Any questions Regarding India

[INDIC]

Oh nothing much just a few architecture...a little difference to your food and maybe better manners than Asoka (who literally lived like a barbarian)?

What sort of manners.

 

[ice_man]

It's a matter of concept, in those days the richest king was the one with the biggest kingdom, so I don't see a point of anyone killing all the subjects of a kingdom after taking it over, there's nothing productive from barren vacant land, I doubt there was a constant 800 year rule at the same place the moguls won some and lost some.

so you do agree that there was no major "genocide" of hindus that took place neither was forceful conversion done?

and your statement states that muslim rulers were as even handed in their approach as their hindu counterparts?

 

[INDIC]

Well, your country is "frontrunner" to be Israel's friend...so according to your logic, Israel is your master?

About a dozen Muslim countries have relations with Israel. Our government supports statehood for Palestine unlike your case of supporting gora's imperialism in Goa.

 

[ice_man]

About a dozen Muslim countries have relations with Israel. Our government supports statehood for Palestine unlike your case of supporting gora's imperialism in Goa.

which dozen muslim countries have relationship with israel please do tell!

as for goa well firstly i feel Pakistan didn't do as much as it should have!! india at the time was going wild trying to annex any area it could be it hyderabad,kashmir or gujrat and goa!

as for Pakistan it actually didn't let portugese planes land in karachi to refuel or carry ammunation and supplies for its troops in goa!

i don't know what you been smoking

 

[notsuperstitious]

Akbar is respected because he was a great King both militarily & administratively and it didn't hurt that he was the most tolerant of the Mughals.

This is very interesting. Some Pakistanis I've seen claiming that Akbar is considered a great king in India only because he messed with Islam. The victimhood mentality trumps all facts.

1) that he indeed WAS relatively tolerant of other faiths (and ethnicities - something that should concern atleast the non persian / non arab pakistanis too )
2) that Indians consider Akbar a Muslim - we are NOT in the habit of giving Islamic correctness certificates to all and sundry like most Pakistanis seem to be highly qualified in

Beside these facts, WHAT made him tolerant of other faiths is not something we dwell on or try to venture into making conjectures. But that is something Pakistanis should probably do as they have a major problem with increasing intolerance

 

[Bang Galore]

so you do agree that there was no major "genocide" of hindus that took place neither was forceful conversion done?

Wrong on both counts though I would use "killing" instead of genocide. and forced conversion did happen routinely even if the extent is sometimes overstated.

and your statement states that muslim rulers were as even handed in their approach as their hindu counterparts?

Again not consistent with the facts. Muslim Kings on average were not as tolerant as Hindu Kings, they simply could not be. Hinduism wasn't interested in conversion, what was the point of being intolerant? Islam on the other hand welcomed ,wanted & insisted on conversions, so intolerance was a given, especially during those times.

 

[Dubious]

I am a South Indian...what I eat have nothing in common with Mughals.

Good for you! But do you speak for WHOLE of India?! Like you said, you started of with your introduction as S. Indian!

 

[ChennaiDude]

well Akbar is respected by hindus because he butchered the religion hence understandable that hindus love him for distorting islam.

but besides the Taj mahal and ticketing rights story why are the other moghul construction so adopted and their food too?

suchs as:

Fatehpur Sikri

Agra Fort

Red Fort

Humayun’s Tomb

Qutb Minar


why not bring all these down like you did with BABRI masjid? or is it a stockholm syndrome case? either disown the moghuls or own them but this hypocrisy is weird. that on one point you call it the dark ages of indian civilzation and yet you love to own them up and call them your own.

Yes! Why should we bring it down...we do have a lot of Muslims in India....according to your some who put forth this theory that Islam is the only real religion.....why dont you guys destroy all the other places of worship that is not Islam....?

 

[Dubious]

What sort of manners.

O forgot, Indians in general did not learn that bit...Like where you address your mother as tu we say aap! and so on!

 

[illusion8]

so you do agree that there was no major "genocide" of hindus that took place neither was forceful conversion done?

and your statement states that muslim rulers were as even handed in their approach as their hindu counterparts?

Forceful conversion did happen, many were forced into converting - they were killed if they did not submit to it, also there was more of a capitulation - lot of people jumped the fence and became Muslim 1. for fear of life and 2. for partaking of the benefits of becoming Muslim under a Muslim ruler.

Genocide is a wrong word here - more as free killing for trivial reasons and Hindu's were subjugated to various cruelties and tyrannies - but the mughal A- holes did not went over on mass killings as such.

 

[harpoon]

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS...never said it was the ONLY thing...unless you admit that it is really the only thing people prade in India...Ask ANY gora to name 2 things about India...1 WILL ALWAYS BE the TAJ! FEW people would know ANY OTHER "world heritage site"...

Result of Media Blitz and perceptions made over the years and even sometimes I feel that the GoI is giving way too much importance to Taj Mahal.

 

[ice_man]

Wrong on both counts though I would use "killing" instead of genocide. and forced conversion did happen routinely even if the extent is sometimes overstated.



Again not consistent with the facts. Muslim Kings on average were not as tolerant as Hindu Kings, they simply could not be. Hinduism wasn't interested in conversion, what was the point of being intolerant? Islam on the other hand welcomed ,wanted & insisted on conversions, so intolerance was a given, especially during those times.

nope firstly muslim rulers were surrounded by non muslims and hence HAD TO BE TOLERANT. besides keeping your population non muslim you get jaziya. so infact what your friend stated exactly the opposite is true the moghuls would benefit more by keeping the population non muslim as their coffers would have got full instead of trying to forcefully converting them.

forcefully converting would have resulted in 2 things:

1) hate for the moghuls from the areas under other raja's control ( leading to a massive crusade type movement which would have made sure the moghuls were attacked from all sides)

2) loss of jaziya (a welcome money for the moghul which helped him stay rich)

 

[harpoon]

Good for you! But do you speak for WHOLE of India?! Like you said, you started of with your introduction as S. Indian!

And you stated for the whole of India. The Mughals are more or less a North Indian phenomenon.

 

[ice_man]

Forceful conversion did happen, many were forced into converting - they were killed if they did not submit to it, also there was more of a capitulation - lot of people jumped the fence and became Muslim 1. for fear of life and 2. for partaking of the benefits of becoming Muslim under a Muslim ruler.

Genocide is a wrong word here - more as free killing for trivial reasons and Hindu's were subjugated to various cruelties and tyrannies - but the mughal A- holes did not went over on mass killings as such.

please read my reply to banglore it was meant for you but he replied. lol i can't repeat myself for both of you but yes do read my 2 points.

 

[harpoon]

Not sure if you went through the list yourself!

Yes I have..its to show that Indian architecture, history & culture doesn't start and stop with Taj Mahal.