02-09-2006, 01:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you cant compare the partition of bengal and that of punjab. the latter was a partition between 2 countries, not states and for good.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes so what, many other states did equally well, 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 while the latter doesn't and last time I checked Ram Mohan Roy did nothing to unite India, if anything it was Sardar Patel who toiled day and night to bring about this political unity 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. 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. The following quotes illustrate what I am talking about:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the time he reached Calcutta, the Brahmo Samaj had split into two. A minority consisting of those who wanted to retain their. Hindu identity had remained with the Adi Brahmo Samaj led by Debendra Nath Tagore and Rajnarayan Bose. The majority had walked away with Keshub Chunder Sen who had formed his Church of the New Dispensation (NababidhAna) and started dreaming of becoming the prophet of a new world religion. Dayananda saw with his own eyes how infatuation with Christ had reduced Keshub Chunder to a sanctimonious humbug and turned him into a rootless cosmopolitan. He also witnessed how Debendra Nath Tagore was finding it difficult to retrieve the ground lost when the Adi Brahmo Samaj had repudiated the fundamental tenets of Hinduism - the authority of the Vedas, VarNAshrama-dharma, the doctrine of rebirth, etc. The only consolation he found in Calcutta was a lecture, The Superiority of Hinduism, which Rajnarayan Bose had delivered earlier and a copy of which was presented to him.
Dayananda wrote a critique of Brahmoism soon after he returned from Calcutta. It was incorporated in Chapter XI of his SatyArthaprakAsha which was first published from Varanasi in the beginning of 1875. The Brahmos, he wrote, have very little love of their own country left in them. Far from taking pride in their country and their ancestors, they find fault with both. They praise Christians and Englishmen in their public speeches while they do not even mention the rishis of old. They proclaim that since creation and till today, no wise man has been born outside the British fold. The people of Aryavarta have always been idiotic, according to them. They believe that Hindus have never made any progress. Far from honouring the Vedas, they never hesitate in denouncing those venerable Shastras. The book which describes the tenets of Brahmoism has place for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad who are praised as great saints, but it has no place for any ancient rishi, howsoever great. They denounce Hindu society for its division in castes, but they never notice the racial consciousness which runs deep in European society. They claim that their search is only for truth, whether it is found in the Bible or the Quran, but they manage to miss the truth which is in their own Vedic heritage. They are running after Jesus without knowing what their own rishis have bequeathed to them. They discard the sacred thread as if it were heavier than the foreign liveries they love to wear. In the process, they have become beggars in their own home and can do no good either to themselves or to those among whom they live.1
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhce/Ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian loyalists justified the British presence on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century), 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
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ait/ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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 how was partition of Bengal (during 1947) and Noakhali mutually exclusive, the latter was a massacre directly connected to this partition, 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? 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.
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??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you cant compare the partition of bengal and that of punjab. the latter was a partition between 2 countries, not states and for good.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes so what, many other states did equally well, 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 while the latter doesn't and last time I checked Ram Mohan Roy did nothing to unite India, if anything it was Sardar Patel who toiled day and night to bring about this political unity 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. 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. The following quotes illustrate what I am talking about:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the time he reached Calcutta, the Brahmo Samaj had split into two. A minority consisting of those who wanted to retain their. Hindu identity had remained with the Adi Brahmo Samaj led by Debendra Nath Tagore and Rajnarayan Bose. The majority had walked away with Keshub Chunder Sen who had formed his Church of the New Dispensation (NababidhAna) and started dreaming of becoming the prophet of a new world religion. Dayananda saw with his own eyes how infatuation with Christ had reduced Keshub Chunder to a sanctimonious humbug and turned him into a rootless cosmopolitan. He also witnessed how Debendra Nath Tagore was finding it difficult to retrieve the ground lost when the Adi Brahmo Samaj had repudiated the fundamental tenets of Hinduism - the authority of the Vedas, VarNAshrama-dharma, the doctrine of rebirth, etc. The only consolation he found in Calcutta was a lecture, The Superiority of Hinduism, which Rajnarayan Bose had delivered earlier and a copy of which was presented to him.
Dayananda wrote a critique of Brahmoism soon after he returned from Calcutta. It was incorporated in Chapter XI of his SatyArthaprakAsha which was first published from Varanasi in the beginning of 1875. The Brahmos, he wrote, have very little love of their own country left in them. Far from taking pride in their country and their ancestors, they find fault with both. They praise Christians and Englishmen in their public speeches while they do not even mention the rishis of old. They proclaim that since creation and till today, no wise man has been born outside the British fold. The people of Aryavarta have always been idiotic, according to them. They believe that Hindus have never made any progress. Far from honouring the Vedas, they never hesitate in denouncing those venerable Shastras. The book which describes the tenets of Brahmoism has place for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad who are praised as great saints, but it has no place for any ancient rishi, howsoever great. They denounce Hindu society for its division in castes, but they never notice the racial consciousness which runs deep in European society. They claim that their search is only for truth, whether it is found in the Bible or the Quran, but they manage to miss the truth which is in their own Vedic heritage. They are running after Jesus without knowing what their own rishis have bequeathed to them. They discard the sacred thread as if it were heavier than the foreign liveries they love to wear. In the process, they have become beggars in their own home and can do no good either to themselves or to those among whom they live.1
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhce/Ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian loyalists justified the British presence on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century), 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
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ait/ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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 how was partition of Bengal (during 1947) and Noakhali mutually exclusive, the latter was a massacre directly connected to this partition, 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? 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.