02-08-2006, 06:01 PM
er.. by "effective" resistance... i meant resistance effective enough to keep muslims out.
so far i know all of india nearly was under muslims. the only ones who kept the muslims "out" were the ahoms. and perhaps the marathas. even the heroic rajput resistance wasnt "effective".
why else did we have the 800 year old islamic misrule in india eh if it was all so effective in keepingthem out??
you cant compare the partition of bengal and that of punjab. the latter was a partition between 2 countries, not states and for good.
and as for resistance by the viyajanagar empire... doesnt that vindicate me?? that resistance came from exactly those who were lucky enough to have a very powerful kingdom at the time of the muslims arrival??
as for half-anglicised idiots (in which i suppose you include the father of modern india), trees are known by their fruits. there arnt many christians in bengal despite such a overwhelming western presence. and so it is that bengal doint have the deeply entrenched caste system or dowry and female infanticide and yet managed to keep x-ianity at bay.
"I can accept facts unlike you,"
>>> 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.
so far i know all of india nearly was under muslims. the only ones who kept the muslims "out" were the ahoms. and perhaps the marathas. even the heroic rajput resistance wasnt "effective".
why else did we have the 800 year old islamic misrule in india eh if it was all so effective in keepingthem out??
you cant compare the partition of bengal and that of punjab. the latter was a partition between 2 countries, not states and for good.
and as for resistance by the viyajanagar empire... doesnt that vindicate me?? that resistance came from exactly those who were lucky enough to have a very powerful kingdom at the time of the muslims arrival??
as for half-anglicised idiots (in which i suppose you include the father of modern india), trees are known by their fruits. there arnt many christians in bengal despite such a overwhelming western presence. and so it is that bengal doint have the deeply entrenched caste system or dowry and female infanticide and yet managed to keep x-ianity at bay.
"I can accept facts unlike you,"
>>> 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.