. You know who's the historical big daddy of subcontinental history ? Bihar. What Bihar had done for Indian history, culture, philosophy and global identity, rest of India combined pales into insignificance. Next in line for punching way above their weight are the Tamils, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Then, far far behind them, come the Rajputs and Bengal. Holding their own would be Gujarat, Orissa and Assam. Below par would be UP, but it's understandable because for most of its history UP has been a satellite of Bihar. You know who've done jack **** till the last 200 years, serving as nothing more than a backwards, poor border province or living under the boot of countless invaders, even before the Muslims ? Punjab. Those facts are self evident from history. And it's ironic that amongst Indians, it's the Punjabis the ho show the most racist attitude towards rest of the subcontinent. Classic 'chip on the shoulder + Johnny come lately ' syndrome.
  11. Simpleton or not, you take over a public building with hundreds of supporters and then stockpile weapons, it makes you a terrorist. Period. Will vote a million times out of a million to take military action against such terrorists. Whatever Indian government did or did not do, does not change the fact that Bhindranwale was a terrorist and I salute the Sikh general Brar who showed more guts than the entire Sikh diaspora in Canada and Uk, choosing to do what's right and being a real patriot, unlike the minions of ISI that Uk-Canadian Khalistani supporters tend to be.
  12. india is not jailing anyone who speaks out against it, it jailing Sikh terrorists and terrorist supporters from the 80s. Which is good. i 100% support Operation Blue Star. Anytime any religious fundamentalist terrorist takes over a public religious building and stockpiles weapons, they deserve to be blown to pieces.
  13. we do not have taxation figures from Ranjit Singh. So we cannot say. we have the data from the Mughals because the Mughal records survive and they were better organized. Sikh empire was a short-lived, one-man show so its understandable that they were not nearly as consolidated or as organized as a 200 year mughal empire. An educated guess would be that the numbers for Punjab didn't change much between Aurangzeb and Ranjit Singh,because it was the British that introduced irrigation in Punjab and made a big difference agriculturally.
  14. Punjab was a mediocre province of the Mughals. That much, is a fact. We have taxation figures ( chauth- all % fixed) from Akbar to Aurangzeb. What we do know, is that Bengal was, by a country mile, the largest revenue generator for the Empire. Followed by Gujarat subah. The combined tax of Multan & Lahore subahs ( the two Subahs that make up Punjab) were less than 60% that of Bengal, just slightly behind that of Bihar. we do not have taxation figures from Ranjit Singh, so we cannot judge based on hearsay. Those are the facts, feel free to ask for sources if you want to verify.
  15. The Iranians, aka the historical overlords of Afghanistan, say hello.
  16. You stupid yokel, i have probably spent longer living in USA and Canada than you've been alive. I have also visited your little rock down under and it felt like stepping back into the 60s/worse than deep south of the US. I never said that its the greatest country on the earth. But if money was not an issue, i'd rather live in India than in OZ. And so too would practically any minority.
  17. youtube is not a source. And there is nothing contradictory about the idea that if it wasn't for Pakistan sponsoring terrorist camps in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, security in the region would be a lot better.
  18. Every society legally protects rapists, because of the nature of the crime. Do you want me to start posting examples of how your justice system lets rapists walk away scot-free ? As for greater reporting, you have zero evidence to claim that it is getting worse or better or if there are more/less without posting evidence. When your government used to steal babies because of race until just a couple of decades ago, you don't get to tell us our society is corrupt before punishing those racist family-breaking low-lifes. As someone who's been to Australia, i'd take being a minority in India any day of the week than being one in your racist $hytehole of a nation that is the collective embarassment of the entire western world.
  19. Most Hindus are not vegetarians. Outside of the Hindi + Gujju belt, vegetarianism drops dramatically. Good luck finding more than 1-5% veggies in entire eastern india, Kerala, Telengana, Karnataka, etc. Even in hindi belt, the # of veggies are not a big majority, they are a slim majority. The 'vegetarian hindu' is probably the biggest misconception of hinduism outsiders have.
  20. the economic issue is NOT raised as a domestic one, neither is it a domestic one. Simple reality is, a region with service based economy will suffer gravely due to security risk, which is what Pakistan has created for Kashmir.
  21. employment rate in Kashmir will always be low if Pakistan keeps formenting terrorism there. Kashmir valley & Jammu are densely populated regions, which rely on service sector to generate revenue. With terrorism & instability, its always the service/manufacturing sectors that take a nosedive. So if you wish Kashmiri employment to rise, petition Pakistan to stop formenting terrorism in Kashmir by training & funding terrorists. As for oppression, i am sorry but thats nonsense. Most Kashmiris in history have shown up to vote - which is a direct endorsement of the nation they are in. Most Kashmiris also enjoy privilege - economic an social- that rest of India does not.
  22. you are mistaken. We have an 'out of sight/out of mind' mentality towards past problems, especially when they are not our own. The only reason the Kashmiri seperatists have not had much takers in the west is because of politics of the Cold War (where the west did not want to push India decisively in the Soviet camp) and then the western atipathy towards Islam currently. However, if the western ultra-progressives become the majority (which is likely in the future), then they will take a 'whats done is done, it cannot be changed, but what can be changed, is that a bunch of people over there want independence and you are oppressing them'. India cannot afford to sit around and do nothing, we HAVE to start altering the religious demographics of Kashmir.
  23. yes but take out farmers and you end up with more people who work office jobs than unorganized sector. Office job is not just a tech job, it includes police, it includes every single government worker, down to the mail-man etc. the unorganized sector is basically small business sector, which is not a big employer in india.
  24. secularism has always been non-religious, with Indian secularism being the only exception. Secularism = seperation of church and state. Ie, the state machinery is not beholden to any religious ideal for making its laws or running its business. In multi-religious nations, it means making the government machinery atheist. The only exception are religious holidays, mostly due to practical reasons (and that everyone loves a paid day off, so nobody is gonna uproot a paid day off).
  25. a social trend, is a social trend because of majoritarian governing dynamics, not what a few minority exception cases are doing. I can show stats from around the world, showing direct correlation in rising education & economic levels with decline in arranged marriages. Be it USA, Sweden, Germany,UK, India or China - greater economic & educational progress equals to less arranged marriages. Ergo, arranged marriages are predominantly for jaahils. A few educated luminaries who cannot buck the social trends in developing nations or a few old timers in developed nations do not override the governing principle, determined by majoritarian dynamics. Arranged marriages in India are steadily declining. And it matches the trend of every other nation out there that shows economic and education progress. Ergo, arranged marriages are on their way out. And i'd be extremely surprised to see arranged marriages done by more than a tiny fraction of the population in India, if (or when) India gets to a stage where it has near-western levels of income and education. You may call it 'westernism' but it is not. Even deeply eastern cultures like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea has shown the annihilation of arranged marriages once they too reached 1st world education and economic levels.
×
×
  • Create New...