Goa inquisition by Portuguese

[gattaca]

This hasn’t been discussed at all in Indian history. Recently learnt the inquisition of goa by Portuguese this is terrible. The Portuguese enforced catholic orthodox in goans. They forcibly converted many people and those who used to worship Hindu gods, Jewish god were tourtured, killed, kids were separated from parents, fetuses were pulled from mothers, banishment to Mozambique, burnt at stakes  such a horrible history is not even mentioned anywhere in Indian history books. These Portuguese didn’t want to leave india as well after inflicting so much suffering on goans. They should have been kicked right after independence Nehru waited till 61 to kick them out.

Edited August 11, 2023 by gattaca

[diga]

10 minutes ago, gattaca said:

This hasn’t been discussed at all in Indian history. Recently learnt the inquisition of goa by Portuguese this is terrible. The Portuguese enforced catholic orthodox in goans. They forcibly converted many people and those who used to worship Hindu gods, Jewish god were tourtured, killed, kids were separated from parents, fetuses were pulled from mothers, banishment to Mozambique, burnt at stakes  such a horrible history is not even mentioned anywhere in Indian history books. These Portuguese didn’t want to leave india as well after inflicting so much suffering on goans. They should have been kicked right after independence Nehru waited till 61 to kick them out.

Check how many Brahmins were converted forcefully or killed in this.. Genocide of Brahmins is never discussed in our history be it Mandya Iyengars or this one or even during Mughal rule or after Godse riots or during Dravidian movement.  Unfortunately Sikh genocide in the 80s get more press coverage than any of these

[coffee_rules]

Just now, diga said:

Check how many Brahmins were converted forcefully or killed in this.. Genocide of Brahmins is never discussed in our history be it Mandya Iyengars or this one or even during Mughal rule or after Godse riots or during Dravidian movement.  Unfortunately Sikh genocide in the 80s get more press coverage than any of these

Just like 1984 , after MKG was assassinated, 1000s of GSB (Goa Saraswat Brahmins) including Savarkar’s brother were killed, women raped. It was only Print Media then, Nehru got this muted. Same with KPs, unfortunately you don’t see nobody asking for a separate country with an armed insurgency, but they get abused as BJP ke Baamans!! 
 

On topic, there are many sources now documenting the stories . Priests have hidden idols of temples or moved to neighboring villages in Karnataka. There are many communities in coastal Karnataka - Bunts, Konkani speaking people who took refuge in Karnataka due to the Portuguese persecution of Hindus during the Goa inquisition.

[BacktoCricaddict]

Such heinous acts are par for the course for conquerors and colonial powers throughout history. The reason the Portuguese atrocities are not discussed much is because of their small magnitude of power in India - compared to the Brits, the French, Dutch and Portuguese influence was minuscule on a pan-India scale.  All of these European nations did exactly the same thing in Africa and wherever else they set foot.

 

 

[coffee_rules]

24 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Such heinous acts are par for the course for conquerors and colonial powers throughout history. The reason the Portuguese atrocities are not discussed much is because of their small magnitude of power in India - compared to the Brits, the French, Dutch and Portuguese influence was minuscule on a pan-India scale.  All of these European nations did exactly the same thing in Africa and wherever else they set foot.

 

 

Spaniards and Portuguese have erased whole of indigenous population in South and Central America. They have killed most of them and their cultural artifacts as well. They didn’t do it in India mainly because we were richer and more beneficial being alive than dead. They taxed us and built their country and called it an Industrial Revolution. It was totally funded by money looted by colonization in Africa, Asia . Western civilization zindabad! 

[Lone Wolf]

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

This hasn’t been discussed at all in Indian history. Recently learnt the inquisition of goa by Portuguese this is terrible. The Portuguese enforced catholic orthodox in goans. They forcibly converted many people and those who used to worship Hindu gods, Jewish god were tourtured, killed, kids were separated from parents, fetuses were pulled from mothers, banishment to Mozambique, burnt at stakes  such a horrible history is not even mentioned anywhere in Indian history books. These Portuguese didn’t want to leave india as well after inflicting so much suffering on goans. They should have been kicked right after independence Nehru waited till 61 to kick them out.

Reason why Portuguese were so unsuccessful in India.  Their main purpose was to spread Catholic terms & ideology & wiping out indigenous culture.  It was a flawed strategy to begin with. 

British focused mainly on looting India economically & didn't made much efforts in tinkering with religions.  Found instant success & turned Indian people to their corner.  Made alliances with Princely states & local warlords.   Made sure majority of India didn't support 1857 revolt & crushed Maratha Mughal confederacy with ease. 

 

Coming to your point on Nehru...  initially India hoped for peaceful transfer like French colonies...  Dictator Salazar was riding on his high horse as a NATO ally & directly going against a European country would be suicide during those times.  Republican Eisenhower govt. in US was a factor too. 

So yeah in the end India made a daring attempt to use force against a NATO nation which was a huuuuge deal back in the day. 

This also made Nehru very overconfident that he could take on China a year later when he ordered his troops to cross Kunlun Mountain range even beyond McMohan line (in famous Forward policy)  the beginning of the end. 

 

[zen]

That was a time when the sword ruled (still is in some way). 
 

Basically, the non-European regions suffered at the hands of Europeans (Belgian in Congo is another example of extreme cruelty). Europe later suffered due to the Nazis, allowing many colonies to free themselves. Earlier, there were the Mongols. 
 

If the colonies were not occupied, their own people would have done harm to them. For e.g. Mughals in the subcon. Ashoka is known for Kalinga. Now we are seeing how cruel militant groups in Africa can be. Islamic countries like Pakistan treat its own population following a non-Islamic religion shabbily.

 

I like the idea of people of subcon (or whatever) feeling “united” against the “cruelties” of occupation but I also think that if not the “occupiers”, the powerful native folks would have exploited the people and region too. 

 

 

[gattaca]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

That was a time when the sword ruled (still is in some way). 
 

Basically, the non-European regions suffered at the hands of Europeans (Belgian in Congo is another example of extreme cruelty). Europe later suffered due to the Nazis, allowing many colonies to free themselves. Earlier, there were the Mongols. 
 

If the colonies were not occupied, their own people would have done harm to them. For e.g. Mughals in the subcon. Ashoka is known for Kalinga. Now we are seeing how cruel militant groups in Africa can be. Islamic countries like Pakistan treat its own population following a non-Islamic religion shabbily.

 

I like the idea of people of subcon (or whatever) feeling “united” against the “cruelties” of occupation but I also think that if not the “occupiers”, the powerful native folks would have exploited the people and region too. 

 

 

 The last part is a meek argument if not for the occupiers someone else would have done it. We had kings who took care of people india as whole india was Richie rich. Our people had culture and money. British took everything in the end we were really poor India didn’t had any Industrial Revolution. After British left we were growing at 1 pc GDP before British out growth was highest in the world we even took over china. Our life expectancy was lower than Africa many Indians were indentured labors in British colonies. 

[nevada]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

That was a time when the sword ruled (still is in some way). 
 

Basically, the non-European regions suffered at the hands of Europeans (Belgian in Congo is another example of extreme cruelty). Europe later suffered due to the Nazis, allowing many colonies to free themselves. Earlier, there were the Mongols. 
 

If the colonies were not occupied, their own people would have done harm to them. For e.g. Mughals in the subcon. Ashoka is known for Kalinga. Now we are seeing how cruel militant groups in Africa can be. Islamic countries like Pakistan treat its own population following a non-Islamic religion shabbily.

 

I like the idea of people of subcon (or whatever) feeling “united” against the “cruelties” of occupation but I also think that if not the “occupiers”, the powerful native folks would have exploited the people and region too. 

 

 

This is an interesting and valid counterpoint. People have suffered at the hands of someone or the other since centuries. The white man is demonised for slavery but Indian traders peddling goods in Africa reportedly bought and sold slaves as well! Africans of some regions enslaved people of other African regions and ran slave bazaars, selling them like cattle. We have Manipur tribal conflict which has consumed over 100 lives and shows no semblance of a resolution anytime soon. 

[zen]

43 minutes ago, gattaca said:

 The last part is a meek argument if not for the occupiers someone else would have done it. We had kings who took care of people india as whole india was Richie rich. Our people had culture and money. British took everything in the end we were really poor India didn’t had any Industrial Revolution. After British left we were growing at 1 pc GDP before British out growth was highest in the world we even took over china. Our life expectancy was lower than Africa many Indians were indentured labors in British colonies. 

 

That is delusional. Read about the caste system, sati practices, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan, ..., ... 

 

The rich and the powerful, irrespective of their nationality/ethnicity/etc, will exploit those they can exploit 

 

Note that it is the British that forced the subcon to become "united" so there was no "we" before. If I recall correctly, you are from the Andhra area, which could still be an independent country ruled by the Nizams if not for the British or India could have been "Mugalestan"

 

PS The British Rule, in a way, stopped Ghazwa-e-Hind

Edited August 11, 2023 by zen

[Lone Wolf]

8 minutes ago, zen said:

 

That is delusional. Read about the caste system, sati practices, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan, ..., ... 

 

The rich and the powerful, irrespective of their nationality/ethnicity/etc, will exploit those they can exploit 

 

Note that it is the British that forced the subcon to become "united" so there was no "we" before. If I recall correctly, you are from the Andhra area, which could still be an independent country ruled by the Nizams if not for the British or India could have been "Mugalestan"

Yep even Marathas were extremely brutal in Bengal & surrounding areas & levied Taxes ruthlessly....  Not to mention killing civilians during repeated invasions into Bengal.  It's well documented. 

Sword eventually reigned supreme in those times. 

[gattaca]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

That is delusional. Read about the caste system, sati practices, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan, ..., ... 

 

The rich and the powerful, irrespective of their nationality/ethnicity/etc, will exploit those they can exploit 

 

Note that it is the British that forced the subcon to become "united" so there was no "we" before. If I recall correctly, you are from the Andhra area, which could still be an independent country ruled by the Nizams if not for the British or India could have been "Mugalestan"

 

PS The British Rule, in a way, stopped Ghazwa-e-Hind

 

1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

Yep even Marathas were extremely brutal in Bengal & surrounding areas & levied Taxes ruthlessly....  Not to mention killing civilians during repeated invasions into Bengal.  It's well documented. 

Sword eventually reigned supreme in those times. 

So you guys ok with British looting and starving and killing millions of Indians , indentured Indian servants abandoned in colonies and happy British ruled India ? All the problems of Pakistan and china as well ? British erased lot of Indian culture as well. The practices like sati were bad but even Europe had even worse practices especially the Vikings and English had pull, hang and quartered  but they grew out of it. Killings happened in Europe too Vikings repeatedly killed French and British, British and French fought wars and multiple European nations as well.   Indirectly you guys are supporting saying it was better to impose rules on Indians. The colonial mindset has really destroyed few Indian minds.  India was called Hindustan , bharat from earlier times as well. British and French had multiple nobles who ruled over different part of the country. It is hypothetical argument to say we wouldn’t be United as no one would have known if we didn’t had any colonial presence.

don’t open link if you are weak at heart it has gory details 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered#:~:text=During the High Middle Ages,burning%2C beheading%2C and quartering.

Edited August 11, 2023 by gattaca

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

That is delusional. Read about the caste system, sati practices, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan, ..., ... 

 

The rich and the powerful, irrespective of their nationality/ethnicity/etc, will exploit those they can exploit 

 

Note that it is the British that forced the subcon to become "united" so there was no "we" before. If I recall correctly, you are from the Andhra area, which could still be an independent country ruled by the Nizams if not for the British or India could have been "Mugalestan"

 

PS The British Rule, in a way, stopped Ghazwa-e-Hind

We had the jaati /varna system. Portuguese and Spanish had the social hierarchical system called Casta and imposed the word in English language.
They had exported the Casta system to South America and Africa too to racially segregate people. The European Casta was racial and ethnicity based hierarchy . According to author Dharampal  who has documented the pre-British Indian society through British chronicles , varna was not rigid and jaati was mainly rigid due to it attached to professions. People were endogamous mainly to protect their profession. There might be atrocities but the severity of it is more post-British , it has been observed that many different jastis studied in the same gurukul. The English census was obsessed with social hierarchies of Europe have documented the castes to be more rigid and hierarchical and it has been distorted ever since, even by Indians themselves and due to Marxist influencers. 
 

Sati was never widespread and many kings had banned sati even before the British.   (Travancore) One should read about it (Meenakshi Jain’s book on Sati) it before throwing some generic statements. It was recorded more among Rajputs than in Bengalis where the British supposedly saw more and got it banned. It was done more for a British justification of militarizing EIC to colonize India. Not condoning Sati as a good practice, but it was hardly practiced in all communities and in many cases it was by choice. There have cases where widowed mothers have not gone through sati while widowed daughters have opted to self-immolate. Anyway, the first thing we read in our textbooks is British banned Sati!!

 

British didn’t unify India, culturally we had been United before. India is civilizational state rather than a nation state. We would have been fragmented like Europe if we didn’t have a common identity. This is what Marxists say to justify colonialism, that without British there would be India. Well, it was called Bharat before and some of us still do.

 

Ghazwa is an Islamist pipe dream. Islamic rule was wiped out from India end of 18th century when Marathas had planted a stooge sultan in Delhi after Nadir Shah  ran back to Afghanistan to save his own kingdom from his cousins.  NS had decimated us in Panipat. Ranjit Singh ruled till Afghanistan in the 19th century when central Asian or Afghan Islamic kingdoms had already diminished due to infighting. No Afghan or Persian ruler had the capability to launch an attack on India if the British had not invaded India. 

Edited August 11, 2023 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

Yep even Marathas were extremely brutal in Bengal & surrounding areas & levied Taxes ruthlessly....  Not to mention killing civilians during repeated invasions into Bengal.  It's well documented. 

Sword eventually reigned supreme in those times. 

https://cbkwgl.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/the-bargi-menace-sifting-fact-from-fiction/
 

The perceived Bengali massacres byarathas is not what it is thought of as. Read that long article. Marathas employed small warlords who with guerilla warfare attacked in the night. Most of the looting pillaging were done by these mercenaries. 
 

“There are no references anywhere of Marathas pillaging with rapine from any of the areas they raided, from Thanjavur to Punjab. What we are seeing here, the ones giving them the notoriety are the court chronicles of Alivardi Khan and his subordinates. They treated the area as a war zone and plundered the wealth. What will people do, if they are in a warzone, a warzone as extensive as the land from Chilika lake to Murshidabad? Besides, the question is, were they asked to do it or did they do it for fun? And how much of this is because those wronged solicited the help of Marathas? And was harassing common people to the level of rapine a reality? How different is this from Jahangir’s false painting of shooting Malik Ambar’s head?”

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, gattaca said:

 

So you guys ok with British looting and starving and killing millions of Indians , indentured Indian servants abandoned in colonies and happy British ruled India ? All the problems of Pakistan and china as well ? British erased lot of Indian culture as well. The practices like sati were bad but even Europe had even worse practices especially the Vikings and English had pull, hang and quartered  but they grew out of it. Killings happened in Europe too Vikings repeatedly killed French and British, British and French fought wars and multiple European nations as well.   Indirectly you guys are supporting saying it was better to impose rules on Indians. The colonial mindset has really destroyed few Indian minds.  India was called Hindustan , bharat from earlier times as well. British and French had multiple nobles who ruled over different part of the country. It is hypothetical argument to say we wouldn’t be United as no one would have known if we didn’t had any colonial presence.

don’t open link if you are weak at heart it has gory details 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered#:~:text=During the High Middle Ages,burning%2C beheading%2C and quartering.

 

No Indian ruler would have done the same amount of looting and pillaging that the Islamist and British did. Also, bigger kingdoms would fight and devour smaller ones that defied their supremacy, but the governance and rule as per raja dharma didn't affect people. People would be taxed the same way as before. Many kingdoms would not even  impose the language and culture onto the ones that lost. There is nothing that says we would be worse if Britishers had not invaded India. They in fact looted some 45 trillion dollars in 200 years and built Industrial UK. The railways, postal system, everything was done to facilitate the loot.

Edited August 11, 2023 by coffee_rules

[zen]

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

 

So you guys ok with British looting and starving and killing millions of Indians , indentured Indian servants abandoned in colonies and happy British ruled India ? All the problems of Pakistan and china as well ? British erased lot of Indian culture as well. The practices like sati were bad but even Europe had even worse practices especially the Vikings and English had pull, hang and quartered  but they grew out of it. Killings happened in Europe too Vikings repeatedly killed French and British, British and French fought wars and multiple European nations as well.   Indirectly you guys are supporting saying it was better to impose rules on Indians. The colonial mindset has really destroyed few Indian minds.  India was called Hindustan , bharat from earlier times as well. British and French had multiple nobles who ruled over different part of the country. It is hypothetical argument to say we wouldn’t be United as no one would have known if we didn’t had any colonial presence.

don’t open link if you are weak at heart it has gory details 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered#:~:text=During the High Middle Ages,burning%2C beheading%2C and quartering.

 

Usually, anyone who rules a region attempts to do that including Ashoka, the Mughals, the British, etc.  ... Nazis did that in Europe. 

 

No one condones such acts but to imply that "Indians", and that too when there was no "India", which is a product of British Rule, and when the region faced Ghazwa-e-Hind, would have done this or that is a pointless exercise designed to create a false facade to console oneself that things could have been different (and assuming that without the British, India would be present "India"). 

 

In an imperfect world, if I had to pick my "poison", I would pick British Rule over the Islamization of India (Ghazwa-e-Hind) under Mughals, Nizams, Tipu Sultans, etc. 

 

[gattaca]

31 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Usually, anyone who rules a region attempts to do that including Ashoka, the Mughals, the British, etc.  ... Nazis did that in Europe. 

 

No one condones such acts but to imply that "Indians", and that too when there was no "India", which is a product of British Rule, and when the region faced Ghazwa-e-Hind, would have done this or that is a pointless exercise designed to create a false facade to console oneself that things could have been different (and assuming that without the British, India would be present "India"). 

 

In an imperfect world, if I had to pick my "poison", I would pick British Rule over the Islamization of India (Ghazwa-e-Hind) under Mughals, Nizams, Tipu Sultans, etc. 

 

Mughals were in india for more than few centuries right around the British they were weak and useless. None of arungazeb’s sons had any power. The Islamization happened before British came and Nizams ruled Hyderabad for long time even after British. No mass conversion or forced  happened in telangana like it did in north. 

[zen]

26 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Mughals were in india for more than few centuries right around the British they were weak and useless. None of arungazeb’s sons had any power. The Islamization happened before British came and Nizams ruled Hyderabad for long time even after British. No mass conversion or forced  happened in telangana like it did in north. 

 

Yes, centuries under Islamic rule, which gradually weakened by the presence of the British. India can't even handle a weakened Pakistan (and states like J&K, Bengal, etc.)  with much authority. India was a region (not a country) with a vast Muslim population that included rulers of various states so is likely to find ways to eventually gain the advantage over the Hindus. For many, Ghazwa-e-Hind is still on (only paused for the time being). 

 

PS Hindus in the subcon were divided and likely to remain divided. Cannot even turn India into a Hindu nation despite their majority!

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by zen

[coffee_rules]

34 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Mughals were in india for more than few centuries right around the British they were weak and useless. None of arungazeb’s sons had any power. The Islamization happened before British came and Nizams ruled Hyderabad for long time even after British. No mass conversion or forced  happened in telangana like it did in north. 

British didn’t weaken the Islamic rule, before they took over in the 19th century, Marathas at the end of 18th century had ended it .

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by coffee_rules

[Vijy]

whoever arrived in India did plenty of looting, pillaging, and other heinous crimes. it goes back to the time of not just delhi sultanate and european foreign powers, but even earlier to shakas, greeks, and so on. the extent of the crimes did vary, and one would therefore need to pick one's "poison" as @zen wrote. I don't know if I would ncessarily choose british over others, but I can agree that there are some worse alternatives