02-09-2006, 04:35 PM
Well by your standards very few countries effectively resisted Islam, compared to other countries India performed very well and by the way even if we take your point that many states did not manage to keep Muslims out then that still doesn't counter the point I am making, compared to other Indian states Bengal had almost no worthwhile resistance after Muslim rule was established or even before it was establishe.
we put no resistance and had muslims rule.
others put a lot of resistance... and had muslim rule.
go figure.
What are you talking about, its absolutely fair to compare both, Punjab was partitioned into Pakistani Punjab (also known as West Punjab) and Indian Punjab (also known as East Punjab) and Bengal was partitioned into Indian Bengal (also known as West Bengal) and Pakistani Bengal (also known as East Bengal or East Pakistan), I am not talking about the earlier partition of Bengal but the later partition during the larger partition of Bharat into India and Pakistan.
yes and by then (47) the switch in populations had already taken place. you hardly need tell me about that, cos my ancestral family caomes from Moimonsingh, in bangladesh. you know crapshit about the exodus that took place in bengal and when exactly it took place.
in punjab the exodus was during 1947 and resulted in a bolldbath. here 90% of the switch had already taken place, during the partition of bengal itself and that was largely peaceful. if the muslims killed hindu bengalis later, then thats just cos they are muslims and lose no chance to kill few infidels more. its best you keep quiet about stuff you have no first hand info about.
You need to go read your history, Vijayanagara was not a powerful kingdom at the time of Muslims arrival (infact there was no Vijaynagar kingdom when the first Muslims invasions started into India), if you are saying that it was already a very powerful kingdom by the time Muslims arrvived into the South then you are again wrong, it was built from scratch by Harihar and Bukka under the guidance of Swami Vidyaranya (who would later also serve as its Prime minister for a brief period) for the protection of Hindu dharma, the Muslims already arrvived by this time into the South and Madurai was under their rule and according to tradition Harihar and Bukka were forcibly converted to Islam but later came under the influence of Vidyaranya who reconverted them and asked them to start a kingdom for protecting Hindus. It was built from scratch and soon expanded into one of the most powerful kingdoms in India, go read Gangadevi's Madhuravijayam which gives an account of the Vijaynagar invasion of Madurai to liberate it from Muslim depradations under Kumara Kampana (Gangadevi was his wife), at its zenith under Sri Krishnadevaraya it housed 18 million people and had a million strong army (which Devaraya used in the battle of Raichur).
true. but the vijaynagar empoire howsoever humble its beginings, went on to become one of the most powerful, rich and glorious empire in all indian history. had they ended up as another of the many mushrooming kingdoms we had in india, then they would not have been able to offer the resistance they did.
Yes so what, many other states did equally well,
but never had half the western influnce bengal did. it was a lot easier for them to keep missionaries at bay. by comparism the madras presidency did rather well (till the recent rise) i must say, becaouse after calcutta the one of the next biggest bastions of the english was madras.
as for him being the father of modern India, maybe to you he is but to many Indians he is not and never will be, the main difference between modern India and ancient India is that the former lacked political unity
forget ancient india. the main difference between modern and medieval (islamic) india was the predominance of sati, child marriage, the lack of widow remarriage, female education, dowry and other crap.
if you so disregard him, then dont send your daughters to school, marry them off at age 13, prepare to pay loads of dowry, and prepare a funeral pyre for a "sati" spectacle shoudl any unforseen incidents happen??
you may be sad that these social evils are no longer part of indian society, but there are lots of indians who are glad that they have been rendered a thing of the past.
while the latter doesn't and last time I checked Ram Mohan Roy did nothing to unite India,
he was a social reformer. not a politician. or freedom fighter.
if anything it was Sardar Patel who toiled day and night to bring about this political unity
yes. politicl unity. sardar patel was a political leader.
and as for reform Ram Mohan Roy is nothing compared to Maharishi Dayananda who with his teachings of Self pride and Self rule and Swadeshi would inspire generations of Hindus.
so how come this person never did anything to abolish sati?? child marriage?? install widow remarriage acts?? female education?????
where's the proof of the pudding eh??
Yes indeed a tree is known by its fruits, that is why the Arya Samaj would become a force to reckon with and would produce some of the great freefom fighters (Lala Lajpat Rai, Ram Prasad Bismil being 2 examples) while the Brahmo Samaj would become xtianised and anglicised with Keshub Chandra Sen becoming another British lackey.
how about listing the freedom fighters that the brahmo samaj spawned ???
brahmo samaj never become christianised, but just added a monotheistic veneer - which kept christianity at bay. read koenraad elst's explaination on this instead spewing fables.
welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: âIn the advent of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan raceâ[/color]
he was right - only the other way round. i have explained all that in the history of bengal thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->when did i try to say we offerend any resistance to muslims invaders?? partition of bengal was opposed tooth and nail, the noakhali killings are mutually exclusive to that and just cos it happened dont prove that we took it sitting down. only we had a bigger enemy back then, than muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What bull
what sort of english is that??
how was partition of Bengal (during 1947) and Noakhali mutually exclusive, the latter was a massacre directly connected to this partition,
i said just cos the noackali killings took place doesnt mean the bengal partition was not oposed.
math was never your strong point was it??
oh so now you had a bigger enemy, so do tell us how come even though the British were also ruling Punjab there was large scale retaliation there and not in Bengal?
there was no large scale retaliation in bangal against the brits??? what are you smoking??
punjab formed the bulk of the INA soldiers. bengal produced more freedom fighters than perhaps maharashtra. a quality vs quantity thing. you are just a spineless person who hasnt learnt to give people their due, while happily riding piggyback on their efforts. bengal's contribution to the freedom movement hardly needs your nod of approval.
anyway burns down to punjab, maharashtra and bengal doesnt it, for the most part?? i love the way you inadvertantly keep vindicating me .
and do tell us how come even after the Englishman packed his bags there was no worthwhile retaliation since this so called bigger enemy was gone now.
the brits left in idnia in 1947, not on noakhali day.
and the INA's attacks from the eastern side is the biggest and most decisive retaliation the brits got, swiftly to be floowed by the naval mutiny.
is there a rule that says, retaliations in/from one state have to be of the exact same nature as in another state???
just take your parochial hogwash somewhere else. i am not looking forward to another sambarsoaked reply.
we put no resistance and had muslims rule.
others put a lot of resistance... and had muslim rule.
go figure.
What are you talking about, its absolutely fair to compare both, Punjab was partitioned into Pakistani Punjab (also known as West Punjab) and Indian Punjab (also known as East Punjab) and Bengal was partitioned into Indian Bengal (also known as West Bengal) and Pakistani Bengal (also known as East Bengal or East Pakistan), I am not talking about the earlier partition of Bengal but the later partition during the larger partition of Bharat into India and Pakistan.
yes and by then (47) the switch in populations had already taken place. you hardly need tell me about that, cos my ancestral family caomes from Moimonsingh, in bangladesh. you know crapshit about the exodus that took place in bengal and when exactly it took place.
in punjab the exodus was during 1947 and resulted in a bolldbath. here 90% of the switch had already taken place, during the partition of bengal itself and that was largely peaceful. if the muslims killed hindu bengalis later, then thats just cos they are muslims and lose no chance to kill few infidels more. its best you keep quiet about stuff you have no first hand info about.
You need to go read your history, Vijayanagara was not a powerful kingdom at the time of Muslims arrival (infact there was no Vijaynagar kingdom when the first Muslims invasions started into India), if you are saying that it was already a very powerful kingdom by the time Muslims arrvived into the South then you are again wrong, it was built from scratch by Harihar and Bukka under the guidance of Swami Vidyaranya (who would later also serve as its Prime minister for a brief period) for the protection of Hindu dharma, the Muslims already arrvived by this time into the South and Madurai was under their rule and according to tradition Harihar and Bukka were forcibly converted to Islam but later came under the influence of Vidyaranya who reconverted them and asked them to start a kingdom for protecting Hindus. It was built from scratch and soon expanded into one of the most powerful kingdoms in India, go read Gangadevi's Madhuravijayam which gives an account of the Vijaynagar invasion of Madurai to liberate it from Muslim depradations under Kumara Kampana (Gangadevi was his wife), at its zenith under Sri Krishnadevaraya it housed 18 million people and had a million strong army (which Devaraya used in the battle of Raichur).
true. but the vijaynagar empoire howsoever humble its beginings, went on to become one of the most powerful, rich and glorious empire in all indian history. had they ended up as another of the many mushrooming kingdoms we had in india, then they would not have been able to offer the resistance they did.
Yes so what, many other states did equally well,
but never had half the western influnce bengal did. it was a lot easier for them to keep missionaries at bay. by comparism the madras presidency did rather well (till the recent rise) i must say, becaouse after calcutta the one of the next biggest bastions of the english was madras.
as for him being the father of modern India, maybe to you he is but to many Indians he is not and never will be, the main difference between modern India and ancient India is that the former lacked political unity
forget ancient india. the main difference between modern and medieval (islamic) india was the predominance of sati, child marriage, the lack of widow remarriage, female education, dowry and other crap.
if you so disregard him, then dont send your daughters to school, marry them off at age 13, prepare to pay loads of dowry, and prepare a funeral pyre for a "sati" spectacle shoudl any unforseen incidents happen??
you may be sad that these social evils are no longer part of indian society, but there are lots of indians who are glad that they have been rendered a thing of the past.
while the latter doesn't and last time I checked Ram Mohan Roy did nothing to unite India,
he was a social reformer. not a politician. or freedom fighter.
if anything it was Sardar Patel who toiled day and night to bring about this political unity
yes. politicl unity. sardar patel was a political leader.
and as for reform Ram Mohan Roy is nothing compared to Maharishi Dayananda who with his teachings of Self pride and Self rule and Swadeshi would inspire generations of Hindus.
so how come this person never did anything to abolish sati?? child marriage?? install widow remarriage acts?? female education?????
where's the proof of the pudding eh??
Yes indeed a tree is known by its fruits, that is why the Arya Samaj would become a force to reckon with and would produce some of the great freefom fighters (Lala Lajpat Rai, Ram Prasad Bismil being 2 examples) while the Brahmo Samaj would become xtianised and anglicised with Keshub Chandra Sen becoming another British lackey.
how about listing the freedom fighters that the brahmo samaj spawned ???
brahmo samaj never become christianised, but just added a monotheistic veneer - which kept christianity at bay. read koenraad elst's explaination on this instead spewing fables.
welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: âIn the advent of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan raceâ[/color]
he was right - only the other way round. i have explained all that in the history of bengal thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->when did i try to say we offerend any resistance to muslims invaders?? partition of bengal was opposed tooth and nail, the noakhali killings are mutually exclusive to that and just cos it happened dont prove that we took it sitting down. only we had a bigger enemy back then, than muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What bull
what sort of english is that??
how was partition of Bengal (during 1947) and Noakhali mutually exclusive, the latter was a massacre directly connected to this partition,
i said just cos the noackali killings took place doesnt mean the bengal partition was not oposed.
math was never your strong point was it??
oh so now you had a bigger enemy, so do tell us how come even though the British were also ruling Punjab there was large scale retaliation there and not in Bengal?
there was no large scale retaliation in bangal against the brits??? what are you smoking??
punjab formed the bulk of the INA soldiers. bengal produced more freedom fighters than perhaps maharashtra. a quality vs quantity thing. you are just a spineless person who hasnt learnt to give people their due, while happily riding piggyback on their efforts. bengal's contribution to the freedom movement hardly needs your nod of approval.
anyway burns down to punjab, maharashtra and bengal doesnt it, for the most part?? i love the way you inadvertantly keep vindicating me .
and do tell us how come even after the Englishman packed his bags there was no worthwhile retaliation since this so called bigger enemy was gone now.
the brits left in idnia in 1947, not on noakhali day.
and the INA's attacks from the eastern side is the biggest and most decisive retaliation the brits got, swiftly to be floowed by the naval mutiny.
is there a rule that says, retaliations in/from one state have to be of the exact same nature as in another state???
just take your parochial hogwash somewhere else. i am not looking forward to another sambarsoaked reply.