12-08-2006, 02:43 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+-->QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 11:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 11:34 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
While it is nice to get more knowledge about the brave Rajput warriors, to give an entire community an exalted status and a common branding of bravery is too much to accept.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you care to explain why India is still a Hindu country while Iran is entirely muslim? Do note that the classical argument that it is Hinduism vs Zorastrianism thing is ofcourse rubbish.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kartik: I never looked at from this angle. Pls tell me your hypothesis, but your import seems to be that kshatriyas resisted Islam and hence India remained Hindu, while Paris were not brave enough to withstand Islam.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you read the link that I posted in my previous reply? There is _no_ other way to interpret why Hindus still exist in India.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think one major factor a large proportion of Indians did not convert. This was because Hinduism is a way of life, being a way of life it was open to assimilation and evolving plus I think Hindus are deeply religious believing both in the form and spirit. We hear of instances where Christian missionaries came to preach Indians their religions. But we being used to debate and vak vivad looked
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Muslims converted there lands on the edge of the sword. Though modern muslims and JNU historians would want you to beleive it was sufis who did it.
In India they were not allowed to do this conversion. There is no Vaak Vivaad. What people fail to see is Zoroastrianism was an ancient religion and after loosing the wars the conquered Iranians did not "fall in love" with the new religion hook, line and sinker.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->at their preaching as a form of discussion rather than what the Christians wanted i.e. preaching. We said ok, your thought seems interesting, but we have already thought on those lines and maybe have a better way or way better for us. Also you should not disocunt the fact from ancient times India has been one of the populous places on earth. Maybe if were less populous, we would have become a minority by more foreign influx. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are incorrect conjectures.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Till the 1857 revolt, most of British army which vanquished various Indian states did not have some of the "martial" races like Turks, Afghans, Rajputs, Sikhs etc. You talk of British misrespresenting our history and you yourself are falling victim to one of their propogandas and pet theory viz. "martial races".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I am not. Please read my previous post again and contrast it with what British thought of as martial races.
<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+-->QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nope. British as all westerners could not understand what Hindu Jaati/Varna system is.In India throughout the length and breadth of the country there were kings from antiquity and all regions of our country had people who knew how to fight well. Some of the best navies were organized by southern Indian kings. They ruled most of south east asia. Infact there descendants even crossed swords with Genghis's Khans' grandson Kublai Khan who conquered China when he tried to conquer there territoty in modern Vietnam and defeated the mongol forces.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kartik: That doesn't answer my argument. the company sepoys were largely drawn out of Brahmins from Awadh and Bihar who fought bravely and well to keep the name of their village and regiment up. Of course they fought and defeated the same chaps whom the British later called "martial races".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please research Anglo-Sikh wars (some references: Cunnungham/Patwant SIngh/Khushwant Singh. Gist is sikh generals had sold out to the brits for narrow personal gains. Couple of these generals were brahmins and one was a Dogra). So it was not bravery of Brits or the sepoys that won the battle. If you just read our modern historians, including the NCERT / JNU crowd all you will find is Hindus/Sikhs were sitting duck and they lost. Of course reality is quite opposite.In Persia Yezdezird lost a couple and his entire country was converted to Islam. We did not allow this to happen in India.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> But let me make my point really clear. Through this instance I'm not trying to say that Brahmins are braver than "martial races". The Company won as much because of the drill and discipline, better strategy etc. and Sikhs, Marathas all fought bravely. What I want to put across is that this "martial races" is an incorrect theory. Provide the right socio economic conditions and you will have different communities proving their martial abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not subscribe to MR theory. Please read my previous post.
(More in the next one. Formatting nightmare)
While it is nice to get more knowledge about the brave Rajput warriors, to give an entire community an exalted status and a common branding of bravery is too much to accept.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you care to explain why India is still a Hindu country while Iran is entirely muslim? Do note that the classical argument that it is Hinduism vs Zorastrianism thing is ofcourse rubbish.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kartik: I never looked at from this angle. Pls tell me your hypothesis, but your import seems to be that kshatriyas resisted Islam and hence India remained Hindu, while Paris were not brave enough to withstand Islam.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you read the link that I posted in my previous reply? There is _no_ other way to interpret why Hindus still exist in India.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think one major factor a large proportion of Indians did not convert. This was because Hinduism is a way of life, being a way of life it was open to assimilation and evolving plus I think Hindus are deeply religious believing both in the form and spirit. We hear of instances where Christian missionaries came to preach Indians their religions. But we being used to debate and vak vivad looked
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Muslims converted there lands on the edge of the sword. Though modern muslims and JNU historians would want you to beleive it was sufis who did it.
In India they were not allowed to do this conversion. There is no Vaak Vivaad. What people fail to see is Zoroastrianism was an ancient religion and after loosing the wars the conquered Iranians did not "fall in love" with the new religion hook, line and sinker.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->at their preaching as a form of discussion rather than what the Christians wanted i.e. preaching. We said ok, your thought seems interesting, but we have already thought on those lines and maybe have a better way or way better for us. Also you should not disocunt the fact from ancient times India has been one of the populous places on earth. Maybe if were less populous, we would have become a minority by more foreign influx. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are incorrect conjectures.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Till the 1857 revolt, most of British army which vanquished various Indian states did not have some of the "martial" races like Turks, Afghans, Rajputs, Sikhs etc. You talk of British misrespresenting our history and you yourself are falling victim to one of their propogandas and pet theory viz. "martial races".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I am not. Please read my previous post again and contrast it with what British thought of as martial races.
<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+-->QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nope. British as all westerners could not understand what Hindu Jaati/Varna system is.In India throughout the length and breadth of the country there were kings from antiquity and all regions of our country had people who knew how to fight well. Some of the best navies were organized by southern Indian kings. They ruled most of south east asia. Infact there descendants even crossed swords with Genghis's Khans' grandson Kublai Khan who conquered China when he tried to conquer there territoty in modern Vietnam and defeated the mongol forces.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kartik: That doesn't answer my argument. the company sepoys were largely drawn out of Brahmins from Awadh and Bihar who fought bravely and well to keep the name of their village and regiment up. Of course they fought and defeated the same chaps whom the British later called "martial races".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please research Anglo-Sikh wars (some references: Cunnungham/Patwant SIngh/Khushwant Singh. Gist is sikh generals had sold out to the brits for narrow personal gains. Couple of these generals were brahmins and one was a Dogra). So it was not bravery of Brits or the sepoys that won the battle. If you just read our modern historians, including the NCERT / JNU crowd all you will find is Hindus/Sikhs were sitting duck and they lost. Of course reality is quite opposite.In Persia Yezdezird lost a couple and his entire country was converted to Islam. We did not allow this to happen in India.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> But let me make my point really clear. Through this instance I'm not trying to say that Brahmins are braver than "martial races". The Company won as much because of the drill and discipline, better strategy etc. and Sikhs, Marathas all fought bravely. What I want to put across is that this "martial races" is an incorrect theory. Provide the right socio economic conditions and you will have different communities proving their martial abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not subscribe to MR theory. Please read my previous post.
(More in the next one. Formatting nightmare)