digvijay

Tronic,
History is quite interesting. By suppressing the facts one can paint any picture for any historical personality. That is unfortunately what one of our highest social sciences institute, JNU, has tried to do. Invaders at Chittor gave an option to the civilians there that they can live if they convert or die if they don't. They chose the latter.

A miniscule minority of muslims did fight on Hindu side. Yet again our JNU historians treat these singular examples as sweeping generalizations. What they fail to mention is that when each war saw your temples razed to the ground and your gods disfigured how can it not be a war of religions?

And did you also get a chance to compare the Indian experience with what happened in Iran etc during similar invasions?

Thanks for sharing.

-Digvijay

digvijay

Conversion after a battle reversal is an edict which was followed by muslim invaders. The population of chittor was given a chance to save themselves by embracing Islam or die. They chose the latter.

I already knew he was Indian. I am not sure what you mean by mentality here?

Knowing correct history of our country is imperative. Yes Indian army today is representative of the people living in India. This was not the case in medieveal India.

It would be more fruitful if we can discuss what I have written rather then increasing the degrees of freedom by bringing in current Indian army.

In regions ruled by Hindu kings, secularism was the norm even in medieveal ages. Psychophants can say anything.
When Zoroaster followers were driven out of there homeland, Iran, by invading muslim armies, in 8th century A.D. they were given safe refuge and land to cultivate by the rajput king of gujarat. In giving this help the hindu king did not ask the parsis/zoroastrians to abandon there ancient faith.

This does not parse.

-Digvijay

Tronic

Don't know who is right or who is wrong. What I do know is that Akbar's policies were secular and liberal.

It is only a war of religions when both sides are killing each other for the same religious reasons. Entire muslim masses all over were not fighting a Jihad against non-muslims, it was the Sultanate and the Mughal armies who waged war against non-Muslims. Our war was not against Muslims or Islam. Islam and Muslims are now as much part of India's culture and history as anyone else.

Yes, its a sad thing. Again, it were the Fanatic rulers we were fighting.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Tronic

wow... what on earth are you trying to portray here? Hindu domination of India where other minorities can live under "liberal Hinduism"???... Am I hearing the echoes of BJP/RSS's "Hindutva" natak???

digvijay

Tronic,
Akbar was a shrewd human being who realised that if he wants to rule in peace he should figure out a way to befriend rajputs. To not antagonize them he was benevolent to some extent towards Hindus. You can read more about it here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Maharana_Pratap

Regarding Din-E-Ilahi, Akbar got fed up with the mullahs telling him what to do and he gave up Islam to start his own religion.

Not true. Hindu kings could not convert anyone to Hniduism because that is not technically possible. So our war was pretty much a defensive one to save our own religion.

Yes now they are. But we are talking about medieveal ages.

Have you contrasted the way Persia under yezdejird lost there land and the fact that they even lost there religion too, barring the few who landed in India, with why similar thing could not take place in India?
-Digvijay

digvijay

Tronic,
I gave you an example from 8th century A.D. I can give you more examples from Lehna Singh ruling Lahore, Banda Bhadur's reign or Marathas reign, or rajputs reign or ....... (list is long).

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

Bottom line, Indian kings have been very secular throughout the ages.

-Digvijay

Tronic

I don't know why he did it, and different Historians will say different stuff. Even I don't know where you are getting your information from, but at the end I know that his policies were liberal and secular.


What is not true? I never said that Hindu Kings converted others, I don't know where you read that.

Ok, but again, not all Muslims were enemies of non-muslims in India. Muslims and non-Muslims lived together in harmony in many places.

We had stiff resistance and not every Mughal king was a fanatic phsycho despot....

Archer

Yes, but a point which is severely overlooked in modern India.

Almost all were, whether thanks to their courtiers being fanatics, or the need to act as guardians of the faith, the islamic kings in India were harsh and antagonistic when it came to other faiths, and brooked no opposition. There were exceptions, eg who has not heard of Baz Bahadur and Roopmati, but more the exception than the rule. The antics and depredations of the Sultanates, whether North or South, whether the Slave dynasty or the Mughals, makes for harrowing reading.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

Archer

Akbar was a rare bird..he began the standard way, bairam khan had him behead hemu as an infidel iirc and was fairly harsh..

Wiki'ed but still.

"On November 5, 1556 Akbar's Mughal army defeated the numerically superior forces of General Hemu at the Second Battle of Panipat, fifty miles north of Delhi, thanks to a chance arrow into Hemu's eye. Hemu was brought before Akbar unconscious, and was beheaded. Some sources say that it was actually Bairam Khan who killed the man, but Akbar certainly did use the term "Ghazi", warrior for the faith, a term used by both Babur, his grandfather, and Timur when fighting the Kafir (non-Muslims) in India. "

He moderated his opinions later on; contemporary/ later accounts I have read portray him as being disgusted by his courtiers fanaticism, and he ultimately founded din-i-ilahi, which was a source of major discontent (as he was now a heretic)..but nobody had the gonads to publically repudiate him or make a grab for power.

Even so, he was a shrewd feller, he did realize that making peace with the Rajput clans would give him legitimacy and allow him respite. Despite that, several refused, and the wars went on.

Again, more of an exception than the rule- Akbar was definitely not the average Mughal.

Another thing that deserves being remarked is about the hanafi strain of Islam practised in India..you could worship in your temples, but you couldnt build new ones, or proselytise..the intent was to gradually convert the kaffirs to believers. Aurangzeb of course was made of sterner stuff, he had had enough of the slower method and went for the kill.

y_raj

lets stop this discussuion . nothing is very clear about the perod you ar talking about . we should discuss something about the 1800s and afterwards. that would represent a better picture of the Indian army rather than the medievel ones

Archer

what does this have to do with the modern indian army anyway..

besides the period under question is catalogued, nevermind.

donjasjit

Agreed this discussion has degenerated into a free for all. Digvijay I don't won't to belittle your effort, you have done a splendid job and the section on Prithviraj Chauhan(a hero of mine) was the best. The point I want to raise is that history is as anyone interprets it. If you or me for instance presents a portion of history as a battle between religions than it hurts more people than it heals.

Everywhere Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise. These people are terrorizing anyone who does not agree with them and they are bombing and killing on an unprecedented scale. There is one force however that can check them and that is moderate islam. These moderate islamists need our help, if we don't support the Akbars and Dara Shikohs of this world then the Aurangzebs of this world will overwhelm them.

That is why history too should be presented in that manner. I can understand the hurt and humiliation you feel when you remember the atrocities that so many muslim rulers did on us hindus and sikhs. But that is the power of hinduism and Indian culture, hinduism has always engulfed the invader and made it it's own. It has the incredible power to absorb other cultures and ideas. If we present history as religious wars then there is real danger that a muslim fundamentalist may read these posts and believe that he is justified to think of India as a land ony of hindus where muslims have no place. He will then argue erroniously in his mind that the jehadis in Kashmir are right to ask to seccede from India.But that can never be allowed to happen, because India is secular where muslims enjoy greater freedom than in most islamic countries.

Archer

Jasjit

I believed as you did and still do to some extent, but history has to be seen as it was and is, ideals cannot drive the depiction of history. In India's case, Islam does have a lot of blood on its hands, and I daresay, by covering it all this while, we have prevented a free and frank discussion.

To give a somewhat related analogy- imagine if India pretends that social evils dont exist, because after all, it might offend a certain group and we want them to join the mainstream. The end result is that behaviour survives, and in the end, there is a backlash- people raise that issue and then the community in question says: wtf are you on about?

If Indians, muslims or hindus or anyone- were to catalogue the violence committed in the name of Islam, and if it were to be dispassionately analysed and accepted, the communitys leaders would realise that it is expected of them to not stray into fundamentalism again or pursue the politics of exclusivism.

How many Muslims have we seen who acknowledge the more brutal acts of Islam in India? Instead, all the blame is heaped on hindutva fundamentalism or the unsympathetic media or a global conspiracy against Islam.

An educated hindu in India, for instance, openly decries some idiot in the boondocks trying to use his religion as a crutch for caste based oppression or the like.

But in the case of Islam, this entire swathe of subcontinental history has been literally wiped from the record.

Why then, blame a Muslim for wondering why a hindu gets angry when he calls saddam a "ghazi"? Or for that matter, when he praises osama in malegoan, his hindu neighbours take umbrage and riot?

American history does not hide what the US citizens of that time, did to the natives or what the conquistadors did to the natives..its only in India where we have sought to preserve peace by portraying a very rosy view of the past.

In many respects, they mirror what Islamists in India did.

It has not worked. The resurgence of groups like the RSS etc is precisely because many people feel that the mainstream parties have selectively ignored their POV and bent over backwards pandering to the muslim community's most obscurantist groups.

Its a state of affairs, where even anyone who went against the marxist historical record was blacklisted; the only ones to carry their accounts or research now are rightwing ones. Talk about manufacturing opinion!

I agree a way has to be found to not offend the average muslim youth without cause, but at the same time, the actual history of islam in the subcontinent cannot be wished away either.

Very true. But does the average muslim in the street realize that? Is a Hindu, or a christian allowed to set up a temple in Mecca? Why then, are sharia courts being set up in India? Its a mockery of the Indian judicial system, but does anyone have the courage to call a spade a spade, and have the state respond? Hardly.

The muslim world (of which even Indian muslims are a huge part) need a substantial spring cleaning in terms of attutude and their own contribution to the present state of affairs, where they face considerable hostility.

They sowed such a harvest of violence, that attitudes towards islam have been hardened by centuries of experience, and nor has the muslim community moved away from such an attitude and eschewed religion or gone aggressively secular, as you can see in many places in the west, instead its more of the same!

Today, in India- a person like Zakir Naik can openly state that Islam in India was never violent, after all there are hindus today, if the rulers wanted, everyone would be muslim. And no historian has the b@lls to stand up and correct him! For there would be "violence" since he'd offend the minority community, he'd be called a communal fanatic, anti-secular..

What a sorry state of affairs!

joey2

mhuhua they did , Indian muslim head for women clearly called Shariah to be gender biased, so did "head of muslim in india", he said Islam needs reformation but we dont know who will do it.

That is why everytime you see cases such as dad rapes etc etc happens the "muslim board" supports the judiciary and not the "fatwa".

Bollywood is doing a great work too!!!!!!!!!!! ahem "meera" .

Archer

The point is that there should be no bloody sharia in India to begin with! It should be rule of law, not rule of religious law.

During the imrana rape case, many maulanas spoke up in favour of deoband, only to retract when the media started fingering them.

The muslim community's biggest bane throughout its history have been its islamic scholars and maulanas. Instead of leading it forward, they have found more and more ways to make islam resemble what was done in medieval arabia.