When Did India Become Modern

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do ask questions.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> They modeled into a warrior clan because of their location towards the frontier of India which was open to invasions. I have seen the link that you have given. Please give me clear answers as to why you believe India remained Hindu if it is not due to inherent strength of Hindu philosophy and our huge population. I take the following from your link.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There is nothing about the inherent strenght of a religion when some muslim was holding the sword on the neck of a hindu to eat beef and renounce hinduism.

You are arguing like the priests at Somnath who kept praying to the God to save the temple and them. Ofcourse the sword prevailed even though 50,000 rajputs put up a big fight for 2 continous days and nights to defend Somnath against Ghazni Mahmud. Also he beat a hasty retreat because Mihir Bhoja started from his capital to meet him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Kartik: Well frankly there were too many Hindus to be threatened and converted, than what they could manage. Financial and political coercions alone were not able to shake the Hindus faith. Thats the strength of our religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nonsense. You are talking like Marxist historians. When an army is defeated and the population given two options:
a) change your religion
b) accept Islam and live.
How does the strength of faith, or religious leader or whatever else come into the picture?

Start using some logic.<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly for a kingdom to function smoothly it requires the cooperation of the general populace. You can continue to subdue an unsubduable population using sword only for a cerain time period. A wise ruler understands that he requires to collect taxes, get farmers to produce crops otherwise everyone will die of hunger. If Hindus did not live and earn, how would they be able to pay jizya which was a big source of state income.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You are still not following. If you analyse the economy of muslim rule you will figure out Jiziya accounted for 1.5 months of yearly salary of the lowest class. It was done so to effect most conversions from the lowest class. And if a hindu farmer became muslim why would he stop tilling the land?<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that the armed resistance was not important, but that alone would not have been able to succeed unless there was a strong faith in the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Faith is useless in front of a conquering army. If your entire country got subjugated and the populace had no one to defend them then the situation is what happened in Iran i.e _ALL_ have to convert to Islam. So having good faith and saints etc is useless.
The key is that you CAN NEVER be defeated in toto. if that happens you are toast i.e you would be reading a Kalma today.

-Digvijay