Any questions Regarding India

[Shardul.....the lion]

Serious question about Indians.

What's with Indians and lighting incense sticks in their homes?

To most people they smell good, but to me personally the smoke gives me a headache and I usually end up with a sore throat.

Surprisingly Saudis light incense sticks in their homes too.

But to say the least, it irritates me physically.

Good quality incense sticks dont choke your throat. Anyway its like a difference between strong perfume and mild perfume, one will irritate you while other will make you more comfortable.

even chinese and japanese use incense sticks in temples/

 

[Bang Galore]

BEING OVER RUN is different from being subject to genocide! not all invaders carry out a genocide all the time. moghuls if they weren't tolerant then they would have surely forcefully converted many people. but after 800 years of rule they clearly showed that they were equally as tolerant as the rulers of jerusalem or of the ottoman empire.

The Mughals were tolerant? With the exception of Akbar & Jahangir, the rest were all bigots with the only difference being in their levels of bigotry. You do need to understand that the Mughals were not absolute rulers to completely impose their will. Aurangzeb could not get his petty bureaucrats to do his will in a far off area of his kingdom, what chance would he have off imposing his absolute will on the rajas who still controlled their kingdoms. Within his own power centre though, he was a bigot though contrary to what many Hindus think, not the worst. His rule is particularly remembered with dislike because it contrasted with the remarkable tolerance of his great grandfather Akbar & of his grandfather Jahangir (to a lesser extent).

You are right that they could have been worse but history is always read with a perspective of what happened where & in India, many Hindus were treated as second class citizens during the rule of Kings who happened to be Muslim. which explains why they are remembered in the manner they are.

 

[Dubious]

I wrote:

Black history yet when asked a typical Indian in the West what has India got to offer a tourist...One of the 1st things to come out of the mouth is the Taj?! If it is soo dark, why be so proud? Some form of sadist?

And a reply came:

Typical ignorant Indian or some one carried away by the media blitz and doesn't know that there is a culturally rich India outside Taj Mahal

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"...

Below are the World heritage Sites in India

List of World Heritage Sites in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dubious]

Typical ignorant Indian or some one carried away by the media blitz and doesn't know that there is a culturally rich India outside Taj Mahal

Below are the World heritage Sites in India

List of World Heritage Sites in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if you went through the list yourself!


So out of 29, 9 are not even India's pride because Either A MUSLIM or BRITISH made them or shared with another nation, 9 are natural beauty nothing to do with Indians...It is god's gift...Oh wait, some do not believe in god...

"Humayun’s Tomb, Delhi: It was built in 1569–1570 by the second Mughal Emperor Humayun’s widow Biga Begum (Hajji Begum)."
"Qutb Minar and its Monuments, Delhi"
"Red Fort Complex: Red Fort Complex, also known as Lal Qila is a palace fort built in the 17th century by Shahjahan (1628–58), the fifth Mughal Emperor as part of his new capital city of Shahjahanabad."
"Agra Fort, Uttar Pradesh: which represented Mughal opulence and power as the centre piece of their empire"
"Fatehpur Sikri, Uttar Pradesh: " was built during the second half of the 16th century by the Mughal Emperor Akbar (1556–1605). It was the capital of the Empire and seat of the grand Mughal court..."
"Taj Mahal, Uttar Pradesh"
"Mountain Railways of India: the Mountain Railways of India are five railway lines built in the mountains of India in the 19th and early 20th century, during the British Raj"
"Sundarbans National Park: More like a bit of what is BD =The Sundarbans as a whole encompasses 10,000 km2 (3,900 sq mi) of land and water, about 5,980 km2 (2,310 sq mi) in India and the balance is in Bangladesh"
- We learnt about it in Geography and Biology for the Tigers there....But we learnt about the BD portion...No one probably even knows that India has a portion!
"Manas Wild Life Sanctuary, Assam: Shared with Bhutan"

 

[Dubious]

Black history yet when asked a typical Indian in the West what has India got to offer a tourist...One of the 1st things to come out of the mouth is the Taj?! If it is soo dark, why be so proud? Some form of sadist?

The Mughals were tolerant? With the exception of Akbar & Jahangir, the rest were all bigots with the only difference being in their levels of bigotry. You do need to understand that the Mughals were not absolute rulers to completely impose their will. Aurangzeb could not get his petty bureaucrats to do his will in a far off area of his kingdom, what chance would he have off imposing his absolute will on the rajas who still controlled their kingdoms. Within his own power centre though, he was a bigot though contrary to what many Hindus think, not the worst. His rule is particularly remembered with dislike because it contrasted with the remarkable tolerance of his great grandfather Akbar & of his grandfather Jahangir (to a lesser extent).

You are right that they could have been worse but history is always read with a perspective of what happened where & in India, many Hindus were treated as second class citizens during the rule of Kings who happened to be Muslim. which explains why they are remembered in the manner they are.

Aurangzeb - THAT is the only example Indians HAVE been giving...so just because 1 was not as you wanted him to be ALL are bad? Interesting!

 

[Dubious]

Good quality incense sticks dont choke your throat. Anyway its like a difference between strong perfume and mild perfume, one will irritate you while other will make you more comfortable.

even chinese and japanese use incense sticks in temples/

Yup they go to the temple and light it not all do it in their homes right before some guests arrive and choke the guest! It irritates me too...

 

[Dubious]

Even the Muslims in India light them while they are at Dargah... for prayers.

Used for worship and to create a re-refreshing atmosphere which has fragrance.
Hindus,
Sikhs,
Christians,
Muslims,.. all use them in the prayers.. specially sufi-Muslims.

What kind of Muslims do you have in Pakistan.. BTW... ?

Ask on the other thread: "Any questions regarding Pakistan" and you will get tons of replies based on where each stays/ lives!

 

[Dubious]

Your country was frontrunner in showing sympathy with Portugal in 1961, only exception among non-gora countries.

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

 

[Dubious]

Whats the contribution of Mughals?

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)?

 

[ice_man]

The Mughals were tolerant? With the exception of Akbar & Jahangir, the rest were all bigots with the only difference being in their levels of bigotry. You do need to understand that the Mughals were not absolute rulers to completely impose their will. Aurangzeb could not get his petty bureaucrats to do his will in a far off area of his kingdom, what chance would he have off imposing his absolute will on the rajas who still controlled their kingdoms. Within his own power centre though, he was a bigot though contrary to what many Hindus think, not the worst. His rule is particularly remembered with dislike because it contrasted with the remarkable tolerance of his great grandfather Akbar & of his grandfather Jahangir (to a lesser extent).

You are right that they could have been worse but history is always read with a perspective of what happened where & in India, many Hindus were treated as second class citizens during the rule of Kings who happened to be Muslim. which explains why they are remembered in the manner they are.

sadly history is always altered by the writter and usually is subject to his own bias. you said in moghul ruled outposts the moghuls couldn't establish their will fine i agree it makes sense. you also claimed that certain rajas and rajputs resisted hence the subjects couldn't be tortured or be exposed to genocide! that too makes logical sense.

however if you claim that in their strong hold areas that they ruled for more or less 800 years gthey carried out genocides and no one rebelled (or even if they did they got no sympathy from the non subdued rajas mahrajas) & till date muslim strong holds are still very much hindu majority areas. it fails to make logical sense!

when the christians took back spain they totally wiped out muslims within a period of 300 years! when the christian templars invaded jerusalem they made sure no muslim lived.


and here you claim that moghuls were along the same lines as the templar knights and yet failed to "wipe out" a ethnicity within its realm?

the truth is hindus were left unharmed inorder to make sure that they get no sympathy from outside the moghul ruled areas. MOGHULS were TOLERANT because THEY HAD TO BE! what could be debated is was their tolerance genuine or was it political!

remember the famous quote by napoleon: history is always written by the victor.

so all this nonstop genocide is just the alterations in history done by the british to increase the divide amongst the people of the area.

 

[DARKY]

which favourite dish majority of indians like the most?

Depends on from which place you are in India.
Different people.. different dishes... many of which you eat in Pakistan.

 

[Dubious]

Construction only can take place when there is money and less war, meaning a bit of peace! Read History in general please! If they were at war, they wouldn't have the money nor the man power to build ANYTHING!

Because these were build using Indian money and Indian labour. Its our property. If it helps attracting tourists then we ll keep it.

Well, it was THEIR RULE! They were your masters back then!

Babri Masjid is a different case, there are thousands of other bigger and much more grander mosque in India which Hindus could have brought down, but they only went for that dilapidated, defunct Babri Masjid, ever wondered why? I mean if they really had to make a point they should gone for Jama Masjid in Delhi right?

So, what are you suggesting? The masjod wasn't being used or because it was random pick to build something where a masjid in perfect condition stood?

 

[illusion8]

BEING OVER RUN is different from being subject to genocide! not all invaders carry out a genocide all the time. moghuls if they weren't tolerant then they would have surely forcefully converted many people. but after 800 years of rule they clearly showed that they were equally as tolerant as the rulers of jerusalem or of the ottoman empire.

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.

 

[Bang Galore]

however if you claim that in their strong hold areas that they ruled for more or less 800 years gthey carried out genocides and no one rebelled (or even if they did they got no sympathy from the non subdued rajas mahrajas) & till date muslim strong holds are still very much hindu majority areas. it fails to make logical sense!
.

Not my argument. Unlike many, I don't take extreme positions on history nor do I use words like genocide. If you actually look at any of my arguments, you will see a certain amount of circumspection in my opinion. Even bigotry is not a word I use loosely (though I have used it here but in a particular context) believing that it is simply stupid to judge the past by the standards & morality of the present. Aurangzeb stands in contrast because of Akbar, on his own he would not be as despicable as when compared with his great grandfather.

 

[harpoon]

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)?

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