Afghan embassy raises concern over portrayal of Ahmad Shah Abdali in Ashutosh Gowariker's 'Panipat'

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Reddysaab said:

ya arab traders came in etc etc.  but they are not main reason for Islam spread in SC

 

but  the main spread of Islam in a large scale in India was heralded by the Turkic ppl only initially like Qutibuddin aibak who was a turkic mamluk ( slave) who established delhi sultanat and then after him khiljis ( who were turko afghan) and then finally the main guys Turko-Mongols called Mughals. glad all that ended and now atleast we were able to save Hinduism. unlike other parts were indigenous faiths like Zoroastrinism were almost completely wiped out.

The spread of Islam in the subcontinent came in several stages and in different parts, it came differently.

 

Islam, like Christianity and Greek sophists, has outposts along the malabar, being that it was the naval trade hub of the world for millennias.

 

Large scale presence came via the Umayyad arabs but ummayads did not actually engage in a large scale conversion spree outside of its core in Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran. This is because Unmayads combined Arab racism ( only Arabs were appointed as governors, military commanders etc despite being a tiny minority of population) with jaziya. This is actually the basis of the Abbasid revolution and Umayyad overthrow, to start the second Khilafat.

 

During Arab rule and following Sindhi Muslim rule, Islam spread to the Sindh region but remained a thorough elitist minority.

The north eastern parts of Baluchistan and South parts of Khyber converted during brutal conquest of Saffarids and this region seemed to’ve been the heartland of the Pashtuns and converted strongly.

The Khyber region wasn’t so much converted as exterminated: Pashtuns are not native to this region, it’s natives are Hindkowanis, who are the last remnants of the Kabulistanis. 

 

Beyond these areas, Islam had little or no presence in the rest of Indian subcontinent till the Turkic invasions.

Till that point, outside of an elite few in Sindh and southern Punjab, Islam had no real presence in India.

 

rest history is well known.

[Reddysaab]

3 hours ago, Reddysaab said:

really impressed by your knowledge. these days i am researching about Turks and other steppe nomads who really are the reason how Islam came to india. can u confirm that the early Turks before admixture with Persians, greeks etc, were Mongoloid race people with slanted, slit eyes? i believe the Oghuz Turks who invaded Byzantine Anatolia were Central asian mongoloid race people. then they just mixed with the anatolian greeks and produced the modern turkish race. can u confirm that? I am amazed that how most modern turks do not retain any mongoloid features. is it a true statement that the people of turkey are mostly greek, and balkan ppl who were assimilated by the invading oghuz turks. and very few ppl from turky actually are ethnically turkish. then in that case, calling this country as turkey is a huge misnomer! these are my thoughts

@Muloghonto

 

@sandeep

 

can u also weigh in your views about the above regarding how i believe turkey is actually a greek/balkan majority nation somehow masquerading as a turkic nation!

[Reddysaab]

well basically all marauding shepherds and nomads came and screwed our great India civilization and spread their seed.

 

Babur the patriarch for mughal empire was from Fergana valley which is in modern day uzbekistan.

 

now Uzbekistan is a 50 paisa no name country. and the only time i heard of Uzbekistan is when i heard about Uzbek prostitutes who came to India.

 

thats the difference between these 50 paisa countries and india is that they come and go. India - a cradle of civilization was there before these 50 paisa countries and will be long there after these countries cease existing. Jai Hind

[sandeep]

23 minutes ago, Reddysaab said:

@Muloghonto

 

@sandeep

 

can u also weigh in your views about the above regarding how i believe turkey is actually a greek/balkan majority nation somehow masquerading as a turkic nation!

I'm not sure what difference you're trying to highlight, and how you define "turkic".  Ottoman Empire was founded by a turkic tribe IIRC - present day turks have a diverse gene pool due to significant import from the Balkans and beyond - Not just for harems etc but also for Janissaries and administrative corps.  

[sandeep]

4 minutes ago, Reddysaab said:

well basically all marauding shepherds and nomads came and screwed our great India civilization and spread their seed.

 

Babur the patriarch for mughal empire was from Fergana valley which is in modern day uzbekistan.

 

now Uzbekistan is a 50 paisa no name country. and the only time i heard of Uzbekistan is when i heard about Uzbek prostitutes who came to India.

 

thats the difference between these 50 paisa countries and india is that they come and go. India - a cradle of civilization was there before these 50 paisa countries and will be long there after these countries cease existing. Jai Hind

"National pride" is all well and good, but why do you feel the need to insult and denigrate other countries - is it because the fact that their ancestors invaded, ruled and enslaved millions of our countrymen bothers your ego?  Study and interest of history should gravitate to facts and objectivity, not to tribal desires to chest-thump the glory of 'our' civilization.  

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, Reddysaab said:

well basically all marauding shepherds and nomads came and screwed our great India civilization and spread their seed.

How great was a civilization that allowed it to screwed by marauding shepherds and nomads?  Ask yourself that.

 

Most civilizations grow, prosper, get rich, and then over time get fat, complacent and supplanted.  In the Indian case, it probably was a major contributing factor that as the society prospered and evolved, the elites and the general populace chose to give primacy to the pursuit of the spiritual and mental evolution, as opposed to conquest and military strength.  And even that, arguably, is a function of geography.  The subcontinent land was bountiful enough to support healthy and prosperous population growth without creating the necessity to expand its borders.  Others, like say the Vikings for instance, didn't have that luxury.  

Edited November 18, 2019 by sandeep

[Reddysaab]

8 minutes ago, sandeep said:

How great was a civilization that allowed it to screwed by marauding shepherds and nomads?  Ask yourself that.

 

Most civilizations grow, prosper, get rich, and then over time get fat, complacent and supplanted.  In the Indian case, it probably was a major contributing factor that as the society prospered and evolved, the elites and the general populace chose to give primacy to the pursuit of the spiritual and mental evolution, as opposed to conquest and military strength.  And even that, arguably, is a function of geography.  The subcontinent land was bountiful enough to support healthy and prosperous population growth without creating the necessity to expand its borders.  Others, like say the Vikings for instance, didn't have that luxury.  

 

i hear you buddy. all civilizations go thru the same life cycle. and historically well settled sedentary agrarian societies like ancient greece, persia, india were marauded by nomads who were looking for resources bcos they came from harsher environs

 

what goes around comes around

 

probably the turks of turkey will get fat and complacent in about 500 years and then screwed by some up and comer. similar to Brits who are already on downward spiral. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Reddysaab

[Reddysaab]

18 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I'm not sure what difference you're trying to highlight, and how you define "turkic".  Ottoman Empire was founded by a turkic tribe IIRC - present day turks have a diverse gene pool due to significant import from the Balkans and beyond - Not just for harems etc but also for Janissaries and administrative corps.  

i am just trying to highlight that a majority greek,mediteranean,balkan nation is called turkey! by some estimates less than 15% of the Turkish national genepool is Turkic. this has got to be the biggest case of cultural appropriation in the history of humankind!

[rahulrulezz]

14 hours ago, sandeep said:

How great was a civilization that allowed it to screwed by marauding shepherds and nomads?  Ask yourself that.

 

Most civilizations grow, prosper, get rich, and then over time get fat, complacent and supplanted.  In the Indian case, it probably was a major contributing factor that as the society prospered and evolved, the elites and the general populace chose to give primacy to the pursuit of the spiritual and mental evolution, as opposed to conquest and military strength.  And even that, arguably, is a function of geography.  The subcontinent land was bountiful enough to support healthy and prosperous population growth without creating the necessity to expand its borders.  Others, like say the Vikings for instance, didn't have that luxury.  

I think @Gollum wrote an amazing post on the same topic. How you rule Delhi for some time, get rich but dumb and complacement. That’s the reason why there were like 20 plus kings from Delhi Sultanate who lost to another kings.  Imagine Ibrahim Lodhi who had all the bounty and money, lost to nomad army like Babur. Purely because he don’t invest in art of warfare and science. It’s like you reach Delhi, make money, stop investing in your army and next invader comes in. 

 

Only exception to this was Mughals after Akbar. Remember even Akbar’s father Humayun lost to Sher Shahs army, and lost all of India. It’s only after Akbar, they invested in aligning whole of India, increase its army and strength

 

one thing I do give to Mughals or any Islamic invader  is that they used the religion card every time they fought. See, it’s hard to motivate someone to go in a war and potentially loose life only for some money. Compare that to most Islimaic invaders, their army was not just fighting for money but most importantly were also fighting for Jihad. 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

15 hours ago, Reddysaab said:

@Muloghonto

 

@sandeep

 

can u also weigh in your views about the above regarding how i believe turkey is actually a greek/balkan majority nation somehow masquerading as a turkic nation!

You are correct, though Turkey Turks are not exclusively Greek. They are converted anatolians ( the descendants of Hittites, Lydians, etc).

Very briefly, Turks are Persianized East Asian nomads, who can be traced to the Xiongnu. As is common with most central nomadic confederations, the nomenclature ‘ turk’ or ‘mongol’ or ‘indo-iranians’ are correct for the languages they spoke, not their ethnic makeup.

The real ethnic Turks are turkomans, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Uyghur, Kazakhs, Tuvans, etc. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, rahulrulezz said:

I think @Gollum wrote an amazing post on the same topic. How you rule Delhi for some time, get rich but dumb and complacement. That’s the reason why there were like 20 plus kings from Delhi Sultanate who lost to another kings.  Imagine Ibrahim Lodhi who had all the bounty and money, lost to nomad army like Babur. Purely because he don’t invest in art of warfare and science. It’s like you reach Delhi, make money, stop investing in your army and next invader comes in. 

 

Only exception to this was Mughals after Akbar. Remember even Akbar’s father Humayun lost to Sher Shahs army, and lost all of India. It’s only after Akbar, they invested in aligning whole of India, increase its army and strength

 

one thing I do give to Mughals or any Islamic invader  is that they used the religion card every time they fought. See, it’s hard to motivate someone to go in a war and potentially loose life only for some money. Compare that to most Islimaic invaders, their army was not just fighting for money but most importantly were also fighting for Jihad. 

 

 

 

 

This is both right and wrong. India, China, Persia, Russia etc all share one thing in common: from about 200s BCE, these regions face extreme invading  pressure from Central Asia and this pressure only begins to drop from around 1600s onwards. This is because these two thousand years are the age of cavalry warfare and Central Asia being the natural home of horses, they dominated. With beginning of gunpowder, the balance shifted against cavalry. Delhi sultans weren’t all weak, only the Sayyids and Lodhis were weak. Alauddin Khilji is pretty much the only king in the world who defeated the armies of mongol empire. Babur had an advantage: gunpowder. 

[Muloghonto]

16 hours ago, sandeep said:

How great was a civilization that allowed it to screwed by marauding shepherds and nomads?  Ask yourself that.

 

Most civilizations grow, prosper, get rich, and then over time get fat, complacent and supplanted.  In the Indian case, it probably was a major contributing factor that as the society prospered and evolved, the elites and the general populace chose to give primacy to the pursuit of the spiritual and mental evolution, as opposed to conquest and military strength.  And even that, arguably, is a function of geography.  The subcontinent land was bountiful enough to support healthy and prosperous population growth without creating the necessity to expand its borders.  Others, like say the Vikings for instance, didn't have that luxury.  

India’s problem is geography and natural strategic resources. Take for eg, that we are extremely poor in horses and until the Rajputs indegenized the Arabian horse, our cavalry was dependent on imports from Balkh region.

combine this with the fact that northern subcontinent is a vast plain, which makes Greco-Roman style infantry largely useless: infantry cannot march up to cavalry or hold ground easily, without natural structures like cliffs, valleys, hills, mountains etc.

take for eg, the battle of Thermopylae. People give a lot of credit to the Spartans and while they deserve credit, the real victor is geography: Thermopylae was fought when the Greeks formed a line from the cliffs to the sea, blocking the path. What happens to the same 7,000 hoplites, in Panipat ? They get surrounded and cut down to pieces.

 

As such, Indian war machine relied on the one natural advantage we had: elephants. However, elephants are extremely costly to maintain, approximately ten times as much as horses in fooder, water, etc. They also require a lot more training. This means, when we have big empires, they could afford thousands of elephants and were unbeatable by outsiders, when it’s a tiny kingdom, they could only field 100-200 and that’s just an irritant for the enemy. This is the general pattern of Indian history and only twice has an empire fallen to outsiders with no elephants: the Hepthalite destruction of the Guptas, which was mostly due to severe financial weakening of the Guptas( as evidenced by their lowering of gold in their coins) and Timurs victory vs Delhi sultan, resulting from some truly diabolically brilliant thinking.

[sandeep]

17 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The Khyber region wasn’t so much converted as exterminated: Pashtuns are not native to this region, it’s natives are Hindkowanis, who are the last remnants of the Kabulistanis. 

This sentence made me think of Nuristan.  Purely from an academic point of view, I think it would have been really interesting to see what cultural missing links the pre-conversion Nuristani culture would demonstrate.  I guess you can think of the Kalash as something similar, but I'd expect the pre-conversion Nuristanis to be different.  

[Reddysaab]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

India’s problem is geography and natural strategic resources. Take for eg, that we are extremely poor in horses and until the Rajputs indegenized the Arabian horse, our cavalry was dependent on imports from Balkh region.

combine this with the fact that northern subcontinent is a vast plain, which makes Greco-Roman style infantry largely useless: infantry cannot march up to cavalry or hold ground easily, without natural structures like cliffs, valleys, hills, mountains etc.

take for eg, the battle of Thermopylae. People give a lot of credit to the Spartans and while they deserve credit, the real victor is geography: Thermopylae was fought when the Greeks formed a line from the cliffs to the sea, blocking the path. What happens to the same 7,000 hoplites, in Panipat ? They get surrounded and cut down to pieces.

 

As such, Indian war machine relied on the one natural advantage we had: elephants. However, elephants are extremely costly to maintain, approximately ten times as much as horses in fooder, water, etc. They also require a lot more training. This means, when we have big empires, they could afford thousands of elephants and were unbeatable by outsiders, when it’s a tiny kingdom, they could only field 100-200 and that’s just an irritant for the enemy. This is the general pattern of Indian history and only twice has an empire fallen to outsiders with no elephants: the Hepthalite destruction of the Guptas, which was mostly due to severe financial weakening of the Guptas( as evidenced by their lowering of gold in their coins) and Timurs victory vs Delhi sultan, resulting from some truly diabolically brilliant thinking.

 

SUPER SIR.

 

I am your fan from now on. your knowledge is deep and profound.

 

in colloquial terms - u know ur shiiit!

[Reddysaab]

anyway all nomads and camel jockeys are done. haha.

 

i am grateful that they could not wipe out our great civilization and Hinduism still lives and thriving. JAI HIND.

 

i am extremely proud that in this whole region, India is the only region where they could not wipe out the indigenous culture. if u think about it we were directly in the line of fire. but yet we survived.

[Reddysaab]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You are correct, though Turkey Turks are not exclusively Greek. They are converted anatolians ( the descendants of Hittites, Lydians, etc).

Very briefly, Turks are Persianized East Asian nomads, who can be traced to the Xiongnu. As is common with most central nomadic confederations, the nomenclature ‘ turk’ or ‘mongol’ or ‘indo-iranians’ are correct for the languages they spoke, not their ethnic makeup.

The real ethnic Turks are turkomans, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Uyghur, Kazakhs, Tuvans, etc. 

thanks Guru for clearing my doubt about this so called nation called "Turkey" and confirming what i was thinking all along that something is strange about this mediterranean and anatolian nation called turkey!

Edited November 19, 2019 by Reddysaab