But in my last post to this thread I will say that to a certain extent I agree to the views expressed by Deep Singh and Shin Bet. But that is to a certain extent only, for even they are full of crap at times.

See you all on some other thread, on some other day..

Good bye till then..
—————————————————
(PS: first round of polling is done in Gujarat, the forcasters are predicting a landslide victory for Shri Narendra Modi)

You go girl! The more women that question the ‘so called’ traditional stories, the better. Perhaps they were all male – och, I can’t think of the right word -how about, cock inflating, fictions? Or fantasies?

You. Are. Right. To. Challenge. That.

Any cursory glance at Mughal history reveals the following:

1. Mughal rule was highly decentralized, which right away beats back the stupid claim of “mass forced conversations” throughout the entire subcontinent. Most Mughal rule was concentrated in and around Delhi.

2. Everyone always points to Aurang. Ok, but so what? Like, what does this prove? Under Akbar’s rule, Vaishnavite and Shivaite practices flourished. The construction of new mandhirs was commissioned.

And if we point to atrocities carried out by kings 700 to 300 HUNDRED years ago, why always point the finger at Mughal kings? What about Ashoka, who is lauded as a peace-loving king and patron of Buddhism? That didn’t really stop him from maintaining brutal punishments and draconian measures for his subjects.

(P.S. Since we’re talking about deplorable murders and forced servitude by individuals such as Babar, for my money, I’ll bet that it’s more important to scrutinize and passionately discuss human traffickers which take Hindu Nepali girls to India for the enjoyment of Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim men. But again, for the Hindutvadis, trivial matters such as these do not warrant discussion).

3. Mandhirs vs. masjids. I really don’t care for this discussion, frankly I think it is stupid and irrelevant to argue whether 300 mandhirs were abolished or not centuries ago. But since the Mughal Empire has been villified (which, again, is ridiculous since it was not some massive, monolithic entity but rather decentralized and strong in some areas and non-existent in others) because ONE king and a few other invaders either razed to the ground or looted madhirs, let it be known that some mandhirs may stand on old Buddhist stupas.

Learn to think on your own two feet rather than relying on whacky Hindutva websites which are so questionable, ideological, and in some places, frankly fictive. Do your own work.

“Anyway, what about Vedic Flying Machines?”

This clearly proves that Ancient Indians were at least as good as Ancient Atlanteans.

I have in my mind, for that is what I call it, a historical competition between the Vedic A380 and the Atlantean 747-400.”

How. Dare. You. Mock.

Sikhism is a bhaktic (bhajans, guru veneration) syncretism of Hinduism (advayta vedanta) and Sufism (tawhid). In fact, Guru Nanak was known to have belonged to the Silsila of many Indian Sufi orders. Some of the definitions found here mention Sikhism’s acknowledgement to Islam. That’s the genius of India for you.

“Mobs arrived by the thousands in trucks, chanting slogans of incitement to kill, and armed with swords, tridents, sophisticated explosives, and gas cylinders. They were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses of Muslim families and their properties. While army troops had been flown in to quell the violence, state officials refused to deploy them until after the worst violence had ended. In the weeks that followed the massacres, Hindu homes and places of business were also destroyed in retaliatory violence by Muslims.”

The pogrom killed 1,000 people and left 200,000 homeless. Gujarat is still a divided society and Muslims have generally been pushed to the ghettos.

The similarities between Gujarat and Nazi Germany are frighteningly similar: the targeting of minorities and secularists, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the consensus for a fascist state. It’s going the same way as Germany except slower. Democratic elections are just a charade.

But Gujarat is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the activities of the RSS go. Other parts of India are not immune to it. As well as Muslims the RSS and other organisations in the Sangh Parivar are targeting Christians, Adivasis and Dalits.

The politics of the RSS has cleverly created the fear of the miniscule minority just like the Nazis created a phobia against the Jews and blamed them for the plight of Germany. The fear of religious conversions is one that the RSS. The concept of Hindu nation for Hindus is just a pretext to get the majority community to buy into it. The aim is to abolish the values of freedom and equality. The agenda of a small dominant section of society is being propagated for all Hindus.

Anyway, what about Vedic Flying Machines?

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/vimana/ancientvimanas.asp

This clearly proves that Ancient Indians were at least as good as Ancient Atlanteans.

I have in my mind, for that is what I call it, a historical competition between the Vedic A380 and the Atlantean 747-400.

Whatever happened to them? Could we, hopefully, assume that this is all a piece of crock?

This is becoming like a Nexus forum. I love all that stuff.

Thanks

Shin Bet:

“I never said their lives were not worthy. I said that they do not belong on the sub-continent.”

I wish I could say that people who write comments like yours do not belong in the sub-continent, but alas, I am not as fascist.

But seriously. The subcontinent doesn’t need more folks like this, though.

“A good starting point would be the autobiographies of the Mughal Emperors (Babar-Nama”

You are full of crap. I’ve read that auto-biography, as well as others, and none speak of large scale conversions.

And this is where all of your own comments are pathetically ideological and redundant: if the Mughal rulers were indeed as demagogic and fundamentalist as your own comments seem to be, then

THE MAJORITY OF INDIA WOULD HAVE NOT REMAINED HINDU.

Let me repeat that:

IF MUGHAL RULERS HAD BEEN AS VICIOUS AS YOU SAY AND IMPLEMENTED LARGE SCALE CONVERSIONS, 3/4 OF THE BRITISH INDIAN EMPIRE WOULD HAVE NOT REMAINED HINDU.

If you’re going to drudge (irrelevant) things up from the past, why don’t you do some freaking studies and research instead of conjuring up shit that you’ve read on Hindu websites.

I agree completely. The Northern Ireland comment I made in 158 was based on a view of how history, in the hands of demagogues, can become politics. It was shite then, and it is really horrible to see it being trotted out like a new born foal, all over again.

“So Muslims in India believe something different from other religions. So what? Why are their lives worth any less simply because they did not choose an indiginous religion.”

I’d argue that Islam in the subcontinent has become “indigenous” over time. It is its own unique and localized product.

And really, those “indigenous” religions– they all have threads which are arguably not indigenous. Ideas (which make up religion) are not really that authentic and indigenous

Could you point me to examples of large-scale forced conversions by the Mughals please?

Do your own research. Educate yourself. A good starting point would be the autobiographies of the Mughal Emperors (Babar-Nama and Tuzuk-i-Jahingiri for eg). But bare in mind I was referring to the MUSLIM invasions of the sub-continent, which includes all the armies that came before and during Mughal reign.

The Muslims in Gujurat were not responsible for the rape of a woman in the 14th century.

This is true and I have not said otherwise.

Just because an ideology is foreign, does not make it bad.

Stop being so general. I am talking about Islam specifically. Do you think it is a good ideology (as practiced, let’s say, by Aurangzeb?)

Muslims in India believe something different from other religions. So what?

It is not the belief I am concerned with, but the ideology and the history that accompanies it.

Why are their lives worth any less simply because they did not choose an indiginous religion

I never said their lives were not worthy. I said that they do not belong on the sub-continent.

At least you have now abandoned the pretence that you follow the teachings of Guru Nanak- he would have been horrified at what you say (an educated guess, based on his life and teachings).

His ideals are far too high for a person like me to follow, I confess. But it is because of people like me that his true followers still exist.

Anyway, Indy, Kaalia, and Shin Bet’s absurd comments have turned this thread into something inexplicably ludicrous with talk about Aryans from thousands of years ago all the way to talking about Muslims in a way that reminds me what Nazi Germany sounded like when they talked about Jews, Gypsies, etc.

All three of you have sunk into the depths of your pseudo “history” to huff and puff about supposed actions from 500 effing years ago. With all that energy and time that you have put into writing lengthy BS, I wonder if you are able to do the same for writing thoughtful assessments on the fact that the majority of Indians do not have access to sanitation, potable water, and food; that half the population lives in slums; AIDS as a huge epidemic; sex trafficking, child marriage, female discrimination, access to education, environmental degradation, and other severe inequalities and then offer solutions.

Can you do that? And no, you cannot blame everything on Muslims, the Mughal Empire, and the reservation system.

But I bet that you probably won’t be able to do this. It’s easier to be indignant and froth at imagined offenses from THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO rather than what is happening today and the real, everyday survival problems that the majority of Indians face. You’d rather talk about effing mandhirs from like 850 or more recently, in the 1500′s.

At least no one can accuse you guys of lacking an imagination. It’s just too bad that some folks take this crap a little too seriously, which can have fatal consequences.

“For non-Muslims, they would have been a thousand times better, yes.”

Could you point me to examples of large-scale forced conversions by the Mughals please?

“No, like I keep repeating, the subcontinent is the natural home of the Sikh faith and the Sikh people. We didn’t arrive from afar with a foreign ideology and try to implant it and enforce it on anyone – there can be no justification for the murder of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains by Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. We are all cousins.”

The Muslims in Gujurat were not responsible for the rape of a woman in the 14th century. Just because an ideology is foreign, does not make it bad. So Muslims in India believe something different from other religions. So what? Why are their lives worth any less simply because they did not choose an indiginous religion. At least you have now abandoned the pretence that you follow the teachings of Guru Nanak- he would have been horrified at what you say (an educated guess, based on his life and teachings).

You know me a bit better than you are letting on, methinks.

So, if folk are dead, then whether you – and you alone – sympathised with what they were in life is either a banality not worthy of your lofty communalism, or a call to arms as in “our blood is in the soil” which could well have come from the ‘Bumper Book of Hitlers Speeches’.

[So, it's a Godwin - sue me.]

Your arguement depends, it must be said, on a complete failure to see how it might reflect a failure on both sides.

You are, sir, stirring excrement with a paddle.

And you are starting to sound like a Northern Irish Protestant, what with dragging up stuff from centuries past. It is only of relevance to communalist crowd pleasers. The past we cannot change – learn to live with it – the future however is not cast in stone.

But would they have been better rulers than the Mughals? Unlikely

For non-Muslims, they would have been a thousand times better, yes.

Was the Sikh pogrom in 1984 justified then (for it seems to be by your reasoning)?

No, like I keep repeating, the subcontinent is the natural home of the Sikh faith and the Sikh people. We didn’t arrive from afar with a foreign ideology and try to implant it and enforce it on anyone – there can be no justification for the murder of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains by Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. We are all cousins.

Of course, I still believe in a separate state for Sikhs, but that topic has been done.

“If the Marratha’s had replaced the Mughals, I couldn’t really see them implementing Shariah Law over a non-Muslim populace. Get it?”

But would they have been better rulers than the Mughals? Unlikely.

“The Sikhs have not come here as religious imperialists, raped your women, pillaged you towns and cities and set up a theocratic government.

Get some perspective.”

So the mass murder of people is justified if their co-religionists do bad things? Was the Sikh pogrom in 1984 justified then (for it seems to be by your reasoning)?