When Did India Become Modern

12-08-2006, 06:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicizatio...t-conquest_Iran

Regarding Zoroastrianism succumbing to Islam, there are two stages to the question

1. Conquest of Iran from the Sassanids:
Now after reading the two articles and from my knowledge of history, the reason why Iran lost so to the Arabs quickly was because it was unified. Iranians were fighting a superior enemy in terms of zeal, ideology and military strength. Iranian polity was going through a phase of decline because of weakening Sassanid power. Now in such situation, since Iran was unified it presented one army to the Arabs, whose loss means loss of Iran. We bemoan that India at the advent of Islam in India was a divided house, but that division was a boon in disguise. What this means is that any invader cannot win a war or a country by winning one battle.

Even after defeating Lodhi, Babur had won a small part of India. Then he had to contend with Rana Sanga, even after that it meant only consolidation over northern India. Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa and the South were not even in the picture. You look at any invader from north from Mahmud Ghazni, Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak down to Babur, all the Muslim houses which came to rule Delhi had to fight and subdue a dozen principalities and a dozen powers. India also was a far bigger and diverse land than Iran. For over 100 years while the northern plains of India was subjugated by the Sultanate, there was no presence of them in South India. Of course thanks to Rajputs and others who kept them occupied. Governing India has always been very difficult. Culturally we may be one, but uniting us politically is difficult. It takes decades to build a politically unified or partially politically unified state in India, it does not even take a few years for it to disintegrate, whether it be the Mauryas or Guptas or Harsha or Mughals.

What we have to understand is that political unity works both ways. Take China, China has been politically unified for long periods of its history as much as were politically disunited. By 15th century AD China was one of the foremost maritime powers in the world. They are said to have built bigger ships and even to haev discovered America. But in the 15th century a new conservative dynasty came into power in China which was opposed to the navy. To curb them they passed a rule whereby crossing the seas was not allowed, also big ships cannot be built. If it had been India it would have been even impractical to concieve such an idea leave alone implement it, but China being politically unified this decree was swiftly, universally and ruthlessly implemented which was a retrograde step for China. Similar is the case of Japan with gunpowder, which also came about due to political consolidation by samurais.

2. Conversion of Zoroastrians to Islam:

It is mentioned that the upper classes of the zoroastrian society converted to Islam to maintain their privileges as there was a ruthless crackdown on zoroastrianism. Of course there were massacres and conversions. Can you imagine in India the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the upper castes getting converted to Islam. Though there were a few cases of conversions by upper classes, but by and large the upper castes of India were more commited to our social systems and caste systems. In the face of a missionary religion propogated with violent zeal, could we have withstood just on the basis of sword. No, tif w did not have a stronger value system and faith to adhere to we would not have made it. Also I think the population and geographical spread and diversity of geography helped. Even at the time of Independence, Muslims were 25-30% of population of subcontinent. This after centuries of discrimination and conversions. So during Sultanate period there would have far fewer.

12-08-2006, 07:06 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Sassanid_dynasty

"Zoroastrianism lost its unifying effect as the state religion. The introduction of Mazdakism shattered people's faith in Zoroastrism, and its priests lost their influence on the people. Buddhism in the east and Christianity in the west also played an important role in religious unrest. However, their call wasn't as significant as before."

12-08-2006, 07:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdakism

"Mazdak (in Persian ÙØ²Ø¯Ú©) (died c. 529) was a proto-socialist Persian philosopher who gained influence under the reign of the Sassanian king Kavadh I. He was hanged and his followers were massacred by Khosrau I, Kavadh's son. He was the founder of the philosophy called Mazdakism, whose adherents share the dualistic cosmology/theology with Manichaeism. Under this dualism, there were two original principles of the universe: Light, the good one; and Darkness, the evil one. These two had been mixed by a cosmic accident, and man's role in this life was through good conduct to release the parts of himself that belonged to Light. But where Manichaeism saw the mixture of good and bad as a cosmic tragedy, Mazdak viewed this in a more neutral, even optimistic way. Mazdak preached that the mix of good and evil had touched everything, except God [citation needed].

The two distinguishing factors of Mazdak's teaching were the reduction of the importance of religious formalities -- the true religious person being the one who understood and related correctly to the principles of the universe -- and a criticism of the strong position of Zoroastrian clergy, who, he believed, had suppressed the Persian population and caused much poverty. In many ways Mazdak's teaching can be understood as a call for social revolution, and he has been called the "first Socialist in history".[citation needed]

Mazdak emphasized good conduct, which involved a moral and ascetic life, no killing and not eating flesh (which contained substances solely from Darkness), being kind and friendly and living in peace with other people.

Despite the concepts of good conduct, the followers of Mazdak raided the palaces and harems of the rich, removing the valuables to which they believed they had equal rights. Facing the unrest in the empire, the King Kavadh I, ruling from 488 until 531, converted to Mazdakism. With his backing Mazdak could embark on a program of social reform, which involved pacifism, anti-clericalism and aid programs for helping the poor. Mazdak had government warehouses opened to help the poor. Mazdak had most Zoroastrian fire temples closed, save three.

His programs were so dramatic that rumours told that he planned to have all private property confiscated, and replace marriage with free love.

Fear from among the nobility and Zoroastrian clergy grew so strong that Kavadh was overthrown in 496, but he managed to get the throne back three years later with the help of the Hephthalites. Scared by the resistance among the powerful, he chose to distance himself from Mazdak. He allowed his son, crown prince Khosrau, to launch a great campaign against the Mazdakis in 524 or 528, culminating in a massacre killing most of the adherents, including Mazdak himself and Kavadh's oldest son. Some survived, and settled in remote areas. Small pockets of Mazdaki societies survived for centuries, and were eventually absorbed by Central Asian Buddhism.

We have no direct sources of Mazdakism: none of their books have survived. Our knowledge is made up of brief mentions in Syrian, Persian, Arabic and Greek sources, and much of the information is written by opponents of Mazdakism."

Bharatvarsh · 12-08-2006, 07:16 PM

QUOTESaluva dynasty of Vijayanagara (possibly)
More likely that it was founded by a Kuruba because both Harihara and Bukka were said to be Kuruba and also Sri Krishnadeva raya (third in line of the Saluva dynasty) was also Kuruba, Kuruba is another name for Yadav's used in Karnataka just like Golla and Dhangar are used in AP and Maharashtra respectively, they are classified as OBC's currently I think.

Bharatvarsh · 12-08-2006, 07:24 PM

QUOTEMuslims were 25-30% of population of subcontinent. This after centuries of discrimination and conversions.
Muslims were about 23-24% and also you are forgetting their overbreeding, about 1800's when Muslim rule was getting smashed everywhere they were no more than 15%, Hindus were over 80% of Akhand Bharat, it was after the British take over that the Muslims began to make gains primarily through their birth rate not conversions, Bengal first became Muslim majority in 1881, but today I would safely say that it maybe about 65% Muslim if united, that is an explosive growth rate caused primarily by Bengali Hindus taking to family planning while Muslims had no use for it (atleast not as much as Hindus).

12-08-2006, 07:39 PM

So what do we gain from these brief glimpses into Zoroastrianism and Persia of the 7th century AD and let me simultaneously compare it with situation in India.

1. Zoroastrianism came too closely to be identified with the state and political power of the day. This was its strength in the short term, but its doom in the long term. For if any religion bases its followers adherence to it based on political power and state patronage, it will have to risk political vicissitudes. So when the political masters lost out whether temporarily to Mazdakism or permanently to Islam, Zoroastrianism went down with it.

Compare this with India, where the various kings were tolerant and gave patronage to different religions irrespective of what they practiced. Hinduism or Vedic philosophy was not dependant on the politcal patronage of any single king, so it did not die out or go down with the loss of politcal power of those kings to any invaders

2. Zoroastrianism had become rigid, it could not assimilate contrary doctrines to its fold. So it had to persecute them, in turn others persecuted it. Read how Khosrau launched a campaign against Mazdakis. The Mazdakis were fighting against the Sassanids as well as Zoroastrianism, both were so closely identified.

Compare it with our thought which constantly accomodated the various schools of thought by a fertile Indian brain into its fold. Buddhism was not looked upon as another religion, but just as another school of thought as Nyaya, Mimamsa etc. Since we accomodated, we tolerated we survived.

3. By 6th century Zoroastrianism was tottering. It was not a strong religion that faced Islam in Persia, but a weak one whose adherents were already leaving it for rival doctrines. Also in the period between 628-635, within a decade, there were some twleve different kings, which weakened Sassanid hold and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastranism was looked upon as the tool of a tyrannical government which imposed big taxes, which had ruined the economy by constant wars with the Byzantines and which had no stability to provide to the country.

Compare it with India in 10th-13th centuries and thereafter. Hinduism because of its inherent tolerant spirit was going through a period of revival after the degradation to tantrism etc in the post Gupta period. We are really fortunate that we had a figure like Adi Shankara at the right time. I can tell you with some confidence, that India is Hindu today is in no small measure due to this great saint and scholar. Adi Shankara made us spiritual yet again, gave us faith, put in a framework and system to accomodate all strands of thought. Then came Ramanuja, the Saivite Nayanars and Vaishnavite Alwars, who brought a belief in devotion to God in the laity. India at the advent of Islam in India was politically weak, but religiously strong and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.

12-08-2006, 07:52 PM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 07:16 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTESaluva dynasty of Vijayanagara (possibly)
More likely that it was founded by a Kuruba because both Harihara and Bukka were said to be Kuruba and also Sri Krishnadeva raya (third in line of the Saluva dynasty) was also Kuruba, Kuruba is another name for Yadav's used in Karnataka just like Golla and Dhangar are used in AP and Maharashtra respectively, they are classified as OBC's currently I think.
[right][snapback]61838[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Actually there were four dyansties in Vijayanagara. Krishna Deva Raya belonged to Tuluva not Saluva

1 Sangama: to which Harihara, Bukka, Devraya etc. belonged
2 Saluva: Only one guy Saluva Narasimha, who was general of Praudha raya and later deposed the king to become king himself.
3 Tuluva: Narasa Nayaka and his sons Immadi Narasimha, Krishna Deva Raya, Achyuta Raya
4 Aravidu: Rama Raya etc.

Tuluvas were from Tulunadu. I think Saluva Narasimha was Brahmin because Krishna Deva Raya had a Brahmin minister named Saluva Timma.

Bharatvarsh · 12-08-2006, 08:00 PM

QUOTEActually there were four dyansties in Vijayanagara. Krishna Deva Raya belonged to Tuluva not Saluva

1 Sangama: to which Harihara, Bukka, Devraya etc. belonged
2 Saluva: Only one guy Saluva Narasimha, who was general of Praudha raya and later deposed the king to become king himself.
3 Tuluva: Narasa Nayaka and his sons Immadi Narasimha, Krishna Deva Raya, Achyuta Raya
4 Aravidu: Rama Raya etc.

Tuluvas were from Tulunadu. I think Saluva Narasimha was Brahmin because Krishna Deva Raya had a Brahmin minister named Saluva Timma. 
Yes you are correct, sorry for the mistake.

If you want to find out their origins for sure, read up Nilakanta Sastri's "Further Sources of Vijayanagar history", I think it's in 2 volumes, several older chornicles quoted in the book mention the Kuruba origin of Deva Raya and Harihara and Bukka, I think they may mention the Saluva origins as well.

12-08-2006, 09:28 PM

I think the martial races theory is partly true.
The question is how to convert the non-martial races of India into becoming more aggressive?
Sandeep Bajwa had raised the same issue in the Sikhism thread.

Bharatvarsh, Kartiksri,

Do we know the compostion of the Vijayanagara army?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was primarily composed of Nayakas, Reddys, Kammas, Yadavas (Kurubas/Gollas), Vokkaligas (Gowdas/Gounders), Kodavas & Bunts.

Also how do we know Saluva Narasimha was not a Bunt?
Bunts are the traditional fighting class from Tulu nadu.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-08-2006, 10:23 PM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEI think the martial races theory is partly true.
The question is how to convert the non-martial races of India into becoming more aggressive?
Sandeep Bajwa had raised the same issue in the Sikhism thread.
A "martial race" by definition means that it has something inherent in genes that makes it more aggressive, if you accept that then there is no way you can convert any so called non martial races into martial races because genetics can't be changed. The theory is a fake British theory, the initial composition of their army had a lot of Brahmins and people from Madras Presidency and these armies defeated the more numerous Maratha and other armies not because they were more martial but because of the superior British organization and discipline, then they found a more reliable supply among Sikhs and Gurkhas so they dumped the Bengalis and others they used previously.

If you are saying that some groups in the social and cultural sense tend to be more aggressive then there is no dispute but genetically I am not so sure.

If you want all Hindus to be like that then teach the kids about people like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and others, give them some basic arms training and don't push them to be the latest maths and science geeks (which is what a lot of Indian parents do) and ask them to stand up to aggression, even the so called religious minded Hindus never teach anything about our armed freedom fighters like Shivaji but only concentrate on the so called bhakti sants, but they don't realise that they wouldn't have survived in the first place if not for people like Shivaji, the Tamils in Srilanka were very docile in the beginning but things changed when LTTE came onto the scene, so people do change when pushed to the brink.
QUOTEBharatvarsh, Kartiksri,

Do we know the compostion of the Vijayanagara army?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was primarily composed of Nayakas, Reddys, Kammas, Yadavas (Kurubas/Gollas), Vokkaligas (Gowdas/Gounders), Kodavas & Bunts.

Also how do we know Saluva Narasimha was not a Bunt?
Bunts are the traditional fighting class from Tulu nadu.
Yes the groups you mentioned were the primary recruits for the armies, they would also have included the Velamas and the Kapus.

Also Nayaks is not a jati I think, a lot of groups use that surname or it's variant called Naidu or Naicker, the name Naidu is found among Kammas and Kapus in AP and is derived from the Sanskrit word "Nayaka", even the Madurai Nayaks were of Telugu origins.

So it is more of a title meaning "protector" or "headman".

12-08-2006, 10:21 PM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 10:09 AM)and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]


This is very true. Islam could not win many converts in India because Indian public was very firm in faith. And who made the public firm in their faith? The Prevailing Hindu social superstructure and countless saints, bhakts, sages and seers who appeared like a rainfall throughout the land of India throughout the middle ages and throughout the spectrum of sects and schools.

Mughals did identify this root cause very well. Some (like Akbar, Dara) attempted to synthesize this with Islam, which of course failed. Others like Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, physically molested these spiritual leaders.

In todays age of strong mass communication through electronic media, communists and missionaries are trying to take that firmness in faith away from people. They know that the major roadblock on their way is this strong faith and cultural national feeling in general public. So they have found the ways, which are targetting Hindu icons and creating controvisies, ridiculing the Hindu practices, trying to stir up the differences between different sects, character-assassination of Spiritual leaders of past and present, demonizing the stronger voices as fundamentalism, showing the christo-islamism in good light etc etc.

12-08-2006, 11:11 PM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 05:01 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 02:50 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)Kartik: I may be wrong about the Shahi being Brahmin example. I just read that Hindu Shahis belonged to two dynasties, the first one being Brahmin, the second one Janjua Rajput which started with Jayapala. But I remember reading in some Mohyal site of Jayapala also being Brahmin. If somebody can provide input on the same please do.
[right][snapback]61818[/snapback][/right]

This is wrong. Brhamins and rajputs have no connection.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61830[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Please see www.mohyal.com, the history of Vaids and tell me why you are so sure. They claim even Porus was a Mohyal. Mohyals are Brahmins.
[right][snapback]61831[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Kartik,
Mohil is a shakha of chauhan rajputs. Page 360 : Annals and antiquities of ancient rajasthan: James Tod,
QUOTE Manik Rae......had numerous progeny...The Kheechie, the Hara, the Mohil....
are all descended from him. Mohils rules 1400 villages as late as 15th centruy around Nagore.
You can read about Mohil chief here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajput_Chivalry

Mohil and Mohyal have no connection.
Also there are many theories about Porus. Some claim him to be a Khatri, some Brahmin and so on.

Shahi rajputs as I told you earlier are still around and have no connection with mohyal brahmins.

-Digvijay

12-08-2006, 11:29 PM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 05:58 PM)Please read closely. It is believed that Rathores originated from the Rashtrakutas. I think in the discussion on Shivaji, Hauma also pointed that out. Please see the following from the wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathore#Conne...he_Rashtrakutas

"Connection to the Rashtrakutas
At Hathundi, in what was formerly the princely state of Jodhpur , 10th century .......



Few points to consider:
a) Wikipedia is a useless source for history. Its contents would not let one pass entry level history exams in any univ.

b) The Rashtrakuta rulers recorded themselves as descendants from Satyaki of Yaduvansha.

c) Rathores consider themselves descendants of Suryavansh.

d) Now we should ignore what these rulers have recorded for there lineages which they meticulously preserved and we should believe the conjectures of modern historians.

e) Rathore origin is shrouded in mystery BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT that they are descendants of some ancient Kshatriya dynasty of India. It would take more research to figure out which one though.

QUOTE(kartiksri)Also Solankis, one of the fire born clans of Rajputs are of Chalukya lineage. Chalukya origin itself has quite a few theories, I think six in number. Anyways they were a ruling class originating from Karnataka. Considering this I think it is wrong to argue that Rajputs are warriors by blood, for the ancestry of Chauhans is different from Solankis.


Why is it wrong to argue they are warriors by blood?

QUOTE(kartiksri)I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans.

Do ask questions.

QUOTE(kartiksri) 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.


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.

QUOTE(kartiksri)"But it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha and Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas or Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population. Every month, in the 1000 year presence of Muslims in India there were bloody wars between Hindus and Muslims. This is quite unlike other countries like Iran, where non-muslims, after loosing a couple of wars gave the muslims a free hand in converting there population to Islam."

If this is what you opine ("If there were no Rajputs, Marathas,...), then let me remind you that the first successful indigenous resistence against Muslim rule was the Vijayanagara empire.


Are you serious? Have you read the Hunter quote here (Muslims had been trying to conquer India sincethe death of Muhammad and had no success for many hundred years. What are you basing your arguments on?):

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India

QUOTE(kartiksri) They suffered some 20 years of Muslim subjugation from 1316 to 1336, but they could not even tolerate that much. And the inspiration for Vijayanagara was when sage Vidyaranya asked Harihara and Bukka to save their religion and way of life. The Hindu culture has survived because of its adherents deep attachment to the religion, which they clearly saw as different way of life than what Islam tried to propogate. And it was commonfolk of the Deccan, not any particular race which overthrew Muslims down south. Given a particular set of conditions, socio-economic or political any community can respond.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]

Your thesis is completely wrong.

-Digvijay

12-08-2006, 11:42 PM

QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:11 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 05:01 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 02:50 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)Kartik: I may be wrong about the Shahi being Brahmin example. I just read that Hindu Shahis belonged to two dynasties, the first one being Brahmin, the second one Janjua Rajput which started with Jayapala. But I remember reading in some Mohyal site of Jayapala also being Brahmin. If somebody can provide input on the same please do.
[right][snapback]61818[/snapback][/right]

This is wrong. Brhamins and rajputs have no connection.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61830[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Please see www.mohyal.com, the history of Vaids and tell me why you are so sure. They claim even Porus was a Mohyal. Mohyals are Brahmins.
[right][snapback]61831[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Kartik,
Mohil is a shakha of chauhan rajputs. Page 360 : Annals and antiquities of ancient rajasthan: James Tod,
QUOTE Manik Rae......had numerous progeny...The Kheechie, the Hara, the Mohil....
are all descended from him. Mohils rules 1400 villages as late as 15th centruy around Nagore.
You can read about Mohil chief here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajput_Chivalry

Mohil and Mohyal have no connection.
Also there are many theories about Porus. Some claim him to be a Khatri, some Brahmin and so on.

Shahi rajputs as I told you earlier are still around and have no connection with mohyal brahmins.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61853[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Digvijayji,

I've never referred to Mohils at all. I have been only talking about Mohyals and what they claim about themselves in their site.

12-09-2006, 12:37 AM

QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:29 PM)
Few points to consider:
a) Wikipedia is a useless source for history. Its contents would not let one pass entry level history exams in any univ.


Kartik: Too generalised a comment. Some of the articles don't make sense, but it does help you to get some facts right. Before dismissing the article cited off hand, do read it

QUOTE(digvijay)b) The Rashtrakuta rulers recorded themselves as descendants from Satyaki of Yaduvansha.

c) Rathores consider themselves descendants of Suryavansh.

d) Now we should ignore what these rulers have recorded for there lineages which they meticulously preserved and we should believe the conjectures of modern historians.

<b>e) Rathore origin is shrouded in mystery BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT that they are descendants of some ancient Kshatriya dynasty of India. It would take more research to figure out which one though.</b>


Kartik: It seems you have already formed an unshakeable opinion that they are of Kshatriya origin and that researches can only help you figure out how to justify and prove it your predetermined hypothesis.

QUOTE(digvijay)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)Also Solankis, one of the fire born clans of Rajputs are of Chalukya lineage. Chalukya origin itself has quite a few theories, I think six in number. Anyways they were a ruling class originating from Karnataka. Considering this I think it is wrong to argue that Rajputs are warriors by blood, for the ancestry of Chauhans is different from Solankis.


Why is it wrong to argue they are warriors by blood?
</div>

Kartik: To contend that predisposition and aptitude towards certain professions due to socio economic, political etc factors is ok to some extent, but to argue that it is in blood is illogical. Even if you empirically prove that every Rajput till date has been a brave warrior, which is of course not the case, your theory is still not valid. For even if one or a few turn out to not to be brave then the warrior by blood theory is disproved. Conversely there are many courageous, enterprising and martial men and women in other communities too. Also who determines the scale of bravery. It is too subjective an area to make absolute claims.

QUOTE(digvijay)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans.

Do ask questions.

QUOTE(kartiksri) 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.


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.
</div>

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. 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.

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. Before the Maratha renaissance, for centuries there were many saints like Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Namdev, Choka Mela, Eknath, Ramdas etc all coming from different sections of society, some were potters, cobblers etc., who through simple songs and the simple concept of Bhakti created a strong faith in religious principles. For the fervour to come in wielding the sword, you require a strong faith. Muslims of the expansion period had a strong faith in their religion otherwise before they were just nomads in the desert. Shivaji had great regard for Ramdas for his efforts towards galvanising the Hindu populace.

QUOTE(digvijay)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)"But it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha and Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas or Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population. Every month, in the 1000 year presence of Muslims in India there were bloody wars between Hindus and Muslims. This is quite unlike other countries like Iran, where non-muslims, after loosing a couple of wars gave the muslims a free hand in converting there population to Islam."

If this is what you opine ("If there were no Rajputs, Marathas,...), then let me remind you that the first successful indigenous resistence against Muslim rule was the Vijayanagara empire.


Are you serious? Have you read the Hunter quote here (Muslims had been trying to conquer India sincethe death of Muhammad and had no success for many hundred years. What are you basing your arguments on?):

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India

QUOTE(kartiksri) They suffered some 20 years of Muslim subjugation from 1316 to 1336, but they could not even tolerate that much. And the inspiration for Vijayanagara was when sage Vidyaranya asked Harihara and Bukka to save their religion and way of life. The Hindu culture has survived because of its adherents deep attachment to the religion, which they clearly saw as different way of life than what Islam tried to propogate. And it was commonfolk of the Deccan, not any particular race which overthrew Muslims down south. Given a particular set of conditions, socio-economic or political any community can respond.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]

Your thesis is completely wrong.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Kartik After Muslim conquest of Delhi and then later Deccan, Vijayanagara was the first succesful indigenous enterprise which threw away the Sultanate's rule. You can read of how it came about. Then you can comment with reasons why my thesis is wrong.

12-09-2006, 12:39 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicizatio...t-conquest_Iran


Wikipedia is useless. Modern Persians have one agenda to show that Islam "intellectually" improved because of Persian influence. Since all of them are muslims they "cannot" see any fault with there ancestors being converted to Islam.

To understand what really happened you have to talk to / understand from modern Parsis i.e descendants of Persian Zoroastrians who came to India. Dosabhoy Framjee is an eminent Paris Historian who wrote a book on Muslim occupation of Persia:
Please read it here:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)Regarding Zoroastrianism succumbing to Islam, there are two stages to the question

1. Conquest of Iran from the Sassanids:
Now after reading the two articles and from my knowledge of history, the reason why Iran lost so to the Arabs quickly was because it was unified. Iranians were fighting a superior enemy in terms of zeal, ideology and military strength. Iranian polity was going through a phase of decline because of weakening Sassanid power. Now in such situation, since Iran was unified it presented one army to the Arabs, whose loss means loss of Iran. We bemoan that India at the advent of Islam in India was a divided house, but that division was a boon in disguise. What this means is that any invader cannot win a war or a country by winning one battle.


Forget the defeat. Concentrate on what haappened to Zoroastrians. (Though we have had arguments here that having a central organization is better).

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)Even after defeating Lodhi, Babur had won a small part of India. Then he had to contend with Rana Sanga, even after that it meant only consolidation over northern India.


No. Not true that Babur consolidated over North India. Yes he won a few wars. Against Sanga he managed to bribe a general on the rajput side and he won.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)
Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa and the South were not even in the picture. You look at any invader from north from Mahmud Ghazni, Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak down to Babur, all the Muslim houses which came to rule Delhi had to fight and subdue a dozen principalities and a dozen powers. India also was a far bigger and diverse land than Iran. For over 100 years while the northern plains of India was subjugated by the Sultanate, there was no presence of them in South India. Of course thanks to Rajputs and others who kept them occupied. Governing India has always been very difficult. Culturally we may be one, but uniting us politically is difficult. It takes decades to build a politically unified or partially politically unified state in India, it does not even take a few years for it to disintegrate, whether it be the Mauryas or Guptas or Harsha or Mughals.

Governing is not difficult. What makes it challenging is having rulers who are good.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)
What we have to understand is that political unity works both ways. Take China, China has been politically unified for long periods of its history as much as were politically disunited. By 15th century AD China was one of the foremost maritime powers in the world. They are said to have built bigger ships and even to haev discovered America. But in the 15th century a new conservative dynasty came into power in China which was opposed to the navy. To curb them they passed a rule whereby crossing the seas was not allowed, also big ships cannot be built. If it had been India it would have been even impractical to concieve such an idea leave alone implement it, but China being politically unified this decree was swiftly, universally and ruthlessly implemented which was a retrograde step for China. Similar is the case of Japan with gunpowder, which also came about due to political consolidation by samurais.

2. Conversion of Zoroastrians to Islam:

It is mentioned that the upper classes of the zoroastrian society converted to Islam to maintain their privileges as there was a ruthless crackdown on zoroastrianism. Of course there were massacres and conversions.

This is one sided. Please read Dosabhoy Framjee's work which is mentioned above in this post.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM) Can you imagine in India the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the upper castes getting converted to Islam. Though there were a few cases of conversions by upper classes, but by and large the upper castes of India were more commited to our social systems and caste systems.

No No. You are talking like a marxist about the "power of Hinduism" and its assimilitative properties. None of these things work when a fanatic Jihadi held a sword on the neck of the brahmin to eat beef. Please research about conversions in India a bit more.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)In the face of a missionary religion propogated with violent zeal, could we have withstood just on the basis of sword.

Ofcourse yes.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM) No, tif w did not have a stronger value system and faith to adhere to we would not have made it.


This is a myth. You have to realise that Zoroastrians had similar faith in there religion and when they had no defenders left to defend the common man they were asked to convert on the edge of the sword and to save there life they did. This is how Islam spread throught the world. In India they tried similar tactic but ofcourse Hindus showed them what real war is.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM) Also I think the population and geographical spread and diversity of geography helped. Even at the time of Independence, Muslims were 25-30% of population of subcontinent. This after centuries of discrimination and conversions. So during Sultanate period there would have far fewer.
[right][snapback]61835[/snapback][/right]

Yes and it so happened beacuse the strength of the Hindus not by the grace of God, or the strength of Hindu faith or the benevolence of Muslims. Interestingly if Hinduism had a way of reconverting Muslims there would have been far fewer muslims left in India just like Spain during the time of Inquisition.
-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 12:45 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 07:06 PM)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Sassanid_dynasty

"Zoroastrianism lost its unifying effect as the state religion. The introduction of Mazdakism shattered people's faith in Zoroastrism, and its priests lost their influence on the people. Buddhism in the east and Christianity in the west also played an important role in religious unrest. However, their call wasn't as significant as before."
[right][snapback]61836[/snapback][/right]


Do not rely too much on wikipedia. Go to some Parsi Historians and not some modern muslims or westerner historians.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 12:56 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 07:39 PM)<Zoroastrian commentary snipped>

Compare it with India in 10th-13th centuries and thereafter. Hinduism because of its inherent tolerant spirit was going through a period of revival after the degradation to tantrism etc in the post Gupta period.
We are really fortunate that we had a figure like Adi Shankara at the right time. I can tell you with some confidence, that India is Hindu today is in no small measure due to this great saint and scholar. Adi Shankara made us spiritual yet again, gave us faith, put in a framework and system to accomodate all strands of thought. Then came Ramanuja, the Saivite Nayanars and Vaishnavite Alwars, who brought a belief in devotion to God in the laity. India at the advent of Islam in India was politically weak, but religiously strong and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]

You are arguing unnecessarily Kartik. Faith has nothing to do with the survival of Hinduism. Hindus survived because they fought. You are not to able to comprehend what a war and fighting it really means. You fail to understand that Islamic armies carried crescent over thousands of square miles even to Spain and converted these lands completely. This was done through sword. Had Hindus lost completely you would be reading a Kalma today. A defeated population has no God or choice to follow a God no matter they are followers of Hinduism or xyz.

Please research more.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 01:10 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 10:20 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEI think the martial races theory is partly true.
The question is how to convert the non-martial races of India into becoming more aggressive?
Sandeep Bajwa had raised the same issue in the Sikhism thread.
A "martial race" by definition means that it has something inherent in genes that makes it more aggressive, if you accept that then there is no way you can convert any so called non martial races into martial races because genetics can't be changed. The theory is a fake British theory,
</div>
Yes you are right Brit martial race theory is bull. But it is true that Kshatriya of India are better fighters then non-kshatriyas. And it should not be a surprise to anyone. How does the son of a carpenter become a good carpenter. It is because he sees his father at work every day. Similarly Kshatriya kids hear the stories of other kshatriyas and learn by looking at there parents in action. The stubborn-ness , lack of compromise etc are ingrained from day one.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 10:20 PM)
the initial composition of their army had a lot of Brahmins and people from Madras Presidency and these armies defeated the more numerous Maratha and other armies not because they were more martial but because of the superior British organization and discipline, then they found a more reliable supply among Sikhs and Gurkhas so they dumped the Bengalis and others they used previously.


I have already posted why Sikhs lost. There Generals had crossed over to Brits. Couple of them were Brahmins and one was Dogra.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 10:20 PM)If you are saying that some groups in the social and cultural sense tend to be more aggressive then there is no dispute but genetically I am not so sure.

This aggressiveness runs in the blood. I will give you an example. I recently learnt that in TamilNadu Brahmins were beaten up during the Dravidian movement of idiots like Periyar etc. The situation became so bad that lot of Brahmins migrated out of TN to places like Maharashtra etc even where the Marathis created trouble for them.

Now replace Brahmins with say rajputs. There is nothing on earth which can compel a rajput to leave his birthplace, if being asked to vacate forcibly without a solid fight, which might continue for generations. Other Kshatriya groups and Sikhs are of the same mold though the intensity may vary.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 10:20 PM)If you want all Hindus to be like that then teach the kids about people like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and others, give them some basic arms training and don't push them to be the latest maths and science geeks (which is what a lot of Indian parents do) and ask them to stand up to aggression, even the so called religious minded Hindus never teach anything about our armed freedom fighters like Shivaji but only concentrate on the so called bhakti sants, but they don't realise that they wouldn't have survived in the first place if not for people like Shivaji, the Tamils in Srilanka were very docile in the beginning but things changed when LTTE came onto the scene, so people do change when pushed to the brink.

[right][snapback]61850[/snapback][/right]



The first and foremost duty is to educate and instill pride in our children about our glorious past. Our historians have done an extremely shoddy job in writing our history.
We have to fix that. Once this happens it will instill pride in them which is the most fundamental thing for a group to do well.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 01:20 AM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 8 2006, 10:21 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 10:09 AM)and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]


This is very true. Islam could not win many converts in India because Indian public was very firm in faith. And who made the public firm in their faith? The Prevailing Hindu social superstructure and countless saints, bhakts, sages and seers who appeared like a rainfall throughout the land of India throughout the middle ages and throughout the spectrum of sects and schools.

</div>

Bodhi you got to be kidding me. Sword on the neck when you belong to the population in the realm of king which lost a war to the jihadi muslim and a dictum to eat beef and loose your jaati cannot be avoided because you belong to the glorious hinduism.

Please grow out of this marxist propaganda that Islam is the next best thing to motherhood and apple pie and the sufi saints spread it in India and that common hindu was just more smart religiously because he was a hindu and hence he did not convert.
This is utter Ape sh1t.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 8 2006, 10:21 PM)Mughals did identify this root cause very well.Â Some (like Akbar, Dara) attempted to synthesize this with Islam, which of course failed. Others like Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, physically molested these spiritual leaders.

Akbar was as big a bigot as others. The only saving grace happened to be that he was married to a Hindu lady who had given him the eldest male hier. This created some moderation in a sea of inhumanity. 30,000 people were massacred after the siege of Chittor when they refused to convert to Islam. Regarding Din-E Elahi Akbar was a drunk as well as married to Hindu women which caused mullahs to not like him. He could not even get any of his court historians to properly record the name of Salmi's mother out of the fear of Mullahs.

Dara I will grant you was a moderate but moderate Islam has no chance to survive. Never in the past and not today also.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 8 2006, 10:21 PM)

In todays age of strong mass communication through electronic media, communists and missionaries are trying to take that firmness in faith away from people.Â They know that the major roadblock on their way is this strong faith and cultural national feeling in general public. So they have found the ways, which are targetting Hindu icons and creating controvisies, ridiculing the Hindu practices, trying to stir up the differences between different sects, character-assassination of Spiritual leaders of past and present, demonizing the stronger voices as fundamentalism, showing the christo-islamism in good light etc etc.
[right][snapback]61851[/snapback][/right]


This is a conspiracy theory when you want to blame someone else for your problems.

-Digvijay

Login




Remember me Lost Password?