FYI - Bheem and Others

[Guest dada_rocks]

U are crapping as usual CC. statistics 101 one deducts conclusions based on poll taken on a representative ensemble. there could be no better ensemble than the electoral data. if clowns like u are to be believed then legality of democratically elected govt's wud come into question. only sensible point u made is voter turn-out .. even today voter-fatigue is rampant due to frequency of elections we see around 60% voter turn-out. we here are talking about indepedence movement where integrity of nation for one side and creation of pakistan for another side was at stake so question of low voter turn-out doesn't arise. rest assured I will procure that data too if it's available I will see where u hide next.. [ Your BS had started with well those constituency victories might have been decide by simple majority we sure have come a long way from that retarded claim haven't we.]:haha: Your "I have refuted those data conclusively" claim is lying in ruins:haha: it's numbers game ur BSing won't cut here

[Guest dada_rocks]

Both hindus and muslims distanced themselves from doud in fear of TADA...and some hindus & muslims still remain in his camp of supporters/affiliates.

crap

[CC1981]

we here are talking about indepedence movement where integrity of nation for one side and creation of pakistan for another side was at stake so question of low voter turn-out doesn't arise.

Yes it does arise. Independence movement & integrety of nation led to a 62% turn-out for Quebec independence referrendum. In a highly illeterate society as subcontinent, there is no reason to assume that voting turnout was anything above this figure unless you can produce hard data that says otherwise. Yet again, i prove you wrong. You simply assumed that there was a very high voters turnout when infact you present no data whatsoever for you to make that claim. Ie, typical bullshyte from hinduvtaa fanatics like yourself.

Your BS had started with well those constituency victories might have been decide by simple majority we sure have come a long way from that retarded claim haven't we

Err no we havn't. Until we know what is the demographic and correspondent voting breakdown of those constituencies, your claim that most muslims voted for seperation is baseless. You have no right or the data to construe that as a fact until you can prove that there was also an overwhelming turnout from the voting-age population. As usual, your 'filling in the blanks' from a fundie hindu mentality is easily detectable to all and sundry.

crap

That is the most articulate summation of your point of view.

[Guest dada_rocks]

You are incorrigibleor may be don;t understand most primitive data analysis I have shown who is not foo-hardy or has some grey-cell left that no matter what is demographic structure it just doesn't help your point of view. Stop being admant accept the fact..

[CC1981]

I have shown who is not foo-hardy or has some grey-cell left that no matter what is demographic structure it just doesn't help your point of view.

Only thing you've shown is your penchant for twisting facts and/or lack of ability to understand issues you take interest in. I've clearly demonstrated that unless you can PROVE the % participation (ie, what % of eligible population voted and what were the criterias for eligibility) and % vote break-down for each constituency, your claim that most muslims voted for independent Pakistan is baseless and nothing more than you filling in the blanks to your liking. I've also shown by quoting a FACT ( % participation in Quebec independence referrendum) that your assumption of 'since it was an issue of independent muslim nation, all participated' is baseless and again, filling in the blanks. Until you can answer my points, you have no case. So keep your childish 'you re incorrigible, anyone with grey cells' etc. smokescreen. As usual, you've been outed for a person who knows little about what he speaks.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Quebec Nunawat do u see idiocy in puting forward these as example when we are dicsusisng south asian matters.. Or do i have to give a course on cultural difference now. For instance how many times u see road-clock in Quebec over petty issues.:giggle:

[Guest dada_rocks]

People in India have political zeal even on petty issues here we are talking about karo maro kind where even in peaceful times we see 6o+% voting any suggestion of voter-fatigue is retarded at best.

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=3312&highlight=Sardar+patel While I am at it I think Sardaar Patel's words in august house of parliament holds more sway than a loony left perched in canada.. Except for delusion picture is crystal clear..

[CC1981]

Quebec Nunawat do u see idiocy in puting forward these as example when we are dicsusisng south asian matters..

No..no irony here. Nationalism is not an asian matter..neither are asian people any different than any other to have different levels of nationalism..and for anyone to think that Quebec doesnt have an extremely high level of nationalism(Despite 60-odd % voting turnout), they must know SQUAT about Canadian politics.

People in India have political zeal even on petty issues here we are talking about karo maro kind where even in peaceful times we see 6o+% voting any suggestion of voter-fatigue is retarded at best.

Pure bullspit speculation and filling in the blanks. When people are starving & beaten down by the financial stick, are far less educated and lived before the era of mass communication technology,there is no reason to believe that there was a huge voter turnout...history proves that before the era of mass-communication, people rarely broke 50% of the eligible list despite voting on extremely sensetive times(like the nation is going to war or in middle of a war!). Since you do not know history, you fill in the blanks with what suits your agenda. Bottomline- unless you got data to show % participation levels of eligible voters, you have no case about how many muslims voted and how many muslims supported what. Nice try hiding behind Sardar Patel..but Sardar patel did not quote any figures or construe that most muslims voted for Pakistan like you have.

[Guest dada_rocks]

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.

************************************************ Yes few hindu rulers did align with them and reason were manifold like (1) Pure personal vendetta against some other ruler (2) Fear of being trodden upon by mighty moghal army . But rest assured u can count these figures on fingers that too of a single hand. Claim of without coercion is let us say at best baseless it may or may not be true. About guilt appropriation for the hindus butchered let us face it there were not many Prithvi Raj Chauhans whose empire was vast and who had many vassals. Here we are talking about small kingdoms and King of these places did save their netizens by aligning with moghals or other islamist rulers. It’s another matter they virtually ended up feeding the crocodile so that it eats them last. So in my opinion if anything they are guilty of it is being an idiot certainly not of those scores of genocides at Islamic rulers’ hands of hindus. Moreover you would see these alliances mostly have happened during Akbar’s rein and he most certainly was tolerant in comparison to the rest of Islamic rulers. And if u look at larger picture every victim is guilty of not putting a concerted face forward against the marauding enemy. More so when there already was precedence that if u drop the charade of dharm-yudhda while dealing with devils and work in unison u can defeat these cowards. Here I will digress a little to throw some light on the precedence I just broached up. Because unfortunately pinko historians have relegated this incident to the dust-bin and not many know about it. In his last attack on Somnath, Mahmud Ghazni successfully sacked the temple at Prabhasa Patan in Gujarat, but on his way back he was roundly defeated by the Gurjara rulers of North Gujarat. Mahmud never came back to India after that. (Refer to the Glory that was Gujar Desha by K.M. Munshi). The failed Muslim Invasion of 1031-1033 led by the Crown Prince of Persia In the interregnum of 211 years between the first Muslim raid of Sabuktagin (father of Mahmud Ghazni or Ghaznavi) in 980 on Raja Jaya Pala Shahi who was the last Hindu ruler of Kabul (Kubha) and the next successful Muslim invasion of India in 1191 by Mohammed Ghori or Ghauri; there was another major Muslim invasion of India. This invasion which was a dismal failure is never mentioned in Indian history books. It took place in the year 1031 and was led by the son of the Shah Salar of Persia (the crown prince of Persia). His name was Prince Masud. He had a fanatic zeal of conquering India and converting the country to Islam. . The zeal that he had to spread Islam earned him the title Ghazi Mian. What rankled Prince Masud most was the defeat of Mahumd Ghazni at the hands of the Gurjara rulers in North Gujarat, after he was returning to Afghanistan with the booty he had collected during the destruction of the Somnath temple in Gujarat. Not many Indians know of this defeat. But it was this defeat that dissuaded Mahmud Ghazni from invading India again. In the year 1031, with an army of over one hundred thousand troops, he crossed the Hindu Kush ranges and entered the Punjab plains. The Hindu king of Lahore Anand Pal Shahi made an unsuccessful attempt to check Masud's advance. Anand Pal was helped by Rai Arjun the king of Sialkot. After overcoming these valiant but unsuccessful Hindu efforts to check this new invasion, Masud moved towards Rajputana and Malwa, where king Mahipal Tomar grappled with the invaders, but was overcome by the numerically superior forces. This invasion appeared to be the first one to have as its aim the permanent occupation of the Indian heartland. This was unlike that of Mahmud Ghazni who conducted short swift raids into India, looted and retreated into Afghanistan. Masud's invading army was much larger and was fully equipped with and provided by the imperial strength of Persia, unlike that of Mahmud Ghazni which was like a raiding party. The aim of Masud's invasion was not simply to loot; but to occupy India and to Islamize the country. After their victories across the Indo-gangetic plains, Masud’ army, established themselves at Baharaich near Ayodhya. At this juncture a rare event took place. For the first time a major pan-Hindu alliance of all the kings of North India was formed. It had seventeen kings. This force which far outnumbered the large army of Masud laid siege to the camp of the Jihadis. An Islamic account of this war We have an account of this war from an Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdur Rehman Chishti who in his book Meer-ul-Masuri has given a vivid description of this exceptional war. He writes that Masud reached Baharaich in 1033. By then the united Hindu kings had gathered a massive force to face Masud. As was their practice, before the beginning of hostilities, the Hindu kings sent a messenger to Masud that this land being theirs, his troops should peacefully vacate it. But Masud sent a reply that all land belonged to Khuda (the Persianized version of Allah) and he could settle wherever he pleased. And that it was his holy duty to convert to Islam all those who did not recognize his Khuda and accept Islam. Consequently, Masud's huge army was besieged by the even greater Hindu army and no side gave the other any quarter. Gradually through the hostilities, Masud saw the unsuccessful end of his expedition. . This bitter and bloody war was fought in the month of June 1033. In this furious war, no side took any prisoners and it ended only with the slaughter of the entire invading army along with many martyrs from the defending Hindu army. What was exceptional during this war was that the folly of pardoning a defeated enemy, that was displayed by Prithviraj Chauhan 160 years later in 1191, was not to be seen. The battle of Baharaich ended on 14th June 1033. At the gory end, the entire invading army along with their commander lay dead. Not one enemy soldier was allowed to return. There still exists today near Baharaich the grave of the commander of the invader - Prince Ghazi Mian Masud. There he is hailed today by the local Muslims as a Ghazi and a Peer. And every year till this day an Urs (Muslim religious assemblage) is held in his memory. What is forgotten is the valiance of the Hindu soldiers who lost their lives in this major victory against the first Jihadi invasion of India. After this Hindu victory, peace prevailed in the country for a century and a half; till the next (and now successful) wave of Muslim invasions started under the leadership of Mohammed Ghori.

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.

Fair enough few more rulers deserve mention though.

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.

Quite contrary elephant army of Jayapala had vanquished the enemy even here just like PrtihviRaj Chuahan’s case deceit was involved. And success can be atribiuted to the insisstance of hindu rulers to wage dharm-yuddh while the opposition’s only aim was to win everything else was just means. You can google detailed event but here is the gist when enemy could not make any impact and saw itsel at sea against elephant army it called for truse and as was the wont hindu rulers used to invite their adversary for banquet at the end of war and so they did even here. let us say by trickery feeding opium to the elephant was involved in what transpired next in the early wee hours. [ Same method of taking ur enemy who insists on waging dharm-yuddha whose one rule was no fighting before dawn and after dusk. 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.

[CC1981]

I beg to differ. In fact only few like Akbar Shersha Suri were tolerant rest were blood-thirsty jihadist.

False. Razia sultana, Jahangir, Humayun, Shah Jehan etc were NOT blood-thirsty jihadists. Stop spreading propaganda, please.

b

ut rest assured u can count these figures on fingers that too of a single hand.

FALSE. The number of Rajput kings who OPENLY CONSORTED with Mughals (coz mughals promised to whack the rival rajput later and hand over his kingdom to the collaborator Rajput) is more than 20 kings alone. Nevermind rest of 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. Samer dharm-yuddh bottlenecks at play

False..Babur didnt win because of 'dharm-yuddh' bottle-neck..Babur won because he was the FIRST PERSON to show up in India with CANNONS. The artillery barrage not only cut the vaunted (and previously unbeaten) Elephant cavalry, it scared the elephants sh!tless causing them to trample through their own troops to escape...after that, all Babur had to do was finish off an army already in chaos.