Is India one people?

[Indos]

Come on guys, Real Aryan (Iran and others) have embraced Islam.

 

[magra]

There are only 3 true civilizations in the world: West, Islamic and China. Everything else is a copy of these + some local voodoo elements.

India is basically Islamic civ layer + Western civ layer (strongest element) + local hindu voodoo rituals (including hygiene issues).

If you look at your government bureaucracy documents, you will find 2 layers of admin system, an older one from Muslim era and a newer one by British that has mostly replaced the Muslim era systems, however some words and terminologies from Muslim era remains.

I find Indians use the word "civilization" too casually. If you were indeed a separate civilization, you would find Western world alien and inadaptable, which you don't. Muslims and West find it very difficult to adapt at each others countries, despite so many Muslims living in Europe, and both Muslims and Westerners have very hard time understanding Chinese people or assimilating to it. Indians can easily settle anywhere, though the host may have hygiene objections. That's because you don't have rules or systems of your own.

You are confused between religion and civilization. If a Hindu converts to Islam, does it mean that suddenly he is now a 'civilized' person from an uncivil earlier? Pakistan, India, BD are part of the same civilization.

You are right that Indians are very adaptable. We have survived millenia as we are very resilient and flexible. We evolve as per the times and circumstances.

 

[Bouncer]

It is natural for Indians since this has been ingrained in us since childhood.

Even the Dalits too?

 

[crankthatskunk]

You may be right. We Indians have different ethnicities, language, customs, religions - but we have a common idea. We have a shared history.
We believe in 'Unity in Diversity'.

It is difficult for non-Indians to grasp this concept. It is natural for Indians since this has been ingrained in us since childhood.

Unity in Diversity!! We get it completely.

Unity means treating 400 million Dalits as untouchables. Treating them less than humans.
Unity means treating 200 million Muslims as outcasts, denying them business and job opportunities. Boycotting them socially, demonising them.
Unity means harassing your Christian communities.

Yeah, we get it totally, India is United in its diversity.
Nope, India is only united in bigotry.

 

[magra]

Even the Dalits too?

Everyone

 

[Maira La]

If a Hindu converts to Islam, does it mean that suddenly he is now a 'civilized' person from an uncivil earlier?

Yes. Hindus have no morality. Do you think your armed forces officers would swap wives if they were Muslim?

We have survived millenia as we are very resilient and flexible. We evolve as per the times and circumstances.

Rest of humanity has not survived for millenia. Rest of humanity has not evolved. The only thing non-Indians are good at is using toilet, right?

 

[magra]

Unity means treating 400 million Dalits as untouchables. Treating them less than humans.

This was a big problem earlier and still there to some extent. Many of us have realized this and do not indulge in such things anymore. Some are still in the bygone era, but the law will deal with those. Moreover, the former untouchables are given privileges to uplift them.

Unity means treating 200 million Muslims as outcasts, denying them business and job opportunities. Boycotting them socially, demonising them.

Dont equate random instances to rule. If this was a general trend, you would not have found the 'Khans' ruling Bollywood, industralists like Azim Premji, and the great Abdul Kalam as president.
Anyone who works hard can come up in life regardless of religion, caste, gender.

Unity means harassing your Christian communities.

Same goes for Christian and other minorities.

Yes. Hindus have no morality. Do you think your armed forces officers would swap wives if they were Muslim?

You are equating random isolated instances to rule in order to prove your point. This is not how its done bacche.

Rest of humanity has not survived for millenia. Rest of humanity has not evolved. The only thing non-Indians are good at is using toilet, right?

The muslims of the sub-continent could not survive the atrocities of the invaders and converted to the religion of the oppressors. The rest were resilient and survived.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Your issue is not India appropriating Pakistans history, but, you ridicule your own ancestors as pagans animalistic

This is the only accusation you have levelled against me amidst the random filler. I have already rejected your assertions. Pakistanis have no shame over their past. We remain proud of our ancestors' advanced status societally, philosophically and culturally. They remained well ahead of the elephant herders to our east. We have no problem or difficulty reconciling their pagan past with our present monotheistic faith. This is purely your propaganda to satisfy your invented narrative that somehow Pakistanis are embarrassed or ashamed of this past history.

Here are some harsh truths for you. We were actually better than you as pagans. Our IVC faith was usurped and reappropriated by Aryan migrants. This changed it beyond all recognition and placed a dangerous slave cult called Vedic hindusim on our doorstep. We saw an opportunity to evolve when Islam came along and we seized it, pushing us ahead again of the slave cultists from Eurasian lands whom your ancestors so gleefully bowed down to. This is when we decided to bow only to God and not to any steppe landers or brahmins or whatever manmade entity you can formulate. The Mughal and Islamic empires which followed took over cultist territory and formed and constituted the peak of Hindustan's influence as independent entities. Since the British era, everything the Secular Republic has ever had has been a simple gift from Queen Victoria, who remembered the lesson of Alexander of Macedon millennia earlier.

When faced with hordes of skinny elephant riders a million miles away from home, the question isn't as much "can we eradicate this horde of filth?" as it is "can we be bothered?"

Regarding your other assertions, Hinduism in India DOES very much have genetically delineated stratification via the caste system as per articles on genetic makeup of different strata posted earlier on this very thread. But by all means, keep fighting against science.

Your final coup de gras that dharmic faiths originated in "India" is a simple fingers-in-ears rejection of my previous post without any evidence to back it up. You're entitled to believe whatever you like but the geographic region of India or the Indian subcontinent do not equate to modern gangadesh. This is a simple fact. It is also a given that IVC hinduism arose from the hands of Iranians, while Vedic Hinduism came from the hands of Eurasian steppe landers. The rest of your great people were willing slaves under the Vedic caste system. I also laugh at the notion of "Aryan invasion". Why would they need to invade when you people - to this day - blissfully accept enslavement and social stratification as determined by Eurasian steppe landers and their progeny? Verily, there was no Aryan invasion, rather a straightforward and voluntary enslavement.

muslims of the sub-continent could not survive the atrocities of the invaders and converted to the religion of the oppressors. The rest were resilient and survived.

Yes this is what they teach you. Every nation all over the world is constituted by "non-resilient" people. The world is run by nations who have been invaded multiple times by foreign cultures and you regard this as weakness. Hilarious then isn't it that these "poor victims" later colonised your "resilient" people with the mughals and British empire.

 

[Maira La]

The muslims of the sub-continent could not survive the atrocities of the invaders and converted to the religion of the oppressors. The rest were resilient and survived.

The Hindus of the subcontinent could not survive the atrocities of Aryan invaders and converted to lower caste of Indo-Aryan religion. No one was resilient and survived, because being outside caste system was not allowed.

 

[KedarT]

@Maira La
A few questions:
1) As a Bengali, do you hate your non-Muslim past? (is pretty evident till now but still)
2) Why don't you change your language from Bengali to Arabic/Persian if you are not fond of anything non-Muslim? You can start by changing your script like Pakistan did.
3) Tomorrow, if a Hindu from Bangladesh converts to Islam, does he have the ability to suddenly claim that his ancestors ruled Bengal (despite the fact that Bengal was majorly ruled by Muslims with non-Bengali origins)? At least, the rulers under non-Muslim kings had roots with their land.
4) Can Christians of India, BD and Pakistan claim that they ruled India from 1818 to 1947? (I know Bengal came under British rule much earlier)
5) Can you please tell me a Muslim Bangladeshi king (post-Islamic invasions) who had considerable sway over a large territory?
6) If Muslim rule was so enlightening, why didn't you have a period similar to Europe where many scientific inventions and discoveries were made?
7) Finally, if religion is such an important marker, why did you even separate from Pakistan?

My point is: Claiming that you ruled over a certain territory just because you happened to convert to a certain religion is stupid. Of course, when you don't have anything to claim of your own, people do that. But again, it's not like you don't have anything to claim of your own. The Bengali culture and language is rich, why are you bringing religion into it?

 

[Maira La]

@Maira La
A few questions:
1) As a Bengali, do you hate your non-Muslim past? (is pretty evident till now but still)

One cannot like or hate history. That's weird. I don't find Bengal history interesting, Muslim or non-Muslim.

2) Why don't you change your language from Bengali to Arabic/Persian if you are not fond of anything non-Muslim? You can start by changing your script like Pakistan did.

Because we don't need to. It's all about the purpose. Pakistan needs to distance itself from India and forced imposition of East India company created identity, and I support it.. whatever it takes to achieve that.

3) Tomorrow, if a Hindu from Bangladesh converts to Islam, does he have the ability to suddenly claim that his ancestors ruled Bengal (despite the fact that Bengal was majorly ruled by Muslims with non-Bengali origins)? At least, the rulers under non-Muslim kings had roots with their land.

We're all the same you know? The Muslims and Hindus of Bengal. Except Brahmins who are migrants from UP. There is no reward for converting to Islam. You will be treated same. He can claim entire history of Bengal, from caveman to now, regardless whether he's Hindu or Muslim now.

4) Can Christians of India, BD and Pakistan claim that they ruled India from 1818 to 1947? (I know Bengal came under British rule much earlier)

No.

5) Can you please tell me a Muslim Bangladeshi king (post-Islamic invasions) who had considerable sway over a large territory?

I am no expert on history of Bengal. As I said above I have very little interest, I don't find history of Bengal interesting no matter who ruled it.

6) If Muslim rule was so enlightening, why didn't you have a period similar to Europe where many scientific inventions and discoveries were made?

Muslims and Chinese certainly have made great contributions to science and engineering during medieval ages. Though Europe's advancement post-renaissance is unique. Nothing compares to that.

7) Finally, if religion is such an important marker, why did you even separate from Pakistan?

Who said religion is most important? Religion at the end of the day is not tangible. I give more importance to tangible things, like race and genetics. See my OP again.

 

[crankthatskunk]

Dont equate random instances to rule. If this was a general trend, you would not have found the 'Khans' ruling Bollywood, industralists like Azim Premji, and the great Abdul Kalam as president.
Anyone who works hard can come up in life regardless of religion, caste, gender.

Denials, Denials Mr Watson.

Random instances!!! You mean when you say and act on daily basis that Dalits or Muslims for that matter can not drink from the same glass, can not enter your kitchen or even your house, because they are unclean. That's what you call "Random Instances"!!

Indians and their Denials, Denials, and more Denials.[/QUOTE]

 

[Chhatrapati]

This is the only accusation you have levelled against me amidst the random filler. I have already rejected your assertions. Pakistanis have no shame over their past. We remain proud of our ancestors' advanced status societally, philosophically and culturally. They remained well ahead of the elephant herders to our east. We have no problem or difficulty reconciling their pagan past with our present monotheistic faith. This is purely your propaganda to satisfy your invented narrative that somehow Pakistanis are embarrassed or ashamed of this past history.

Your statement is most welcome but your statements and the actions of your state are diametrically opposite that's why you never learn most of the history of the region, later you try to wisen up and learn something but that will be clouded with prejudices. You see, the elephant herders of my ancestors dispelled one of the greatest empire in history, the Alexander (not so great), but I know what you're gonna say, "hey, he's mine". That's your problem. You can't pick and choose my civilization and culture when it suits you. Your ancestors are the same elephant herders as mine. Only that, your ancestors were at the disadvantageous position of being the door to the richness that lays beyond making you getting invaded more. Borrowing your tone, my ancestors were smart enough to leave the camel jockeys and their desert for more arable lands.

Here are some harsh truths for you. We were actually better than you as pagans. Our IVC faith was usurped and reappropriated by Aryan migrants. This changed it beyond all recognition and placed a dangerous slave cult called Vedic hindusim on our doorstep. We saw an opportunity to evolve when Islam came along and we seized it, pushing us ahead again of the slave cultists from Eurasian lands whom your ancestors so gleefully bowed down to. This is when we decided to bow only to God and not to any steppe landers or brahmins or whatever manmade entity you can formulate. The Mughal and Islamic empires which followed took over cultist territory and formed and constituted the peak of Hindustan's influence as independent entities. Since the British era, everything the Secular Republic has ever had has been a simple gift from Queen Victoria, who remembered the lesson of Alexander of Macedon millennia earlier.

When faced with hordes of skinny elephant riders a million miles away from home, the question isn't as much "can we eradicate this horde of filth?" as it is "can we be bothered?"

Regarding your other assertions, Hinduism in India DOES very much have genetically delineated stratification via the caste system as per articles on genetic makeup of different strata posted earlier on this very thread. But by all means, keep fighting against science.

Your final coup de gras that dharmic faiths originated in "India" is a simple fingers-in-ears rejection of my previous post without any evidence to back it up. You're entitled to believe whatever you like but the geographic region of India or the Indian subcontinent do not equate to modern gangadesh. This is a simple fact. It is also a given that IVC hinduism arose from the hands of Iranians, while Vedic Hinduism came from the hands of Eurasian steppe landers. The rest of your great people were willing slaves under the Vedic caste system. I also laugh at the notion of "Aryan invasion". Why would they need to invade when you people - to this day - blissfully accept enslavement and social stratification as determined by Eurasian steppe landers and their progeny? Verily, there was no Aryan invasion, rather a straightforward and voluntary enslavement.

Yes this is what they teach you. Every nation all over the world is constituted by "non-resilient" people. The world is run by nations who have been invaded multiple times by foreign cultures and you regard this as weakness. Hilarious then isn't it that these "poor victims" later colonised your "resilient" people with the mughals and British empire.

Try to write coherently next time, your discrepancies are marked in colour codes, which goes back to my original point, you Pakistanis have no clue then you come with your half baked knowledge to make your own theories up, but given your lack of capacity to understand anything on history you write your feelz, which I find it a waste of time dispelling, live in your ignorance because the reality is quite horrific, the rest of the claims are hilarious. But hey, I don't want to indulge in your fantasies and theories. Feel free to provide more entertainment. I can't write an essay because there is nothing worth replying to in it, as there are too many fallacies.

 

[KedarT]

One cannot like or hate history. That's weird. I don't find Bengal history interesting, Muslim or non-Muslim.

Interesting, being a Bengali you don't take interest in Bengali history but seem to be quite curious about the history of our country, India.

Because we don't need to. It's all about the purpose. Pakistan needs to distance itself from India and forced imposition of East India company created identity, and I support it.. whatever it takes to achieve that.

So BD doesn't need to distance itself from India?

We're all the same you know? The Muslims and Hindus of Bengal. Except Brahmins who are migrants from UP. There is no reward for converting to Islam. You will be treated same. He can claim entire history of Bengal, from caveman to now, regardless whether he's Hindu or Muslim now.

But in your previous posts you mentioned that Hindus haven't anyway contributed anything and everything that's important is Muslim(which is not true of course). Or is that specifically reserved for us Indians and not the Hindus of BD?

No.

Why not? Muslims of Pakistan claim that they ruled India just because they belong to the same religion as the foreign Turks. So by that logic, Indian Christians should be able to claim that they ruled entire India right from the British invasion of Bengal.
Fortunately, Indian Christians are sensible and have a sense of logic

Muslims and Chinese certainly have made great contributions to science and engineering during medieval ages. Though Europe's advancement post-renaissance is unique. Nothing compares to that.

Agreed. Muslims had a chance at one stage but they drowned themselves too much in religion which still is the case today. In this case, I'm referring to the Turks and not the subcontinental Muslims.


Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. Appreciate it.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Your statement is most welcome but your statements and the actions of your state are diametrically opposite that's why you never learn most of the history of the region, later you try to wisen up and learn something but that will be clouded with prejudices. You see, the elephant herders of my ancestors dispelled one of the greatest empire in history, the Alexander (not so great), but I know what you're gonna say, "hey, he's mine". That's your problem. You can't pick and choose my civilization and culture when it suits you. Your ancestors are the same elephant herders as mine. Only that, your ancestors were at the disadvantageous position of being the door to the richness that lays beyond making you getting invaded more. Borrowing your tone, my ancestors were smart enough to leave the camel jockeys and their desert for more arable lands.

Try to write coherently next time, your discrepancies are marked in colour codes, which goes back to my original point, you Pakistanis have no clue then you come with your half baked knowledge to make your own theories up, but given your lack of capacity to understand anything on history you write your feelz, which I find it a waste of time dispelling, live in your ignorance because the reality is quite horrific, the rest of the claims are hilarious. But hey, I don't want to indulge in your fantasies and theories. Feel free to provide more entertainment. I can't write an essay because there is nothing worth replying to in it, as there are too many fallacies.

Where are the contradictions in the coloured segments? Don't try to act too smart. Remain well within the confines of what your caste status has pre-ordained for you please.

Ask your own scholars whether Hindu philosophy and faith originated in the IVC or not. They will begrudgingly agree with me. So sorry if that bothers you. Also feel free to check if aryanism altered and modified certain facets of this original faith or not. One important point though - don't try to shut down the truth simply because you don't like it. Bhakts have a nasty habit of feigning nonchalance or irreverence by "lolz"ing on fora like this, but then quietly launching a full frontal assault on proponents of "undesirable" history elsewhere. We don't wish to push you into that unfortunate position.

Hindutva’s Dangerous Rewriting of History

In January 2019, the Indian Science Congress convened for its 106th annual meeting, which turned out to feature not science so much as science fiction. Presenters told attendees that ancient Indian...

journals.openedition.org

"8In an attempt to navigate around the formidable roadblocks of linguistic, genetic, and material evidence for early migrations to India, especially by the Aryans, Hindu nationalists resort to specious arguments and even fraud. Hindutva thinkers propagate an Out of India theory, which stipulates that Sanskrit-speaking Aryans originated in India and from there traveled to the rest of the world. As Tony Joseph has pointed out, the Out of India theory lacks support from even “a single, peer-reviewed scientific paper” and is best considered nothing “more than a kind of clever and angry retort.”5 Hindu nationalists also often claim that the Indus Valley Civilization, an ancient civilization in the northwestern subcontinent that declined a few hundred years before the Aryans arrived, was continuous with Vedic culture. Followers of Hindutva have gone to astonishing lengths of dishonesty—including fabricating evidence entirely, such as a horse seal—to attempt to show that the Indus Valley Civilization and Vedic culture are one in the same (Witzel and Farmer 2000). Similar to the Out of India theory, there is no academic substance to this hollow claim."

IVC is not Vedic. Vedism is an aberration of Hinduism's animist precursor. The religion brought to you by steppe landers is a bastardised mutation of a faith that existed before in the developed part of the subcontinent.

For bastardising this faith, you vedics have enjoyed the most beautiful irony that history could throw at you. After vedics assumed the mantle of subcontinental religious thought through malevolent usurpation, the Muslims arrived. The Vedic cultist faith hellbent on hoarding gold in temples and enslaving masses suddenly lay exposed to a grand act of "karma" (funny isn't it?). The usurpers were themselves about to be usurped by another foreign faith, more organised, egalitarian, progressive and capable than their own foreign faith.

Pakistanis love karma.

As for King Porus, he was certainly of the IVC fyi. Nevertheless, Alexander could have counterattacked and pushed towards the Ganges. He chose not to as his army was weary. His defeat by Porus and his decision to withdraw from the Indian campaign in general are connected but the defeat is not exclusively causative of the withdrawal.