Revision of History textbooks- NCERT

[coffee_rules]

4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Oh really? No I am not trolling. My Maharashtrian wife may have brainwashed me :-))))

 

I need some new evidence for my hypothesis now. 

Mine told me that Telugu is the French of India

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

13 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Mine told me that Telugu is the French of India

 

Wonder if you had a French wife, she would say that French is the Telugu of Europe ;-)?

[Lord]

Unpopular opinion : History should not be taught to young kids upto 10th standard. Instead more useful things like civic sense, finances,discipline etc should be inculcated from early age. Atleast it should be optional 

 

But then I was bad at history in school

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

6 minutes ago, Lord said:

civic sense, finances,discipline

Also, how to evaluate evidence. How to identify bullspit. The difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence. How to see things from another person or community's perspective.

[Lone Wolf]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Unsurprising. Someone who shares their heritage conquered other lands and spread the culture has to be a hero there.

 

Interesting how one man's hero-king is another man's plunderer. I have often argued on this board and elsewhere that most (if not all) kings/emperors were glorified tyrants who may have possessed brilliant minds, but were narcissistic, cruel megalomaniacs who had no qualms about mowing people down in the name of expanding their kingdom's footprint, spreading their religion, punishing another king for some transgression or whatever other excuse they could come up with. 

 

Just like Timur is a hero to Uzbeks and villain to us, would our glorious emperors be someone else's plunderer?  

Maybe Chola Kings to Lankans perhaps these are the probably lone exceptions.  

India culturally dominated most of South East Asia throughout the course of its history so I doubt there is any resentment there for it.

[Lone Wolf]

2 hours ago, rangeelaraja said:

For the true Indian cuisine , you have to eat at old temples in South India

Yes Of course as the Islamic impact was far lesser in the South you can easily attribute to it based on even the  Architecture and cultural setting.  It's lot more closer to 5-6th Century India perhaps.

[singhvivek141]

4 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

The answer to your first sentence in your second paragraph -- I must have passed out X and XII at the same time as your father :-)!!

 

 

My father is 70 y.o. 
 

[Lone Wolf]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Vijyyanagar didn't spring out of nowthere  and start innovating. 6th century was the golden age in Indian history. Kalidasa , Bhasa and many advanced literature beyon what the world was known in that time . You wouldn't have invaders trying to attack India , if we had mediocre kings.

Vijayanagara Kings itself enabled extensive trading with Portugese & brought several advancements especially including water management and military tech stuff.

In fact Bahmanis were also far more advanced than Mughals and other contemporary Kingdoms through similar tactics.

The Kingdoms who learned and adapted fared pretty well overall.

 

Invaders would always try to attack India coz India had resources and cultivable land in abundance.  There is no rocket science to it.

India somehow managed to thwart most of it for all those years thanks to somewhat decent tech advancements and sheer numbers advantage.

But with the course of time by the later half of the 10th Century West Asia and Europe moved decisively far more advanced and numbers would count for nothing in what was to come.  It reflected in the results later on.

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

My father is 70 y.o. 
 

I am not quite there yet :-)!!

[BacktoCricaddict]

45 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Maybe Chola Kings to Lankans perhaps these are the probably lone exceptions.  

India culturally dominated most of South East Asia throughout the course of its history so I doubt there is any resentment there for it.

 

But even within "mainland India" there were so many invasions, conquests, plunders etc etc., but we don't resent those. I mean, I don't hear anyone from UP resent that the Rashtrakutas conquered the Pratiharas. Is "Indian-on-Indian" violence okay? 

 

In the end, every invader did everything that they could do to annihilate others. Some succeeded more than others. 

[Mariyam]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

I don’t remember which thread , but in the context of Indian Muslims feeling alienated if we  talk about past injustices or temple destruction as there is nothing they can feel attached to Indian civilization. @Muloghonto it is.  It was about our views on Kabir/Sufism I think! 
 

So the argument is that if we continue this path of correction of History taught in schools, do Indian Muslims get alienated as we are supposed to move forward as a nation. 

I think this is a non issue.

 

For those who want to believe that they are descendants of the conquering Mughals to ‘superior’ will believe what they want to. Changing text books won’t matter. They will think it to be a ploy by the government to put them down.

 

For those who believe that Mughal rule was nothing but pure evil, believed that even when the NCERT text books had some good things to say about some of the Mughals.

 

 

[singhvivek141]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

But even within "mainland India" there were so many invasions, conquests, plunders etc etc., but we don't resent those. I mean, I don't hear anyone from UP resent that the Rashtrakutas conquered the Pratiharas. Is "Indian-on-Indian" violence okay? 

 

In the end, every invader did everything that they could do to annihilate others. Some succeeded more than others. 

War between army and army is understandable.
What follows post Islamic era was the loot, plundering of temples, killing of innocent civilians, slavery, r@pe and selective annihilation of cultural symbolism.

[Lone Wolf]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

But even within "mainland India" there were so many invasions, conquests, plunders etc etc., but we don't resent those. I mean, I don't hear anyone from UP resent that the Rashtrakutas conquered the Pratiharas. Is "Indian-on-Indian" violence okay? 

 

In the end, every invader did everything that they could do to annihilate others. Some succeeded more than others. 

I mean the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas frequently defeated Palas of Bihar/ Bengal as well and even Cholas inflicted humiliating defeat to Palas and took insane amount of booty along the way.  The cultural impact was either too minimal or got lost along with the course of history.  The follow up was far more impactful on Indian Psyche.

 

Don't think anyone could match Timur's brutality though. That sh*t is unmatched and could be rivalled perhaps only by Genghis Khan himself which tells us how devastating his Invasion must be. Indian ncert history books till this day don't mention much about his Invasion beyond a few lines and it is heavily censored.  Bollywood never brings up the subject as well.

 

 

You know Nader Shah the ruler of Persia after looting Delhi made Persia virtually tax free for a year, it gave him legitimacy and much needed capital boost to solidify his rule.

Foreign Invasion can be tool to divert internal fault lines or stuff like that.

US has mastered this art in modern era.

 

[coffee_rules]

6 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Unsurprising. Someone who shares their heritage conquered other lands and spread the culture has to be a hero there.

 

Interesting how one man's hero-king is another man's plunderer. I have often argued on this board and elsewhere that most (if not all) kings/emperors were glorified tyrants who may have possessed brilliant minds, but were narcissistic, cruel megalomaniacs who had no qualms about mowing people down in the name of expanding their kingdom's footprint, spreading their religion, punishing another king for some transgression or whatever other excuse they could come up with. 

 

Just like Timur is a hero to Uzbeks and villain to us, would our glorious emperors be someone else's plunderer?  

This argument is devoid of any Shatrubodh. You don’t compare Islamic invaders to those of Rashtrakutas or Cholas. They didn’t impose their religion, language on those they conquered. The local population was spared in war and after the war , the local administration was not changed. Ever seen Pandtas imposing Tamil on Chalukya kings after they defeated and ruled all should till in Tamil? They were all bound by Raj Dharma. Islamic invaders were bound religious diktat to defeat  all idol worship. As done in Mecca in the 7th century . It is a religious injunction and sultans were bound by that. So temples were destroyed , people were converted. wealth was looted . 

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I think this is a non issue.

 

For those who want to believe that they are descendants of the conquering Mughals to ‘superior’ will believe what they want to. Changing text books won’t matter. They will think it to be a ploy by the government to put them down.

 

For those who believe that Mughal rule was nothing but pure evil, believed that even when the NCERT text books had some good things to say about some of the Mughals.

 

 

No , don’t agree. A large section of majority Hindus believe that Moghul rule was all about Ganga Jamuna tehzeeb because of NCERT books and Bollywood. 

[coffee_rules]

5 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

Vijayanagara Kings itself enabled extensive trading with Portugese & brought several advancements especially including water management and military tech stuff.

In fact Bahmanis were also far more advanced than Mughals and other contemporary Kingdoms through similar tactics.

The Kingdoms who learned and adapted fared pretty well overall.

 

Invaders would always try to attack India coz India had resources and cultivable land in abundance.  There is no rocket science to it.

India somehow managed to thwart most of it for all those years thanks to somewhat decent tech advancements and sheer numbers advantage.

But with the course of time by the later half of the 10th Century West Asia and Europe moved decisively far more advanced and numbers would count for nothing in what was to come.  It reflected in the results later on.

 

 

 

 

How does this prove in anyway the Moghuls were superior to Indian kings ? They invaded through sheer brutality and had cannons while Indian kings thought they were fighting a righteous army. 

[Lone Wolf]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Indian kings thought they were fighting a righteous army

There is no righteous army anywhere whatsoever & that too in that era? this is the kind of backwardness that ensured even numbers advantage would go for a toss like in the case of Prithviraj who got attacked before sunrise in a surprise assault.

It's like how that feminine clown Bhutto saying "wo raat mai aate hai" (in his voice)

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Del

Edited July 19, 2025 by coffee_rules

[Lord]

10 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I think this is a non issue.

 

For those who want to believe that they are descendants of the conquering Mughals to ‘superior’ will believe what they want to. Changing text books won’t matter. They will think it to be a ploy by the government to put them down.

 

For those who believe that Mughal rule was nothing but pure evil, believed that even when the NCERT text books had some good things to say about some of the Mughals.

 

 

Yes a small issue given unnecessary attention while the case of a girl committing suicide due to molestation has been put on back burner for obvious reasons. 

[singhvivek141]

1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

There is no righteous army anywhere whatsoever & that too in that era? this is the kind of backwardness that ensured even numbers advantage would go for a toss like in the case of Prithviraj who got attacked before sunrise in a surprise assault.

It's like how that feminine clown Bhutto saying "wo raat mai aate hai" (in his voice)

Thats called as cultural shock, there was no social media or internet that day. So, they didn't knew or weren't aware that these barbarians didn't follow the long established ground rules.
Yeah, we can call them naive. But tbh...200-300 years from now even the future gen will call us Naive and fools coz we let Pak walk freely despite having an upper hand in Op Sindoor.