Dravidianist Movement

[Bharatvarsh]

we put no resistance and had muslims rule.
others put a lot of resistance... and had muslim rule.

go figure.

So other states put no resistance against British rule and still had British rule while Bengal did have resistance and still had British rule so go figure before spewing nonsense about how Bengalis know how to fight while others don't.

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 before spewing nonsense, before partition took place East Bengal was 30% Hindu and 70% Muslim approximately, after the riots subsided it went down to 22% Hindu and it was not peaceful as you claim, it was a bloodbath of Hindus, go read the book (The Prolonged Partition and Its Pogroms Testimonies on Violence against Hindus in East Bengal (1946-1964) by A.J. Kamra with a Foreword by Koenraad Elst) or the online book at bengalvoice.com, they catalogue all the major riots during partition and the exodus of millions of Hindus, commie education seems to be a good brainwashing mechanism, anyone with an elementary knowledge of history knows that the exodus of Hindus from East Bengal was not peaceful but was forced by repeated massacres and your statement that it was largely peaceful is an insult to the thousands of victims at Noakhali and Tipperah alone.

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.

So you changed your tune now, before you were claiming only states with already powerful kingdoms during Muslim arrival provided good resistance and I showed that the Vijayanagar was built after Muslims already arrived so stop sidestepping the issue.

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.

Dowry has no sanction in Hindu scriptures and neither does sati, scriptures suggested it as an alternative but never ordered anyone to commit sati and the half anglicised idol of yours was not the first to ban sati so stuff it, it was banned by Akbar and later under the Peshwas and I will send my daughters to school because the Vedas themselves were written by many women sages and this half anglicised idiot had no largescale influence outside Bengal so dont tell me what to do and what not to do because Mohan Roy had no influene in Andhra and was not the reason Hindus started sending their girl children to schools.

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??

Sati was already banned, you showed your complete ignorance now, it is well known that Dayananda condemned sati, child marriage and lack of female education and his Arya Samaj was instrumental in social reform, in the Arya Samaj females first got an opportunity to perform all the Hindu rites and it also trained women priests, he did not go to the British masters and beg them for anything, the Arya Samaj established DAV schools everywhere and took active part in social reform, go firgure why Dayananda is considered one of the greatest modern Indians and Aurobindo could not stop praising him and Sita Ram Goel mentions him as one of the greatest modern day Hindus.

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.

Why dont you list these Brahmo Samaj freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives for the nation?, Brahmo Samaj did become christianised and that was the reason there was a split, one only has to read the praise Brahmo Samaj was bestowing on the Englishman, Christ on public platforms to know what happened, only the wilfully blind still can't see the truth.

he was right - only the other way round. i have explained all that in the history of bengal thread.

Whether he was right or wrong about AIT is not the point here, he was a British loyalist who was justifying British rule using the AIT, Savarkar and Tilak also believed in AIT but they never justified foreign rule using AIT so Keshab Chandra Sens British worship was a fruit of the Brahmo Samaj.

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??

And my original point was that there was no retaliation in Bengal against Muslims which you try to hide by ridiculous theories and excuses (even going to the extent of saying that the population transfer from East Bengal was largely peaceful).

there was no large scale retaliation in bangal against the brits??? what are you smoking??

I said there was no retaliation worth mentioning in Bengal against Muslims during partition not the British.

the brits left in idnia in 1947, not on noakhali day.

Again my question still stands, if Punjab was retaliating against Muslims while still being ruled by Brits then why couldn't Bengal?, Hindus were still being killed in East Bengal as late as 1950 which was what led to the NEHRU-LIAQUAT PACT, the Brits were long gone from Bengal by 1950 so do tell us what the martial Bengali Hindus were doing in 1950, shouldn't they be retaliating against the Muslims now that the bigger enemy (Brits) were gone?

just take your parochial hogwash somewhere else. i am not looking forward to another sambarsoaked reply

I suggest the same to you, if you don't want generalisations about Bengalis then stop talking crap about others whether they are Punjabis, South Indians, Tulus or whoever. The following statements of yours show amply who is parochial and who is not:

ask an andhraite about tipu sultan and haider ali and see what they have to say.

no tipu wasnt and haider ali neither.
yet they think of them as some sort of saviour.

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...opic=496&st=150

So you talked to a few Andhra Hindus and were very confident saying that they consider Tipu Sultan as a hero.

And when Aryawan made some general comment about Bengal here you were very quick to jump in and say "what marxists say should not be taken as the voice of a people" :
the "wrong" bit is the last paragraph.

we hate bangladeshis. they are the reason that 2/3 of our land went out of our hands.
what marxists say should not be taken as the voice of a people. take prakash and brinda karat for example. is that how marathis's think? in a leftist way ??

what you are talking of, happens in another part of india, where they have joint sports events and other crap with a certain millitant religion

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...topic=1091&st=0

But for Andhra "what a few Andhra Hindus say should be taken as the voice of a people"

Everyone can see the double standards and hypocrisy. Another one of your comments about Afghans:

i wont marry a muslim woman with turkic or arab blood who converts to hindusim.

i dont think its good news for hindu women either, if afghan hounds declare themselves brahmins and marry hindus.

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...opic=673&st=150

Anyone with elementary knowledge of history knows that the Afghans turned to barbarism after they became Muslims, before that Afghanistan was a cradle of Hindu/Buddhist culture with the Kauravas coming from there, but to you the Afghans are somehow inherently inferior and they are hounds and it is bad if Hindus marry them even after they renounced Islam and became Hindus, if that is not the height of racism and parochialism I don't know what is. It is like me saying that since Bengal has been ruled by marxists for so long it is bad for other Hindus to marry Bengali Hindus.

This is my last reply to you, people who followed this debate can come to their own conclusions about who is parochial and who is not and who is spineless and who is not.