Jump to content
coffee_rules

Correcting Indian History

Recommended Posts

History that we have been taught in our school books is quite foggy doesn't goes into specific detail...  For some reasons.  They don't explain why Invaders won? their Tactics & sources & reasons of defeat of Indians & similarly instances of Indians repelling the invasions are also ignored.  Little mention of Timur's invasion like The Hun invasion in ancient history. Qasim's victory over Dahir is barely mentioned...  And subsequent losses of Arabs.  No mention of Mongol campaigns during Sultanate & Khilji rule.  There's a lots n lots of sugar coating on both sides of argument.  Somehow manages to keep both Hindus & Muslim happy. 

Little mention of South Indian empires except Vijayanagara & Cholas..  We do hear about Kafur's South India expedition though in very little detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 8 years, BJP has finally found the cojones to change NCERT content and n social studies textbooks. This is a good start, talking about Islamic iconoclasm in medieval India.

 

 

Look, how lamentable the article is. This is a burnout moment for the libtards 

 


So he looted India 17 times, but was interested in knowing more about the people he looted. Wah! Dhanya hai hum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

After 8 years, BJP has finally found the cojones to change NCERT content and n social studies textbooks. This is a good start, talking about Islamic iconoclasm in medieval India.

 

 

Look, how lamentable the article is. This is a burnout moment for the libtards 

 


So he looted India 17 times, but was interested in knowing more about the people he looted. Wah! Dhanya hai hum

Good initiative but disagree with last one partially...  Al Biruni was perhaps most sane & accurate when it came to understanding Indian customs & society of that era.  He was very fascinated by the rich hindu history & was also astonished that all that glory was gone as well during that period.  Lack of innovation & failure to connect with outside world were the major reasons according to him for downfall of Indians.  Vivekananda was also in agreement with his findings. 

Edited by Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Good initiative but disagree with last one partially...  Al Biruni was perhaps most sane & accurate when it came to understanding Indian customs & society of that era.  He was very fascinated by the rich hindu history & was also astonished that all that glory was gone as well during that period.  Lack of innovation & failure to connect with outside world were the major reasons according to him for downfall of Indians.  Vivekananda was also in agreement with his findings. 

Most of the insight by the Islamic historians, biography writers were to narrate how they destroyed the strong Will of non-Muslims and caused the triumph of Islam by the Sultante actions. It was more celebratory than respect to the non-believers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Most of the insight by the Islamic historians, biography writers were to narrate how they destroyed the strong Will of non-Muslims and caused the triumph of Islam by the Sultante actions. It was more celebratory than respect to the non-believers 

That's Where Al Biruni was different to others even his critics say he didn't gave many details of political aspect of times.  Although he had a superiority complex that he is better thinker than anyone. 

However he did show respect to Hindu culture through his writings.  And he also one of the first who said that caste divide in Hinduism is not common to them but visible in other customs as well. 

Although he knew Sanskrit but he probably wasn't too sharp at recreating those exact thoughts in Persian.  That's why he sometimes felt Upanishads & other texts were insufficient according to him. 

Only thing he said that Hindus believed that everything foreign is bad & said that this same mentality was the reason that they were left behind than rest of the world.  Same thoughts were echoed by Vivekananda when he said downfall of India started when the term 'mleccha' (bad foreign)  was invented in India. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

That's Where Al Biruni was different to others even his critics say he didn't gave many details of political aspect of times.  Although he had a superiority complex that he is better thinker than anyone. 

However he did show respect to Hindu culture through his writings.  And he also one of the first who said that caste divide in Hinduism is not common to them but visible in other customs as well. 

Although he knew Sanskrit but he probably wasn't too sharp at recreating those exact thoughts in Persian.  That's why he sometimes felt Upanishads & other texts were insufficient according to him. 

Only thing he said that Hindus believed that everything foreign is bad & said that this same mentality was the reason that they were left behind than rest of the world.  Same thoughts were echoed by Vivekananda when he said downfall of India started when the term 'mleccha' (bad foreign)  was invented in India. 

 

The deletion was about Ghazni being very understanding and not about Al-baruni 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should include things such as the burning of Nalanda and massacre of more than 10000 ppl just for their belief. That such a major event with such huge repercussions is not even known by 99% of people is astounding. Similar to the mishap at the Alexandria Lighthouse. We were set back centuries due to that barbarism.

 

Same for all the exodus of non-muslims from Kashmir multiple times. 

 

In more recent history - we need to cover the Moplah genocide, the Bengal famine cause by the Brits and the many other atrocities that were done by the Brits on Indians better. The only thing I remember reading about was Jalianwallah Bagh. Also, more coverage on non-Gandhi (or Gandhian) freedom fighters as well. 

 

We should also talk about luminaries like JC Bose more. 

Edited by bharathh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

That's Where Al Biruni was different to others even his critics say he didn't gave many details of political aspect of times.  Although he had a superiority complex that he is better thinker than anyone. 

However he did show respect to Hindu culture through his writings.  And he also one of the first who said that caste divide in Hinduism is not common to them but visible in other customs as well. 

Although he knew Sanskrit but he probably wasn't too sharp at recreating those exact thoughts in Persian.  That's why he sometimes felt Upanishads & other texts were insufficient according to him. 

Only thing he said that Hindus believed that everything foreign is bad & said that this same mentality was the reason that they were left behind than rest of the world.  Same thoughts were echoed by Vivekananda when he said downfall of India started when the term 'mleccha' (bad foreign)  was invented in India. 

 

yes, one can disagree with al-biruni on several points (where he was not accurate), but he was a serious scholar and intellectual by the standards of invaders of those time.

Edited by Vijy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bharathh said:

They should include things such as the burning of Nalanda and massacre of more than 10000 ppl just for their belief. That such a major event with such huge repercussions is not even known by 99% of people is astounding. Similar to the mishap at the Alexandria Lighthouse. We were set back centuries due to that barbarism.

 

Same for all the exodus of non-muslims from Kashmir multiple times. 

 

In more recent history - we need to cover the Moplah genocide, the Bengal famine cause by the Brits and the many other atrocities that were done by the Brits on Indians better. The only thing I remember reading about was Jalianwallah Bagh. Also, more coverage on non-Gandhi (or Gandhian) freedom fighters as well. 

 

We should also talk about luminaries like JC Bose more. 

ramanujan, 2 boses (JC and Satyen), subbarow (discoverer of ATP function in biology), khurana, chandrasekhar, mahalanobis, harish-chandra, and many more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bharathh said:

They should include things such as the burning of Nalanda and massacre of more than 10000 ppl just for their belief. That such a major event with such huge repercussions is not even known by 99% of people is astounding. Similar to the mishap at the Alexandria Lighthouse. We were set back centuries due to that barbarism.

 

Same for all the exodus of non-muslims from Kashmir multiple times. 

 

In more recent history - we need to cover the Moplah genocide, the Bengal famine cause by the Brits and the many other atrocities that were done by the Brits on Indians better. The only thing I remember reading about was Jalianwallah Bagh. Also, more coverage on non-Gandhi (or Gandhian) freedom fighters as well. 

 

We should also talk about luminaries like JC Bose more. 

Probably kids won't be able to take all that...  So they will never do that.  Timur probably most devastating invader in entire Indian history is covered in 1 or 2 lines in NCERT textbook.  I mean guy was pure evil even makes Nader Shah look like a sadhu sant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

Probably kids won't be able to take all that...  So they will never do that.  Timur probably most devastating invader in entire Indian history is covered in 1 or 2 lines in NCERT textbook.  I mean guy was pure evil even makes Nader Shah look like a sadhu sant. 

one of the all-time most destructive invaders, not just in india but most places he went to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

Probably kids won't be able to take all that...  So they will never do that.  Timur probably most devastating invader in entire Indian history is covered in 1 or 2 lines in NCERT textbook.  I mean guy was pure evil even makes Nader Shah look like a sadhu sant. 

 

For many people in the world, Timur is a true hero, a great conqueror. But only those who bore the brunt of his evil (like our ancestors) would know about the brutality. 

 

But would it be false equivalence to state that RRC did the same to SL?  

 

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2010/11/09/invasions-violence-atrocities-and-plunder-characterize-tamildravidian-involvement-in-sri-lanka-from-230-bce/

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/raja-raja-chola-1-and-the-quicksand-of-tamil-chauvinism/

 

The golden age of Chola aggression. The 10th Century AD.

 

This was the time the Cholas invaded not just this island but vast swathes of the subcontinent as well as territories in what is now known as South-East Asia. The LTTE adopted the Tiger emblem from the flag of the glory days of Chola domination.  Tamil nationalism, desperately seeking a historical prop, picked a derivative of the name that the Cholas used for the island, ‘Ila-Mandalam’. They were careless. Raja Raja 1, during whose time the Chola empire reached its zenith of glory, not only invaded but plundered and bragged about the plundering.

 

To me, it is not false equivalence.  It is just a reflection of this:

 

ngcb20

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

For many people in the world, Timur is a true hero, a great conqueror. But only those who bore the brunt of his evil (like our ancestors) would know about the brutality. 

 

But would it be false equivalence to state that RRC did the same to SL?  

 

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2010/11/09/invasions-violence-atrocities-and-plunder-characterize-tamildravidian-involvement-in-sri-lanka-from-230-bce/

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/raja-raja-chola-1-and-the-quicksand-of-tamil-chauvinism/

 

The golden age of Chola aggression. The 10th Century AD.

 

This was the time the Cholas invaded not just this island but vast swathes of the subcontinent as well as territories in what is now known as South-East Asia. The LTTE adopted the Tiger emblem from the flag of the glory days of Chola domination.  Tamil nationalism, desperately seeking a historical prop, picked a derivative of the name that the Cholas used for the island, ‘Ila-Mandalam’. They were careless. Raja Raja 1, during whose time the Chola empire reached its zenith of glory, not only invaded but plundered and bragged about the plundering.

 

To me, it is not false equivalence.  It is just a reflection of this:

 

ngcb20

 

 

I think that is barely comparable to what Nader Shah did in Delhi.  Timur is just all time evil stuff.  It is said that his army went on a unstoppable killing spree in Delhi beyond even his control & he gave weird justifications for that in his biography.  Killing kaffirs & it was his Allah's justice & BS & he was helpless. 

 

Contrary to that Nader Shah's military was ambushed by groups & militias only then they resorted to killing civilians in Delhi & Nader asked them to stop after a short while & they did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

For many people in the world, Timur is a true hero, a great conqueror. But only those who bore the brunt of his evil (like our ancestors) would know about the brutality. 

 

But would it be false equivalence to state that RRC did the same to SL?  

 

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2010/11/09/invasions-violence-atrocities-and-plunder-characterize-tamildravidian-involvement-in-sri-lanka-from-230-bce/

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/raja-raja-chola-1-and-the-quicksand-of-tamil-chauvinism/

 

The golden age of Chola aggression. The 10th Century AD.

 

This was the time the Cholas invaded not just this island but vast swathes of the subcontinent as well as territories in what is now known as South-East Asia. The LTTE adopted the Tiger emblem from the flag of the glory days of Chola domination.  Tamil nationalism, desperately seeking a historical prop, picked a derivative of the name that the Cholas used for the island, ‘Ila-Mandalam’. They were careless. Raja Raja 1, during whose time the Chola empire reached its zenith of glory, not only invaded but plundered and bragged about the plundering.

 

To me, it is not false equivalence.  It is just a reflection of this:

 

ngcb20

 

 

the reason it would be false equivalence from my perspective is as follows. nearly all empires, especially expansionist ones, commit some kind of war-related crimes. Hence, when speaking of them, what matters is not "did war crimes happen?" but the question of "of what magnitude were the war crimes?" [now, there might be a few cases where no crimes worth speaking of were committed, but that is very rare and thus not something spending much time over]

 

If we go with the second question of looking at the magnitude, what Timur did is almost sui generis; estimates have gone as high as millions to tens of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vijy said:

the reason it would be false equivalence from my perspective is as follows. nearly all empires, especially expansionist ones, commit some kind of war-related crimes. Hence, when speaking of them, what matters is not "did war crimes happen?" but the question of "of what magnitude were the war crimes?" [now, there might be a few cases where no crimes worth speaking of were committed, but that is very rare and thus not something spending much time over]

 

If we go with the second question of looking at the magnitude, what Timur did is almost sui generis; estimates have gone as high as millions to tens of millions.

Exactly even Alexander committed inhuman acts enroute to India.  Wiped out numerous tribes in Afghanistan & Bactria.  Then ofcourse when leaving in Multan. 

I found that there's a clear bias when they call Genghis Khan a butcher but Alexander a Great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

Exactly even Alexander committed inhuman acts enroute to India.  Wiped out numerous tribes in Afghanistan & Bactria.  Then ofcourse when leaving in Multan. 

I found that there's a clear bias when they call Genghis Khan a butcher but Alexander a Great. 

no doubt alex was brutal. however, genghis and successors appears to have been much more so as per the records. with that said, if alex gets a 'great', so could genghis

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...