FYI - Bheem and Others

[kumble_rocks]

Continuing our discussion as promised , I am responding to your quote on the other thread.

KR can you point out what were the "Petty Gains" also I would like to see the list of Rajput rulers that went for those said "Petty Gains" Also some numbers to corroborate the 100x factors would be helpfull. BTW when was the last time any Indian Ruler - especially the Rajput -fought for his "religion" ? And if you now realize thru hindsight that they(the Rajputs) did a mistake by letting down their religion and/or not being united under the Banner of "Hinduism" why do you see a problem when Me and DR propose a similar theory to deal with the same nonsense (which is much more magnified and widespread) ?

I think we have to tread very carefully here because in essence this topic can be deemed borderline religious. Anyways, I going to engage in this debate as promised. Now, In the interest of fairness , let's not just blame Rajputs but I will replace them with "Hindu Ruler" lest somebody may be offended. You are asking me to tread deep into history if you want a list of Rajput rulers who allied with Mughals. Now , your claim is moghuls were barbaric and hardline Islamists who showed very little religious tolerance to their hindu subjects. If that was the case how and why did the Hindu rulers align with them. And If they allied with them without being coerced, shouldn't they be held as guilty party just like those bigot Mughals whom you readily criticize . That's the jest of my point. And my original quote which opened the Pandora's box was , why were we such wimpy over a extended period of time in the medieval period that a small sized armies from Persia and Central Asia invaded us successfully and ruled us over an extended period of time. Now, let's talk about how Islamic rulers came to power. Like CC mentioned earlier, Muslim invasion of India was a failure on our part to unite India and continue the longstanding tradition of an 'Indian empire' once the Pal Empire fell. Empires of Dharmpala and Devapala encompassed almost whole of India except south(some parts were included).Also, I would like to add that Rajendra Chola from Chola dynasty in the South could be considered as the last hindu ruler to encompass large area of India because he not only defeated Mahapala in Bengal/Bihar, but was able to win overseas in Burma, Java ,Sumatra and Thailand. Therefore , around 1040 AD , we can conclude that their was some tradition of "Indian Empire" ruled by rulers who followed Dharmic religions.BTW, One thing I will give it to you is the fact that Dharmic religion was never spread in the same barbaric way as these abrahamic religions.Otherwise these Palas had ample oppurtunity to force Buddhism on their subjects and they did not do that. The initial Islamic invasion was started by Ghazni in the North West and he permanently conquered Punjab and Sindh.He appointed weak Hindu rulers as his Vassals. Some of them did not even bother to put up a fight like in Meerut and Kannauj. Only kashmir was able to resist his advances. And yes he was a hypocritical bigoted Islamist who raided somnath repeatedly and can be considered as Iconoclastic invaders.Also, I would like to add that their were brave Hindu rulers like King Jayapala who resisted the onslaught gallantly .Jayapala gathered a large army with the help of neighboring kingdoms and mounted a counter attack. The Ghazni forces were more mobile and superior riders compared to the slower elephant-mounted Indians. They were routed and the Khyber Pass and countless number of elephants and other booty fell into the hands of Ghazni forces. The invaders had a foothold on the Indian soil and controlled the gateway, the Khyber Pass, to the vast Indian subcontinent.So , it is a fact that Ghazni had a much smaller army than Hindu rulers but was still successful in defeating them. After Ghazni, it was Ghori who during the last quarter of the twelfth century invaded the Indo-Gangetic plain, conquering in succession Ghazni, Multan, Sindh, Lahore, and Delhi and was instrumental in setting up the Delhi Sultanate.It is a fact that Hindu armies of even the great Prithviraj Chauhan far outnumbered that of Ghori , but still lost eventually to the tactics of the Arabian horsemen. It was his Ghori's Generals who set the Delhi Sultanate in the North and started muslim rule in Northern India. So , it is fact that both Ghazi and Ghori defeated much much larger Hindu army. You will have to accept this part of the History and you can definitely look it up Wikipidea or Britannica or simply google it. And they did set up Vassals of some of these Hindu rulers who rather than put up a fight , simply surrendered. Finally it was the fall of Vijayanagara empire in the south to Deccan sultanates and Delhi Sultanates emergence in the north that Muslim rulers ruled almost whole of India by 15 th century. Coming back to Mughal Empire , Babur fought three main wars to conquer Nothern India. The first battle of Panipat wherein he defeated Lodhi which was between two Islamic rulers although Lodi had predominantly Hindu warriors and he lost. The second battle of Khanwa with Rajputs, Babur defeated a formidable army raised by Rana Sanga of Mewar in this battle and firmly established his rule over North India. Iam quoting Wikipedia verbatim on the strength of the army - According to Mewari sources, the Rajput army which took to the field comprised of 80,000 horsemen and 500 war elephants and included 7 Rajas, 9 Raos and 104 Rawals and Rawats (lesser chieftains). It had no artillery or Muskets. Hasan Khan Mewati and Mahmood Lodhi (the claimant to the Lodhi throne) joined this army with their contingent. Estimates of Mughal army strength are not clear. Babur had come to India with twelve thousand soldiers. There is reason to believe that this number must have swelled, as Mughal army must have been joined by the Afghan nobles who had invited Babur to India. Yet it is generally believed that Babur was vastly outnumbered by the Rajput confederacy.Therefore, it is a fact that even Babur was vastly outnumbered by Rajput forces , yet he defeated them. Now the first traitor Rajput would be a. Shiladi who was a Tomar Rajput chieftain of northeast Malwa in the early decades of 16th century India. He commanded a mercenary force of Purabiya soldiers(hailing from present-day eastern U.P. and Bihar) and for that reason is himself occasionally referred to as a Purabiya Rajput by contemporary sources. He remained a decisive factor in the politics of north and central India during his life and was responsible for sinking the fortunes of many kings by his sudden defections. He gained everlasting notoriety by betraying Rana Sanga in the battle of Khanwa and causing the Rajput confederacy’s defeat.And please note that you had a huge problem with Khilji dynasty and rightly so , but apparently this shameless hindu ruler Shiladi did not. He along with his kinsfolk Medini Rai rose to positions of power in the service of Sultan Mahmood Khilji II (Ruled 1510-1531) of Malwa.He actually worked with Babur under no coersion to oust Rana Sanga for petty poltical gain.This, in spite of the fact that Rana Sangha gave his daughter to Shiladi's son. Others include - b.Raja Man Singh (Man Singh I) or "Kunwar Man Singh" (1540-1614) was the Kacchwaha Raja of Amber, a state later known as Jaipur. He was a trusted general of the Mughal emperor Akbar, who sided with Emperor Akbar and fought against the great Rana Pratap Singh. Surely , you cannot ignore the fact that Rana Pratap Singh was a true patriot who wanted to liberate India whereas the Man Singh was a traitor who sided with the Akbar against a Hindu ruler. Now, do I hear criticism from the likes you or DR ? c.Numerous Rajput clans like that of Kachwaha clan gave their daughters for matrimonial alliance to Akbar and other subsequent Mughal emperors. In fact , was not even in a position of strength to threaten some of them , yet Raja of Jodhpur gave his daughter to him for matrimonial alliance . In fact Jahangir's mother is Jodhbhai. Others include daughter of Raja of Jaisalmer and niece of Raja of Bikaner Again , they did this on their own free will and their was no coersion, only persuasion in some cases.Even Jahangir married another Rajput Man Bai . Thereafter,Jahangir was allowed to marry, in quick succession, a number of accomplished girls from the aristocratic Mughal and Rajput families. One of his favourite wives was a Rajput Princess, known as Jagat Gosain, who gave birth to Prince Khurram, the future Shah Jahan, Jahangir's successor to the throne. Now, by this time the Hindu rulers knew about the Barbarity and religious intolerance of the Ghaznis, Ghoris, Khilzi's etc. But still decided not to unite among themselves but on numerous occasions sided with Mughals and other Muslim rulers. They even give their daughters/sisters away for matrimonial alliance and yet you fail to criticize them on this accord. d. It is also useful to note that even amidst the religious intolerance of Aurangazeb, a great many top imperial officers continued to be Hindu, including Aurangzeb's highest general Mirza Raja Jai Singh.Aurangzeb sent his Jaipuri general Jai Singh to attack the Marathas. Jai Singh's blistering attacks were so successful that he was able to persuade Shivaji to agree to peace by becoming a Mughal vassal.Talk about betrayal by Hindus against Hindus. Now, don't tell me that you condone this kind of treacherous behavior by Hindu rulers. I can give you more citations if you need. Also, I am sure CC will be able to provide his own exhaustive list as well. But in summary , nobody can deny the fact that these Islamic invaders were generally much more barbaric and culturally backward than the Dharmic Hindu rulers. But only few of the Mughals like Babur and Aurangzeb were hard core Islamic Fundamentalists. But they did have their ugly sides. No denying that. Now, do I have a problem if you and DR unite under Hindu banner. Hell NO. Do I have a problem if you absolve Modi or Thackerey of all crimes, Hell YES. Do I have a problem with Sharia , HELL YES. Do I think Indian Muslims are traitors by and large , HELL NO.

[CC1981]

Also, I am sure CC will be able to provide his own exhaustive list as well.

I will pass now...thank you for the research but i don't think i can top this post of yours based on the time i have in my hand these days... top notch job but i am sure your intended audience will run away like mine did when i opened a few chapters on Bengali history. :cantstop: PS: Only factual inaccuracy i can find is when you allege that Islamic invasion started under Ghazni..that is not so. Islamic invasion started under Mohammed bin Qasim who conquered Sindh/balochistan but was recalled by the Khalifat in Baghdad and his conquests reverted to local control. One crucial reason of Muslim success was their adoption of the hun bow (and later, the mongol bow) which were far superior in range & accuracy to the Indian bows of that era and significantly less bulkier (could be fired from a horse unlike indian bows which couldnt be fired except by infantry). Mo bin Q came around early 700 CE ( 710 ?) while the Pala empire formed around 750 CE..basically, he popped in during the intermediate period between the fall of the Harshavardhana-Pulakesin empire and the rise of the Pals ( there were a 50-100 year gap between one empire and another usually in the subcontinent). PPS: I'd say that Vijayanagara empire was the last 'dharmic' empire in the subcontinent, though it was the smallest empire in Indian history ( only areas south of Krishna-Tungabhadra were in Vijayanagara domains) with Achutya Raja being the last true non-muslim emperor of India. PPPS: up until the time of Pala empire's collapse, Indians lived in & controlled Afghanistan too - then divided into two parts known as Kamboja & Gandhara.

[CC1981]

As per Babur's victory- it is said that it was the first time artillery was used in the indian subcontinent and it scared the elephants sh!tless, causing them to stampede through their own armies and cause chaos.

[Lurker]

Good one KR. Nice to see you put time and effort into putting that post. I have a question. When we talk of how communities have not been strong enough against invaders, why do we always consider the invaders as Muslims? Take for example British, were they any less of invaders? And if we can all agree that yes British were invaders then what does it say about the subcontinent as such to be ruled for 300 years by 30,000 white men? xxx

[CC1981]

And if we can all agree that yes British were invaders then what does it say about the subcontinent as such to be ruled for 300 years by 30,000 white men?

300 ? British rule was at best a 200-year rule. They gained real territorry ( i am not talking about a few bits-n-pieces trading outposts that all european powers had) in 1750 or so by defeating Siraj-ud-daullah. 1750-1947: almost 200 years. As per muslim invasions- i suppose that is singled out for the rampant destruction of culture and imposition of an inferior rulebook(The koran) in our lands. Truth be told, India has always had problems with invaders- even before Ashoka's time, emperor Kurash or the Achamenid Iran controlled parts of sindh-punjab ( sindhu river was the eastern-most boundary of the Achamenid empire under Kurash-Xerxes). Then there were the huns too (modern day afghans) who were responsible for the fall of the Gupta empire and rampant destruction of north-west india.

[Lurker]

300 ? British rule was at best a 200-year rule. They gained real territorry ( i am not talking about a few bits-n-pieces trading outposts that all european powers had) in 1750 or so by defeating Siraj-ud-daullah. 1750-1947: almost 200 years.

Alright lets take it as 200. The timeline is not my main concern here, my main concern is why are Brits not considered invaders? Yes you can pick Muslim invaders and their acts of violence but what you will also admit is that most Muslims rulers, if not all, settled in India and became Indians. Brits on the other hand ruled India, raped Indian of its ancient riches and took it all back to the Old Blighty. They are not buried in India, they constantly stayed away from Indians trying to create a "superior race" myth and looked down upon not only natives but also Anglo-Indians. By any account Brits qualify for invaders too and their atrocities are second to none. So what do we say about Indian rulers that sided with the Brits? I daresay we might open a whole set of Pandora box on this one. xxx

[CC1981]

Oh i am not happy with the Brits either...but the way i look at it,i am not too upset with the British. if not for anything then for this : If the brits hadn't taken over, India today would be another Iran with overwhelming muslim majority. We forget that the muslims had less than 200 years where they ruled almost ALL of india. It wasn't till Shah Jahan that the muslim rulership crossed the Tungabhadra with any lasting presence. The British caused more deaths than the muslim rulers easily but the reason they arn't percieved to be as evil is because they didn't try to impose their brand of inferior philosophy (X-tianity) as fervently as the muslims. I'd say that the british presence did have *some* positives attached to it while the muslim rulership hardly had any barring a few choice rulers like Akbar/Sher-Shah/Razia Sultana.

[Lurker]

Oh i am not happy with the Brits either...but the way i look at it,i am not too upset with the British. if not for anything then for this : If the brits hadn't taken over, India today would be another Iran with overwhelming muslim majority. We forget that the muslims had less than 200 years where they ruled almost ALL of india. It wasn't till Shah Jahan that the muslim rulership crossed the Tungabhadra with any lasting presence.

I would disagree with that. Even if we take only 200 years of Muslim rule(and not more) we can argue that India did not become a Iran then. A valid criticism is that Brits were able to introduce quite a few things in India. But that was only because of Renaissance happening around that time(actually started a few centuries before). The foundation of modern world was laid around this time and hence India received its own benefits. Kind of unfair to compare with the time of Muslim rule in India when not much was really happening. Plus it can also be argued that while British contributed only towards modernization in India, Islamic ruler's contribution was in a much wider spectrum - from language to culture to religion to arts. Unfortunately history is always more lavish towards a conqueror than to a Patron of Arts. xxx

[CC1981]

Even if we take only 200 years of Muslim rule(and not more) we can argue that India did not become a Iran then.

It takes more than just 200 years of total rule to turn a land as ancient as india/iran into a muslim-majority region.

Kind of unfair to compare with the time of Muslim rule in India when not much was really happening.

Not true...muslim rule IS the time when reneissance in Europe was happening..and it was muslim culture/tech that started off the reneissance in the first place (Cordoba- yes, muslims then were far more advanced & civilized than Christians or than they are today). Yet technologically & socially, India utterly stagnated and then started regressing under muslim rulership. I'd say that there were more positives with the british rulership on a societerial level than muslim rulership.

[Lurker]

Not true...muslim rule IS the time when reneissance in Europe was happening..and it was muslim culture/tech that started off the reneissance in the first place (Cordoba- yes, muslims then were far more advanced & civilized than Christians or than they are today). Yet technologically & socially, India utterly stagnated and then started regressing under muslim rulership. I'd say that there were more positives with the british rulership on a societerial level than muslim rulership.

True that Renaissance benefitted a lot from Muslim advancement but it is not that such advancement were not used in India. The fact is most of these advancement were either in theory and were actually developed for proper use by Europeans or when applicable they were present in India. As an example Kepler's law of planetary motion is almost copy to copy inspired by an Islamic astrologer. However it was actually used by Kepler and subsequently Galileo to define the modern astronomy the way we know it today. At the same time it is also true that Islamic rulers used whatever advancement they had their hands upon and shared in India. Good examples are Babur using gunpowder and Tipu Sultan using the precurssor to modern rockets. Of course one should also bear in mind that while Britan was one country, and hence its technology easily available to its territories(like India), Islamic states were no single identity and hence it is impractical to expect a discovery in Baghdad would automatically make to Shahjehanabad. That all said I would be intersted in know of any Muslim invention/discovery that is known to have taken place but did not find its way in India. xxx

[CC1981]

What happened to the other Rajput kings.

Killing each other or being chased by the mughal-allied Rajputs hunting them down.

what about Hemu ?

What about him ? he was a two-bit usurper himself...what Akbar did to him is no different to what any other Indian king would've done to him.

what about Akbar killing 30 thousand Non-Combatants that lead to a large no-of women commiting Sati and forcing the rulers to sign a treaty with Akbar ?

When and where ?

But unlike the Islamic rulers these guys did what they did for their own greed and not for the sake of their religion.

So killing for your own greed is better than killing for religion ? eh ?!

And regarding Modi / Thackary ... refer to that thread where I critique Gandhi

Dude, do not further degrade your intelligence and the reputation of India by comparing a great soul like Gandhi to bigoted goondas like Thackaray and Modi...Modi and Thackeray deserve to be compared to genocidal kings...not a beacon of benevolence and winning independence through non-violent means.

And using these few rulers and trying to spread the guilt of the Islamic empire is also something that I dont agree.

Ofcourse you wouldn't- that kinda upsets your whole 'hindus = great rulers, dont do anything seriously monstrous, muslims = evil rulers, all of them' propaganda...that is why you don't want to spread the guilt to parties that deserve it, namely the Rajputs.

[CC1981]

The 2 threads that I refer to in my previous post : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=78820#post78820 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=77927#post77927

LOL One thread has 130+ responses and another has 220+ responses and you expect us to wade through that to see precisely which posts you are referring to ? Sorry but that is smokescreen of the highest order... Mention the posts you are talking about...so that we can quickly and easily debunk it.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I will pass now...thank you for the research but i don't think i can top this post of yours based on the time i have in my hand these days... top notch job but i am sure your intended audience will run away like mine did when i opened a few chapters on Bengali history. :cantstop: PS: Only factual inaccuracy i can find is when you allege that Islamic invasion started under Ghazni..that is not so. Islamic invasion started under Mohammed bin Qasim who conquered Sindh/balochistan but was recalled by the Khalifat in Baghdad and his conquests reverted to local control. One crucial reason of Muslim success was their adoption of the hun bow (and later, the mongol bow) which were far superior in range & accuracy to the Indian bows of that era and significantly less bulkier (could be fired from a horse unlike indian bows which couldnt be fired except by infantry). Mo bin Q came around early 700 CE ( 710 ?) while the Pala empire formed around 750 CE..basically, he popped in during the intermediate period between the fall of the Harshavardhana-Pulakesin empire and the rise of the Pals ( there were a 50-100 year gap between one empire and another usually in the subcontinent). PPS: I'd say that Vijayanagara empire was the last 'dharmic' empire in the subcontinent, though it was the smallest empire in Indian history ( only areas south of Krishna-Tungabhadra were in Vijayanagara domains) with Achutya Raja being the last true non-muslim emperor of India. PPPS: up until the time of Pala empire's collapse, Indians lived in & controlled Afghanistan too - then divided into two parts known as Kamboja & Gandhara.

Coming from a clown who specializes in word play and when cornered for hard facts distributes email addresses, it's kind of rich.. And yes on bengali history u will be torn apart just asl mods whether they want that and yes getting personal wiyth how and when I got married doesn;t pass off as an argument might work in communazi cabals but most of the civilized societies.. So unless u learn how to behave I guess that topic will remain untouched.. Just a hint go have a comparison how long the battle lasted in case of bong kings and the rest u will get the picture..

[Guest dada_rocks]

KR I read thru your post and this is the high level summary of the evidence that you have provided : 1. 2 instances of Battles were Rajputs outnumbered Muslims yet lost 2. 4 instaces of Betrayal by Rajput kings. 3. Zero instances of any indulgence of REligious war from any Indian Kings. Now the period in histry that we were refering to in the discussion on the old thread was aprox between 11th to 15th centry .... Are you now saying that these are the ONLY rajput kings that ruled for about 400 yrs ? What happened to the other Rajput kings. what about Hemu ? what about Akbar killing 30 thousand Non-Combatants that lead to a large no-of women commiting Sati and forcing the rulers to sign a treaty with Akbar ? And about your comment that only Babur and Aurangzeb were fanatic rulers ... Should I now ask you again to read the reams of evidence that I presented in the old thread that give excruciating details of the gory deeds commited by others ? If you have indeed read those links and you dont agree on the events can I know the reasons ? Also if you recall that thread started of with the proclamation that "There was no Sharia EVER" and I still await response specially form Lurker to the evidence that I presented to the contrary. To summarize .... the history of India is replete with a loooooooooong list of treacherous and down right barbaric activties commited by the Islamic rulers (and it still continues to date)... This is a no brainer and a unanimously accepted position taken by independent historians (including muslims). Yet there is no shortage of people who try to defend such a history trying to paint it with different colors to peddle their agendas. This is what I have a problem with. Now where there a few Rajput kings who committed treachery ? ... hell ya ... anybody who says anything to the contrary doesnt know his history. But unlike the Islamic rulers these guys did what they did for their own greed and not for the sake of their religion and importantly these were exceptions than the rule. I have shown you the exact text from their holy books that prescribe the kind of barbaric things that went around and Iam yet to see any of you accept that ... why is that ? And using these few rulers and trying to spread the guilt of the Islamic empire is also something that I dont agree. And regarding Modi / Thackary ... refer to that thread where I critique Gandhi ... needless to say that thread also awaits comments from people who were very eager to criticize me before I started presented some very un-comforatble facts ....

:thumbs_up: I am going to give detailed account pretty soon starting right from Muhd. Bin Kasim, this cherry-picking in OP is not going to work.

[CC1981]

Coming from a clown who specializes in word play and when cornered for hard facts distributes email addresses, it's kind of rich..

And yet you RAN AWAY like a coward when i educated you on the Bengal thread.

And yes on bengali history u will be torn apart

Empty hollow words of a man too proud to admit when he is beaten. For if those words were any true, you'd have answered my little 'bengali history lesson' right then and there instead of going MIA like you ironically allege your adversaries of doing.

might work in communazi cabals but most of the civilized societies..

What does a two-bit racist like you know about civilized societies ?

So unless u learn how to behave I guess that topic will remain untouched.

You are a racist, i've proven you to be a racist, several others have hauled you up for being racist towards Bengalis too. In the very same thread. So its not a question of behaviour- i have logically justified my position of calling you a racist. But you as a typical racist will hide behind this and refuse to address points.

Just a hint go have a comparison how long the battle lasted in case of bong kings and the rest u will get the picture..

I have also provided that little bit of history. Ofcourse, you ran away from that thread like a coward. Shall we dig up that thread and have your rebuttal ? Or are you gonna run away like usual when your ignorant 'fox-news-esque' ideas are blown to bits ? Afterall, you are the moron who chest-thumps in front of a Bengali that you know more about Bengal just coz you read a yank-based news agency ! bravo mr 'logic' !

[Guest dada_rocks]

300 ? British rule was at best a 200-year rule. They gained real territorry ( i am not talking about a few bits-n-pieces trading outposts that all european powers had) in 1750 or so by defeating Siraj-ud-daullah. 1750-1947: almost 200 years. As per muslim invasions- i suppose that is singled out for the rampant destruction of culture and imposition of an inferior rulebook(The koran) in our lands. Truth be told, India has always had problems with invaders- even before Ashoka's time, emperor Kurash or the Achamenid Iran controlled parts of sindh-punjab ( sindhu river was the eastern-most boundary of the Achamenid empire under Kurash-Xerxes). Then there were the huns too (modern day afghans) who were responsible for the fall of the Gupta empire and rampant destruction of north-west india.

For a change u are talking sense here.. Muslim invasion is singled out everywhere for the reason rightly mentioned here.

[Guest dada_rocks]

And yet you RAN AWAY like a coward when i educated you on the Bengal thread. Empty hollow words of a man too proud to admit when he is beaten. For if those words were any true, you'd have answered my little 'bengali history lesson' right then and there instead of going MIA like you ironically allege your adversaries of doing. What does a two-bit racist like you know about civilized societies ? You are a racist, i've proven you to be a racist, several others have hauled you up for being racist towards Bengalis too. In the very same thread. So its not a question of behaviour- i have logically justified my position of calling you a racist. But you as a typical racist will hide behind this and refuse to address points. I have also provided that little bit of history. Ofcourse, you ran away from that thread like a coward. Shall we dig up that thread and have your rebuttal ? Or are you gonna run away like usual when your ignorant 'fox-news-esque' ideas are blown to bits ? Afterall, you are the moron who chest-thumps in front of a Bengali that you know more about Bengal just coz you read a yank-based news agency ! bravo mr 'logic' !

No I left that thread because like an idiot which u are u started personal BS which i am duely capable to respond to but was exhorted not to.. Don't bother Just do a comaprison and u will be ashamed just like me of socalled bengali resistance. Anyway don't hijack this thread by ur idiocy..

[CC1981]

No I left that thread because like an idiot which u are u started personal BS which i am duely capable to respond to but was exhorted not to..

Strange...apparently the 'personal BS' wasnt bothering you till i gave my magnum opus on Bengali history...after that post, just empty threats and zilch from you. Like the saying goes..jo garajte hain woh baraste nehin. Same facking story with you and your racist mentality. Bolte band kar diya tha lekin kuch din choohey ke bill me rahney ke badh tera swabhimaan jag para hai fir...to theek hai..fir se teri dhulayee hogi...nikal woh thread agar tu barasne wala badal ho to. nehin to sirf teri yeh garjan hi rahegi.

Just do a comaprison and u will be ashamed just like me of socalled bengali resistance.

I already HISTORICALLY PROVED that to be false and you ran away like a coward. but like a true fanatic, your broken record doesnt change even when presented with FACTS...which everyone else accepted/didnt have a problem with.

Anyway don't hijack this thread by ur idiocy..

Go whine to the mods then. You have zero influence over me, so save your time and stop tying such meaningless lines.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I will tackle this post from the very end since it dwells on present tense hence gets precedence. Now, do I have a problem if you and DR unite under Hindu banner. Hell NO. Do I have a problem if you absolve Modi or Thackerey of all crimes, Hell YES. Do I have a problem with Sharia , HELL YES. Do I think Indian Muslims are traitors by and large , HELL NO. First line doesn’t need any response other than a thank you note. Second line talks about two characters Thackerey and Modi. Thackrey has been found guilty of demagoguery and thereby has been punished and punishment is he can’t take part in electoral process. Modi, now this character so far has not only been found not guilty there doesn’t exists even a single charge-sheet meaning FIR against him in any court of India. Let us face it India is no cuckoo-land where u can’t get a case registered against an individual in office. So other than hot air noone has any evidence of any crime against this person. If occurrence of communal riot while u are in power is guilt if baseless charges of aiding the riot is crime then I am afraid in India which has seen 66000 riots and counting since advent of communal riot on the scene in form of Mopla riots, everyone is guilty. You will be hard-pressed to find a riot where party in power is not charged with abettment. Only difference in gujrat riot of 2002 is the party in power was BJP hence u don’t need evidence of culpability mere allegation becomes evidence. Alas in court of law these baseless allegations do not count. And if u have any evidence which can at least result into registering a case against this gentleman who happens to be the best administrator in the country as of today (and yes this is not baseless unlike ur charges), who happens to be most honest politician u could ever see so honest that his sworn enemy swear by his honesty. (Please Refer to M J Akbar’s verdict on Modi.) then do come forward rest assured there is no dearth of people to fund your cause. Do I think Indian muslims are traitors. If it means working against the interest of your country as of today then no not all of them are traitor but a very significant percent of them are. I have reasons to believe this other than my personal experience. (1) There can’t happen terror attacks unless someone local works as these criminals bogey. Now once in a while under lure of money even non-muslims have been found aiding these criminals but as a principle without expecting any monetary gain the support for these folks comes from only muslims. (2) If this is not the case I would like to see incidents like u saw recently in NJ where muslim community themselves spied on these criminals. You would be hard-pressed to find any such instance in India. All u get to hear afrom them after every terror attack when police springs into action , that they are being unnecessarily victimized. (3) Then u have this sporadic instance of rejoicing over Pakistan win and unfurling Pakistan flag every now and then. Never saw any christian unfurling Vatican flag anywhere. If it means them being sympathetic to the cause of carving India out once more for creating another dar-ul-islam in future then answer is yes more or less every one of them are traitor. Travesty is you and I can’t do anything. This is the nature of the beast. Only cure is to make sure that their number doesn’t attain critical-mass stage. Without a fail they seek new nation everywhere they can there is no exception whatsoever only thing variable is critical mass depending on rest of the populace’s tolerance level. Alibis vary but result is same. Heck if overwhelming 90+% [CC’s fairy-tale aside I believe electoral data supports this number; travesty is after openly espousing the cause 90% of these folks decided to stay back to work for another dar-ul-islam] could ask for division of India raising the bogey of existence of a virtually insignificant Jan-Sangh in 47 then today we have thriving BJP. The pide-piper of these folks named Zaakir Hussain openly says Indian muslim will like to have shariah although they are oke with the secular constitution for now. You may find muslim intellectual who oppose this line of thinking but their reach among ummah remains non-existant. Even if some of them have presence at grass-root their fate is not going to be any different than Baadshah Khan of circa 47. You guys may call me pessimist but to be optimist I would need at least one exception where these folks have not triggered secessionist activity. Same theme plays from Russia to Thailand . There is no reason to believe India would be any different particularly when we have already seen one such event. If u have one please do push forward. I too want to feel good. As I have said in past I would love to be wrong. I would love to see somehow this trend bumps into a singular point apropos India but can’t toe starry-eyed lines for the sake of being politically correct. As they say once bitten twice shy. This post is getting lengthier will tackle the rest in next post

[gator]

very nice post, DR....